The purpose of this paper is to examine Robert Gilpin’s, The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations as well as Robert Cox’s, Gramsci and International Relations Theory: an essay in method. Gilpin’s theory that transnational actors and processes are dependent upon specific patterns of inter-sate relations (Gilpin, 1971, p.404) will be compared and contrasted with Robert Cox’s understanding of Gramsci’s hegemony and how it may be adopted to understand problems of world order. Gramsci’s concepts were all derived from history, through his own interpretations as well as from personal experiences and as such, are quite abstract in thought. Meanwhile, Gilpin’s views are easier to comprehend and have more evidence to support them. It will be
…show more content…
Gramsci was a communist, but unlike traditional communists, he considered the bourgeoisie the true hegemon of world politics, not the proletariat. Gilpin believes that “although the economic and technical substructure partially determines and intersects with the political superstructure, political values and security interests are crucial determinants of international economic relations” (Gilpin, 1971, p.405) and that the economic framework is often moulded to serve the interests of the state. This is the most polarizing claim from Gilpin as it is the complete opposite of one of Gramski’s major claims. Gramski applies Lenin’s concept of a proletariat hegemony onto the bourgeoisie because he believed they were the leaders of the world’s economy. Because this hegemony was so entrenched in society, Gramski stated, they didn’t need to run the state themselves and would allow others to do so as long as they accepted certain limitations to their political actions (Cox, 1983, p.163). I found these contrasting viewpoints as the most striking difference between two great minds in IPE. In my opinion, Gilpin had the better IPE theory because I believe that states set the boundaries within which an economy operates and in relation to a British hegemonic order, the state was the predominant actor in not only building its own economy, but industrializing the whole …show more content…
After carefully examining both texts I have identified that Gilpin and Cox (through Gramsci’s viewpoint) had similar viewpoints on the world order of the 19th and 20th century. That said, their main theory, the relationship between state and economy was completely different as Gilpin saw the economy as a tool used by the global hegemonic power while Gramsci saw the bourgeoisie as controlling the state. I believe Gilpin had the superior IPE
Gramsci was a communist, but unlike traditional communists, he considered the bourgeoisie the true hegemon of world politics, not the proletariat. Gilpin believes that “although the economic and technical substructure partially determines and intersects with the political superstructure, political values and security interests are crucial determinants of international economic relations” (Gilpin, 1971, p.405) and that the economic framework is often moulded to serve the interests of the state. This is the most polarizing claim from Gilpin as it is the complete opposite of one of Gramski’s major claims. Gramski applies Lenin’s concept of a proletariat hegemony onto the bourgeoisie because he believed they were the leaders of the world’s economy. Because this hegemony was so entrenched in society, Gramski stated, they didn’t need to run the state themselves and would allow others to do so as long as they accepted certain limitations to their political actions (Cox, 1983, p.163). I found these contrasting viewpoints as the most striking difference between two great minds in IPE. In my opinion, Gilpin had the better IPE theory because I believe that states set the boundaries within which an economy operates and in relation to a British hegemonic order, the state was the predominant actor in not only building its own economy, but industrializing the whole …show more content…
After carefully examining both texts I have identified that Gilpin and Cox (through Gramsci’s viewpoint) had similar viewpoints on the world order of the 19th and 20th century. That said, their main theory, the relationship between state and economy was completely different as Gilpin saw the economy as a tool used by the global hegemonic power while Gramsci saw the bourgeoisie as controlling the state. I believe Gilpin had the superior IPE