States and new markets: the novelty problem in the IPE of finance

Abstract

Finance has changed, and the study of finance needs to change with it. Previously marginal actors—hedge funds, index providers, tech firms, etc.—have become lynchpins in the global financial system. Likewise, the traditional subjects of international political economy (IPE)—states, international organizations, banks, central banks, etc.—are engaging in once-peripheral spheres. Yet, these novel trends have been largely ignored in mainstream political science and international relations venues for IPE scholarship. We demonstrate this through a discussion of two trends—the rise of shadow banking and central bank involvement in climate change—and an analysis of publications in top international relations and political science journals. While previous commentaries identify a methodological and epistemological divide in IPE, our results suggest an empirical one. We then construct a practical framework to remedy this problem by returning to the work of Susan Strange. Strange’s approach embodied a radical ontology, a focus on structures and their interaction, and an analytical eclecticism that provided keen insights into the politics of finance. We argue that these principles, often embraced in Review of International Political Economy, should be applied more broadly by IR scholars to better contribute to debates on emerging political economic issues.

Keywords:

• Finance
• international political economy
• Susan Strange
• novelty
• ontology

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alice Chessé, Randall Germain, Louis Pauly, Lena Rethel, Sol Mora, Anastasia Ufimsteva, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Notes

1 We agree with Farrell and Finnemore (2009) that methodologies need not imply particular ontologies by necessity, but whether they do in practice is another matter.

2 In many ways, this maps on to debates in IR over ‘change in’ versus ‘change of’ the international system (Holsti 2002).

3 In fact, he compared reading mainstream IPE to eating ‘a steady diet of gruel’ (Cohen 2010, 888).

4 In alphabetical order: American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, European Journal of International Relations, International Affairs, International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, New Political Economy, Review of International Organizations, Review of International Political Economy, and World Politics. This list is not exhaustive and excludes IR journals focused on security studies, including International Security, as well as some prominent ‘British school’ journals, including Millennium and Review of International Studies.

5 See Sil and Katzenstein’s (2010) discussion for a more detailed treatment of why commensurability problems may be overstated, though this is subject to considerable debate.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

William D. O’Connell

William D. O’Connell is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, specializing in international relations and public policy. His research focuses on the politics of international finance, global governance, and the political economy of multinational corporations.

Christian Elliott

Christian Elliott is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science and the School of the Environment at the University of Toronto. His research examines public and private authority in global environmental governance, with a focus on sustainable finance.