Although it can be argued that there are no set boundaries to what Political Economy (PE) is (Watson, 2005, p.1), it can be inferred simply from its name that PE is a field which deals with the relationships between the spheres of politics and economics. These two concepts can be seen as being linked. However, interconnectedness does not necessarily mean analytical concurrence and the field of PE does not always regard the interconnectedness as an axiom. Moreover, the field of PE is often presented as International Political Economy. Thus, a central question of PE is: Should Political Economy make analytical distinctions between the spheres of politics and economics and the national and international dimensions of a State?
First, this paper …show more content…
Marx saw policy attempts to change the course of History as "inevitably fruitless and vain" (Barber, 1991, p. 141). Indeed, classical Marxist readings show that the reproduction of capital cannot be governed (Gamble, 1999, p. 141). As capital always seeks an environment that prone to cost reduction, any political manoeuvring will be useless, and competition for cost reduction will always prevail. In this way, the state cannot have any lasting impact on the Market so the spheres of politics and economics can exist outside of each other.
Nevertheless, this view of the relationship between state and market is only a contemporary reading of the capitalist system and PE can transcend capitalism. It is then useful to combine the spheres of politics and economics. If we take Marx 's concept of a socialist State, Roemer 's idea of a political transfer of capital from private to public ownership, or Linklater 's universal society (Gamble, 1999, p.132), it is impossible to conceive politics and economics as analytically …show more content…
Indeed, state and market have different internal logics and competing interests. The state views its territorial boundaries as a necessity to its existence and autonomy, while the market tends to promote the breaking down of barriers to economic exchange (Gilpin, 1987, p.11). It is then challenging to conceive how state and market could be analytically related. However, we can move beyond the "tug-of-war" of the state-market dichotomy (Underhill, 2000, p. 820) and instead, view them as a single ensemble of governance, a state-market condominium (Underhill, 2000, p.821), where governance operates trough state and market. The spheres of politics and economics should not be analytically distinct as they are in fact one and the
First, this paper …show more content…
Marx saw policy attempts to change the course of History as "inevitably fruitless and vain" (Barber, 1991, p. 141). Indeed, classical Marxist readings show that the reproduction of capital cannot be governed (Gamble, 1999, p. 141). As capital always seeks an environment that prone to cost reduction, any political manoeuvring will be useless, and competition for cost reduction will always prevail. In this way, the state cannot have any lasting impact on the Market so the spheres of politics and economics can exist outside of each other.
Nevertheless, this view of the relationship between state and market is only a contemporary reading of the capitalist system and PE can transcend capitalism. It is then useful to combine the spheres of politics and economics. If we take Marx 's concept of a socialist State, Roemer 's idea of a political transfer of capital from private to public ownership, or Linklater 's universal society (Gamble, 1999, p.132), it is impossible to conceive politics and economics as analytically …show more content…
Indeed, state and market have different internal logics and competing interests. The state views its territorial boundaries as a necessity to its existence and autonomy, while the market tends to promote the breaking down of barriers to economic exchange (Gilpin, 1987, p.11). It is then challenging to conceive how state and market could be analytically related. However, we can move beyond the "tug-of-war" of the state-market dichotomy (Underhill, 2000, p. 820) and instead, view them as a single ensemble of governance, a state-market condominium (Underhill, 2000, p.821), where governance operates trough state and market. The spheres of politics and economics should not be analytically distinct as they are in fact one and the