Blind spots in IPE: marginalized perspectives and neglected trends in contemporary capitalism

Abstract

Which blind spots shape scholarship in International Political Economy (IPE)? That question animates the contributions to a double special issue-one in the Review of International Political Economy, and a companion one in New Political Economy. The global financial crisis had seemed to vindicate broad-ranging IPE perspectives at the expense of narrow economics theories. Yet the tumultuous decade since then has confronted IPE scholars with rapidly-shifting global dynamics, many of which had remained underappreciated. We use the Blind Spots moniker in an attempt to push the topics covered here higher up the scholarly agenda-issues that range from institutionalized racism and misogyny to the rise of big tech, intensifying corporate power, expertise-dynamics in global governance, assetization, and climate change. Gendered and racial inequalities as blind spots have a particular charge. There has been a self-reinforcing correspondence between topics that have counted as important, people to whom they matter personally, and the latter's ability to build careers on them. In that sense, our mission is not only to highlight collective blind spots that may dull IPE's capacity to theorize the current moment. It is also a normative one-a form of disciplinary housekeeping to help correct both intellectual and professional entrenched biases.

Continuity, change and contradictions in late steel‐based industrialization: The “global color line” in Trinidad and Tobago's postcolonial economy

“…In these works, race becomes a benign phenomenon that is under‐interrogated or ignored, yet a crucial principal factor in organizing the system that produced Western industrialization (Du Bois, 2014; Girvan, 1975; Williams, 2014). Sociologists, historians of capitalism and IPE scholars interested in contemporary development have recently excavated race as one of the “blind spots” in contemporary and historical analyses of development (Best et al., 2021; LeBaron et al., 2021).…”

Introduction

“…Two decades after Strange issued her "Mutual Neglect" manifesto, two of her followers were lamenting that "scholars still debate what exactly should be included in the set of questions that defines IPE" (Murphy and Tooze 1991: 2). And three decades further on, debates over agenda continue to roil the field (Best et al 2021;LeBaron et al 2021). As interest in the subject has continued to spread, differences, it seems, have grown ever deeper.…”

“…Entitled "Political Economy on Trial," the workshop brought together leading scholars from Europe and North America to discuss "blind spots" in IPE. Many of the papers were subsequently published in a double special issue of the journals NPE and RIPE (Best et al 2021;LeBaron et al 2021). But is the criticism warranted?…”

COVID-19 and the Global Political Economy: Same as it Never Was?

“…Crises are not only key objects of analysis in and for GPE; they are also moments for reflection on the strengths, weaknesses, and "blind spots" in interdisciplinary scholarship (Best et al 2020;LeBaron et al 2020). In their assessments of the COVID-19 pandemic, contributors to this collection identify a number of topics and trends deserving of more nuanced assessment in GPE, including some that have remained "niches" in the networks of the interdiscipline (Seabrooke and Young 2017) such as investment screening regulating the global economy (Gertz); gender mainstreaming policies (Spendzharova); techno-solutionism and surveillance capitalism (Campbell-Verduyn); or the inner workings of global dispossession and vulnerability (Bernards).…”