This article explores common commitments between competing historical materialist perspectives within International Political Economy (IPE). It does so by engaging with the approach of Open Marxism that has emerged as the basis of a radical rethinking of theories of the state, the dialectic of subject-object and theory-practice, as well as commitments to emancipating the social world. Despite these contributions, though, there has been a sonorous silence within debates in critical International Relations (IR) theory in relation to the arguments of Open Marxism. In contrast, we engage with and develop an immanent critique of Open Marxism through a 'Critical Economy' conception of the state proffered by Antonio Gramsci. Previously overlooked, this alternative approach not only promotes an understanding of the state as a social relation of production but also affords insight into a broader range of class-relevant social forces linked to contemporary processes of capitalist development. A key priority is thus granted to theorising the capitalist state, as well as issues of resistance and collective agency, that surpasses the somewhat 'theological' vision of state-capital-labour evident in Open Marxism. Moreover, it is argued in conclusion that the approach we outline provides an avenue to critique additional competing 'critical' approaches in IR/IPE, thereby raising new questions about the potential of critical theory within international studies.

The agent-structure debate has proceeded in International Relations for some time now. Within an initial `first wave' of debate, this revolved around proposing various `solutions' to the problem of how to appreciate the mutually constitutive relationship between agency and structure. The ensuing debate was then characterized by an apparent intellectual cul-de-sac. There were always `two stories to tell' about agency and structure — one an explanatory account, the other an interpretative account. More recently, a `second wave' of agent-structure debate is under way in which the stakes have been raised. Yet throughout the various waves of debate it seems that the contributions of an historicist neo-Gramscian perspective developed by Robert Cox have been overlooked. This article explores some of the issues raised by such an approach. Attention is drawn to the many issues developed by neo-Gramscian perspectives that combine accounts of agency-structure as well as modes of explanation and understanding. We remain sceptical about whether the dualism of agency-structure can be successfully transcended by combining accounts that both explain and understand the social world. As such, the problem of agency-structure may well be a Gordian knot that cannot be unravelled or solved. Yet, by starting to take seriously the approaches to agency-structure within various neo-Gramscian perspectives, we aim to propel discussion into further avenues within the second wave of the agent-structure debate.

Situated within a historical materialist problematic of social transformation that deploys many of the insights of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, a crucial break emerged, in the 1980s, in the work of Robert Cox from mainstream International Relations (IR) approaches to hegemony. This article provides a comprehensive ‘state-of-the-discipline’ overview of this critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change. It does so by outlining the historical context within which various diverse but related neo-Gramscian perspectives emerged. Attention subsequently turns to highlight how conditions of capitalist economic crisis and structural change in the 1970s have been conceptualised, which inform contemporary debates about globalisation. Significantly, the discussion is also responsive to the various controversies and criticisms that surround the neo-Gramscian perspectives whilst, in conclusion, directions along which future research might proceed are elaborated. Hence providing a thorough survey of this historical materialist critical theory of hegemony and thus forms of social power through which conditions of capitalism are reproduced, mediated and contested.

This article engages with the debate on how the role of ideas can be conceptualized within International Relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE) and how this is related to the discursive production of meanings embedded in the economy. It is argued that although constructivist and poststructuralist approaches can conceptualize the structural relevance of ideas, thereby improving on neorealist and liberal institutionalist approaches, they nevertheless fail to explain why certain ideas dominate over others at a particular moment in time. In response to constructivist and poststructuralist criticism, it is argued that the internal relation of ideas as material social processes is appreciated better through an historical materialist theory of history. In other words, the article shows how ideas can be conceived as material social processes through which signs become part of the socially created world in a way that surpasses the deficits of constructivist and poststructuralist approaches alike, whilst avoiding the problems of economism.Following general developments within the social sciences, the conceptualization of the role of ideas in the disciplines of International Relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE) has become increasingly important over recent years. Neorealism and liberal institutionalism generally treat ideas as exogenous to states' interest formation and state interaction. It has been gradually pointed out, however, that such approaches cannot answer important ''questions of which economic theories and beliefs are most likely to shape the definition of interests in international relations and why and how it is that particular sets of ideas prevail in the international arena'' (Woods 1995, 161; see also Jacobsen 2003, 41). A first set of attempts to deal with this problem resulted in an amendment to these approaches by simply adding an additional focus on ideas (e.g.

No abstract