University of the Philippines

Department of Political Science

College of Social Science & Philosophy

PS 283 Course Syllabus

International Political Economy
First Semester SY 2018-2019

Prof. Amado M. Mendoza, Jr., Ph.D.

Room 311, 3rd Floor, CSSP Faculty Center
E-mail: ammendozajr@gmail.com
Telephone: 981-8500 local 2337 and 920-7246
Consultation: Thurs (9am-12 noon; 3-5:30pm) or by appointment

Course Description:
A theoretical introduction to the field of International Political Economy and the application of
these insights in understanding key issue-areas of the contemporary international political
economy.

Course Objectives:
On completion of this course, students should have
 Arrived at an informed understanding of how international political economy—as a field of
enquiry—is conceptualised and theorised;
 Interpreted current processes associated with national political-economic development as
well as economic and political globalization, the structural context in which these take
place and their political, economic and social consequences; and
 Developed substantial analytical, interpretative, and written and oral presentational skills.

Course Organization and Methodology:

There will be a three-hour class once a week for sixteen weeks, including a ‘housekeeping’
session that provides an introductory overview, plus a review session at the end of the
semester. The course is divided into two basic parts: IPE theory(ies) and IPE key problems
and/or issue-areas. For the first part of the course, the professor will make a lecture
presentation to be followed by a general discussion involving all students. For the second
part of the course, each student will make a seminar presentation to the class to be followed
by a general discussion. Throughout the course, all students are expected to have read the
core readings before coming to class and contribute to the general discussion.

Basis for Grading:

The assessment on this course has three components:

 Class participation/weekly issue memos on readings 30% of grade
 Seminar presentation 30% of grade
 Paper OR final examination 40% of grade

Each student will submit an ‘issue memo’ electronically before coming to class. The ‘issue
memos’—essentially think pieces that reflect a student’s own intellectual engagement with the
material that was read—may specify what is intriguing, interesting, or confusing in the
material; take issue with some core idea or argument; or explore the ramifications of a
particular argument. Assignment for seminar presentations will be done during the first
meeting. If the student opts to write a paper, (s)he must first submit a paper concept for the
professor’s approval. The subject matter of the paper may be on IPE theory or on an IPE
issue area. (S)he may use his/her seminar presentation as take-off point for the paper.

Guide to Readings
A number of core texts are highlighted here. The other readings are PDF files and will be
uploaded unto the Files section of the class e-group.
Balaam, D. and M. Veseth. 2008. Introduction to International Political Economy. Prentice Hall. (IIPE)
Blythe, Mark, ed. 2009. Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy (RHIPE).
Burchill, S. et al. 2006.Theories of International Relations, 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.(TIR)
Chan, S. and C. Moore, eds, 2006. Theories of International Relations (Vols. I-IV). London: Sage
Publications.
Cohn, T. 2012.Global Political Economy,6th ed., New York: Longman. (GPE)
Gilpin, R. 2001. Global Political Economy.Princeton University Press.(GPE).
Goddard, C.R., P. Cronin, and K. Dash, eds. 2003.International Political Economy: State-Market
Relations in the Changing Global Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (IPE)

NOTE: We can use Balaam and Veseth or Cohn as substitutes for each other. However, IIPE has a
broader coverage than Cohn. Some of you may be using the 5th edition of Cohn. The titles of
the chapters are the same but the sequence changed. Please adjust accordingly.

COURSE PROGRAMME
Week 1 Course Introduction
This session briefly discusses aspects of the course, including course requirements,
assessment methods, readings, etc. It also makes arrangements for seminar presentations.

Week 2 The Post-War International Political Economy: An Overview

This session offers a chronological and analytical account of the major developments in the
international political economy since 1945. The purpose is to offer an historical framework in
which to situate both theoretical approaches and substantive changes in the political and
economic domains. In addition, a discussion of the emergence of International Political
Economy (IPE) as one of the two sub-fields of international relations (IR) theory and its various
theoretical approaches will be undertaken.
Required Reading:
Cohn, GPE, pp. Chapter 2.
Cohen, B. 2008.International Political Economy: An Intellectual Journey. Princeton University Press,
Chapter 1.
Heywood, A. 2011.Global Politics. Palgrave, Chapter 4.
Miller, R. 2008. International Political Economy: Contrasting World Views. Routledge, Chapter 1

Supplemental reading:
Dunn, Bill. 2009. Global Political Economy: A Marxist Critique. London: Pluto Press, Chapters 6-7.
Thompson, William. 2003. The Emergence of the Global Political Economy. Routledge.
Yergin, Daniel and Joseph Stanislaw. 2002. The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy.
New York: Touchstone Books.

Week 3 Realism and Neo-Realism

This session begins the exploration of the various approaches to the study of international
political economy by examining the school of realism. Realism has a long history both in the
practice of dominant powers in the world system and in the academic genealogy of international
relations. Intrinsic to the claims of realism is the idea the nation-states pursue policies of self-
interest in order to ensure their survival in an anarchic international system. Subsequently, the
claims of neo-realism (developed through the ideas of hegemonic stability) will be examined.
Required reading:
Kirshner, Jonathan. 2009. “Realist political economy: traditional themes and contemporary challenges.”
In Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy, ed. Mark Blyth, pp. 36-47. New York:
Routledge.
Gilpin,GPE Chapter 1, pp. 3-24.
Grieco, J. 1988. “Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal
institutionalism.” International Organization 42(3): 485-507.
Balaam and Veseth, IIPE, Chapter 2 or Cohn, GPE, Chapter 3
Legro, J. and A. Moravcsik. 1999. “Is anybody still a realist?” International Security 24(2): 5-55.

2
Supplemental reading:
Gowa, J. 1989. “Rational hegemons, excludable goods, and small groups: An epitaph for hegemonic
stability theory?” World Politics 41(3): 307-324.
Guzzini, S. 2001. “Realisms at war’: Robert Gilpin’s political economy of hegemonic war as a critique of
Waltz’s neorealim.” (ms).
Krasner, S. 1976. “State Power and the Structure of International Trade.”World Politics 28(3): 317-347.
Mearsheimer, J. 1994. “The false promise of international institutions.”International Security 19(3): 5-49.
Ruggie, J. 1983. “Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Toward a neorealist synthesis.”World
Politics 35(2): 261-285.

Week 4 Liberalism, Neoliberal institutionalism and the Washington Consensus

This session examines the background, key assumptions and arguments of classical liberalism
and its modern variants (liberal internationalism, neo-liberal institutionalism, and neo-liberalism
aka the Washington Consensus). Liberal internationalism traces its roots back to the work of
Kant who elaborated plans for a ‘perpetual peace’ that contains the seeds for more
contemporary theories of the international political economy and world order, claiming that
democratic states who engage in free trade are more stable internally and more peaceful in
their international relations. Neo-liberal institutionalism proceeds from the view that growing
complex interdependence is creating a qualitatively new world order, in which states have
incentives to cooperate even in an anarchic world order. The Washington Consensus is the 10-
point economic policy orthodoxy promoted by multilateral financial institutions and the
governments of the industrialized West.

Required reading:
Balaam &Veseth, IIPE, Chapter 3 or Cohn, GPE, Chapter 4
Axelrod, R. and R. Keohane. 1985. “Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategy and institutions.”
World Politics 38(1): 226-254.
Gore, C. (2003). ‘The Rise and the Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing
Countries.’ In IPE, pp. 317-340.
Keohane, R. and J. Nye. 1987. “Power and interdependence revisited.” International Organization 41(4):
725-753.
Keohane, R. and J. Nye. 1989. “Realism and Complex Interdependence.” In Goddard et al. pp. 49-58.

Further reading:
Macmillan, J. 2004. “Liberalism and the democratic peace.”Review of International Studies 30: 179-200.
Moravcsik, A. 1997.“Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics.” International
Organization 51(4): 513-553.
Naim, M. 2000. “Washington consensus or Washington confusion?”Foreign Policy 118: 86-103.
Robison, Richard, ed. 2006. The Neo-Liberal Revolution: Forging the Market State. Palgrave Macmillan.
Oye, K. 1985. “Explaining cooperation under anarchy: Hypotheses and strategies.”World Politics 38(1):
1-24.
Williamson, J. 2004. “The Washington Consensus as Policy Prescription for Development.” Lecture at
the World Bank (ms.) (available as PDF file)

Week 5 Historical Structuralism: Marxism, Dependency and World-Systems

Theory

The session will examine the contribution of various theories of historical structuralism. It begins
by looking at Marxism as a theory of capitalism on a world scale and a critique of that process—
an approach that has largely been marginalized in theories of international political economy.
The key focus is on contemporary applications of Marxist theory to understanding the global
political economy, especially the nature of crises, ‘globalisation’ and the changing role of the
state. The session then studies two other historical structuralist theories—dependency and
world-systems—that owe something to the legacy of Marxism

Required reading:
Balaam &Veseth, IIPE, Chapter 4 or Cohn, GPE, Chapter 5.
Chase-Dunn, C. 1999. “Globalization: a world-systems perspective.” Journal of World-Systems Research
5(2): 165-185.
Dunn, B. 2009.Global Political Economy: A Marxist Critique. London: Pluto Press, Chapters 3-4.
Frank, A. G. 1977. “Dependence is Dead, Long Live Dependence and the Class Struggle: An Answer to
Critics.” World Development 5(4): 355-370.

3
Wallerstein, I. 1974. “The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative
analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16(4): 387-415.

Further reading:

Burnham, P. 1994. “Open Marxism and Vulgar International Political Economy.” Review of International
Studies 1(2): 221-231; also in S. Chan and C. Moore, eds. 2006. Theories of
InternationalRelations, Vol. III, Approaches to International Relations: Structuralism. London:
Sage Publications, pp. 99-109.
Cox, M. 1998. “Rebels without a cause? Radical theorists and the world system after the Cold War.”New
Political Economy 3(3): 445-460.
Dos Santos, T. 1970. “The Structure of Dependence.”American Economic Review 60(2): 231-236.
Germain, R. 2007. “’Critical’ Political Economy, Historical Materialism and Adam Morton.”Politics 27(2):
127-131.
Linklater, A. 2006.“Marxism.” In S. Burchill et al. Theories of International Relations, 3rd ed. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 110-136.
McMichael, P. 2000. “World-systems analysis, globalization, and incorporated comparison.” Journal of
World-Systems Research 5(2): 217-251.
Morton, A. 2006. “The Grimly Comic Riddle of Hegemony in IPE: Where is Class Struggle?” Politics 26(1):
62-72.

Week 6-7 Critical Theory: Neo-Gramscianism and Social Constructivism

This session considers the emergence of two distinctive strands of critical international theory
during the 80s and 90s. The first, inspired by the writings of the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci,
offers a theory of globalized transnational hegemony, institutionalized in the large MNCs,
multilateral organizations and the most powerful capitalist states. The theory also posits the
development of a counter-hegemonic response to these global changes. The second, social
constructivism, argues that the characteristics of the international political economy are not
simply given, but are structured by the behavior of international actors, while at the same time
they also influence these (same) actors. In doing so, it emphasizes the impact of institutions,
culture, identity, and norms alongside interests upon the behavior of actors.

Required reading:
Cox, R. 2004. “Beyond Empire and Terror: Critical Reflections on the Political Economy of World Order.”
New Political Economy 9(3): 307-323.
Germain, Randall. 2016. “Robert W. Cox and the Idea of History: Political Economy as Philosophy.”
Globalizations 13(5): 532-546.
Gill, S. 1998. “New Constitutionalism, Democratization and Global Political Economy.”Pacifica Review
10(1): 23-38.
Abdelal, Rawi. 2009. “Constructivism as an approach to international political economy.” In Routledge
Handbook of International Political Economy. Ed. Mark Blyth, pp. 62-76.
Ruggie, J. 1998. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist
Challenge.” International Organization 52(4): 855-885.
Wendt, A. 1992. “Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics.” International
Organization 46(2): 391-425.

Further reading:
Checkel, J. “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.” World Politics 50(2): 324-348.
Cox, R. 1981. “Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory.” Millenium:
Journal of International Studies 10(2): 126-155.
Germain, R. and M. Kenny. 1998. “Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the new
Gramscians.” Review of International Studies 24: 3-21.
Leysens, Anthony. 2008. The Critical Theory of Robert A. Cox. Palgrave Macmillan.
Reus-Smit, C. 2006. “Constructivism.” In S. Burchillet al. Theories of International Relations, 3rd ed. Pp.
188-212.
Sassoon, A. 2001. “Globalisation, Hegemony and Passive Revolution.”New Political Economy 6(1): 5-17.

4
 PART II. IPE Issues and Problems

The Political Economy of Production, Trade and International Finance

(Class presentation by Ms. Alexandria BERGADO )

This session, which opens the part of the course that deals with IPE issues and problems, considers the
extent to which capitalism has been undergoing a ‘global shift’ characterized by the spatial expansion of
production, driven by foreign direct investments (FDI) and liberalized trade. This session also examines
the reinvention of global finance in the Bretton Woods era and the spectacular globalization of financial
markets over the past decades such that cross-border movements of capital now dwarf international
trade flows.

Required reading:

Balaam & Veseth, Chapters 6-7.

Jeffrey Neilson, Bill Pritchard & Henry Wai-chung Yeung. 2014. “Global value chains and global
production networks in the changing international political economy: An introduction.” Review of
International Political Economy 21(1):1-8.
Gary Gereffi. 2014. “Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world.” Review of International
Political Economy 21(1). 9-37
Lipietz, A. 1997. “The post-Fordist world: labour relations, international hierarchy and global ecology.”
Review of International Political Economy 4(1): 1-41.
Milner, H. 1999. “The Political Economy of International Trade.” Annual Review of Political Science 2:91-
114.

The Governance Architecture of the International Political Economy

(Class presentation by Mr. Don GILL)

This session focuses on the international institutions that govern the international political economy
albeit in the absence of a supreme world authority or a world state. It shall discuss the origins,
development, problems as well as the demands and prospects of reform of three institutions—the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

Required reading:

Ben Thirkell-White. 2007. “The International Financial Architecture and the Limits to Neoliberal
Hegemony”, New Political Economy 12(1):19-41.
Ngaire Woods and Domenico Lombardi. 2006. “Uneven patterns of governance: how developing
countries are represented in the IMF”. Review of International Political Economy 13(3): 480-
515.
Matthew D. Stephen and Michal Parízek. 2018. “New Powers and the Distribution of Preferences in
Global Trade Governance: From Deadlock and Drift to Fragmentation”. New Political Economy
(To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2018.1509065).
Mark Weisbrot. 2016. “The IMF’s Lost Influence in the 21st Century and Its Implications”. Challenge
59(4): 345-360 (To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/05775132.2016.1202029).
João Márcio Mendes Pereira. 2016. “Recycling and expansion: an analysis of the World Bank agenda
(1989–2014)”. Third World Quarterly 37(5): 818-839 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1113871).

The European Union (EU) and ASEAN

(Class presentation by Mr. Jerry BUENAVISTA)

This session focuses on the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, two of the
acknowledged most successful regional organizations in the world today. While its avowed trajectory is
the formation of the world’s first region-state, the EU faced several problems recently with the public
debt problems of several southern Europe and the exit of the United Kingdom from the union.
Meanwhile, ASEAN has valorized national sovereignty and remained merely as an inter-governmental
organization despite grandiose plans to build an ASEAN community.

Required reading:

Ian Manners. 2013. “European communion: political theory of European Union”. Journal of European
Public Policy 20(4): 473-494 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.699664).
Ann Pettifor. 2017. “Brexit and its Consequences”. Globalizations 14(1):127-132 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1229953).

5
Frank Schimmelfennig, Dirk Leuffen and Berthold Rittberger. 2015. “The European Union as a system of
differentiated integration: interdependence, politicization and differentiation”. Journal of
European Public Policy 22(6): 764-782 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1020835).
David Jones and .2001. “Is there a Sovietology of Southeast Asian Studies”. International Affairs 77(4):
843-865.
Richard Stubbs and Sorin Mitrea. 2017. “ASEAN at 50: the global political economy’s contribution to
durability”. Contemporary Politics 23(4): 388-407 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2017.1314061).
Taku Yukawa. 2018. “The ASEAN Way as a symbol: an analysis of discourses on the ASEAN Norms”.
Pacific Review 31(3): 298-314 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1371211).

The Political Economy of Transnational Crime and Terrorism

(Class presentation by Mr. Moises PALCES)

This session focuses on the clandestine side of globalization—the illicit flow of goods, money,
information, and people—which have become a growing source of tension and conflict in world politics
but have been overlooked in IPE literature. With the additional concern of terrorist financing, the
intersection of political economy, crime, and security promises to be an interesting new area for IPE
scholarship. The session will examine how states, individually and collectively, respond to these illicit
and dangerous transactions.

Required reading:

Andreas, P. 2004. “Illicit international political economy: the clandestine side of globalization.’ RIPE 11(3):
641-652.
Christian Leuprecht, Andrew Aulthouse and Olivier Walther. 2016. “The puzzling resilience of
transnational organized criminal networks”. Police Practice and Research 17(4): 376-387 (To
link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2016.1168600).
Anthony McKeown. 2011. “The structural production of state terrorism: capitalism, imperialism and
international class dynamics”. Critical Studies on Terrorism 4(1): 75-93 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2011.553389).
Dillman, Bradford. 2008. “The Illicit Global Economy”. In Balaam &Veseth, IIPE, Chapter 18, pp. 389-410.
Sharman, J. 2008. “Power and discourse in policy diffusion: Anti-money laundering in developing states.”
International Studies Quarterly 52: 635-656.
Edwards, A. and P. Gill. 2002. “The politics of ‘transnational organized crime’.” British Journal of Politics
and International Relations 4(2): 245-270.
Li, Q. and D. Schaub. 2004. “Economic globalization and transnational terrorism.” Journal of Conflict
Resolution 48(2): 230-258.

The Political Economy of International Finance: Hyper-financialization and economic

crisis
(Class presentation by MANAS)

This session examines the changing modalities in international finance in the post-war era. It also
discusses the relationship between US hegemony and global finance. This session also provides an
opportunity to assess the current debates about the hyper-financialization of the global economy and the
frequency of global financial crisis in the context of contemporary globalization.

Required reading:

Kirshner, J. 2003. “Money is politics.” RIPE 10(4): 645-660.

Konings, M. 2008. “The institutional foundations of US structural power in international finance: From the
re-emergence of global finance to the monetarist turn.” RIPE 15(1): 35-61.
Till van Treeck. 2009. “The Political Economy Debate on 'Financialization' - A Macroeconomic
Perspective”. Review of International Political Economy 16(5): 907-944 (Stable URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27756199).
MacKenzie, D. 2005. “Opening the black boxes of global finance.” RIPE 12(4): 555-576.
Pauly, L. 1995. “Capital mobility, state autonomy and political legitimacy.” Journal of International Affairs
48(2): 369-388.

Supplemental reading:

6
G. Albo, S. Gindin, and L. Panitch. 2010. In and Out of Crisis: The Global Financial Meltdown and Left
Alternatives. Oakland CA: PM Press, Chapters 1-2 & 7.
D. Mugge. 2009. “Tales of tails and dogs: Derivatives and financialization in contemporary capitalism.”
Review of International Political Economy 16(3): 514-526.

The New Cold Wars

(Class presentation by Ms. Eliza LIM )

The purpose of this session is to examine the origins and current developments and trajectories of the
new Cold Wars of the 21st century—one between the United States and the Russian Federation in the
European and MENA (Middle East and Northern Africa) theater and the other between China and the
United States in the Indo Asia Pacific theater. It shall also interrogate the thesis that US hegemony is in
decline and that hot wars are possible given the reluctance of the American hegemon to surrender its
current dominance.

Required reading:

Michael McFaul. 2018. From Cold War to Hot Peace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro. 2015. “Consequences of a New Cold War”. Survival 57(2): 37-46
(To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2015.1026058).
Suisheng Zhao. 2015. “A New Model of Big Power Relations? China–US strategic rivalry and balance of
power in the Asia–Pacific”. Journal of Contemporary China 24(93): 377-397 (To link to this
article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2014.953808).
Dmitry Suslov. 2016. “US–Russia Confrontation and a New Global Balance”. Strategic Analysis 40(6):
547-560 (To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2016.1224069).
Christopher J. Fettweis. 2018. “Trump, China and International Order”. Survival 60(5): 233-242 (To link
to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2018.1518393).
Chunding Li, Chuantian He and Chuangwei Lin. 2018. “Economic Impacts of the Possible China–US
Trade War”. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 54(7): 1557-1577 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1446131).
Jason A. Edwards. 2018. “Make America Great Again: Donald Trump and Redefining the U.S. Role in
the World”. Communication Quarterly 66(2):176-195 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2018.1438485).

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

(Class presentation by Ms. Cady Perez)

This session will focus on the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution (FIR)—a contemporary global
scientific-technological revolution that includes artificial intelligence, robotics, block chain technology and
which threatens to disrupt and change existing institutions including banks and nation-states as well
change people’s lives.

Required reading:

Klaus Schwab. 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Sam Dallyn. 2017. “Cryptocurrencies as market singularities: the strange case of Bitcoin”. Journal of
Cultural Economy 10(5): 462-473 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2017.1315541).
Fiammetta Corradi and Philipp Höfner. 2018. “The disenchantment of Bitcoin: unveiling the myth of a
digital currency”. International Review of Sociology 28(1): 193-207 (To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2018.1430067).
Neil Gershenfeld and JP Vasseur. 2014. “As Objects Go Online: The Promise (and Pitfalls) of the
Internet of Things”. Foreign Affairs 93(2): 60-67.
Sean S. Costigan and Gustav Lindstrom. 2016. “Policy and the Internet of Things”. Connections 15(2):
9-18.

7
The Nation-State and Globalization
(Class presentation by Mr. Salazar)

The purpose of this session is to examine the ways in which state managers attempt to develop policy
options in the face of increasing pressures from the international political economy. The assumption is
that economic policy formation becomes increasingly difficult in the face of external pressures of
international competitiveness and that policy adjustment becomes part of a continuous ‘two level game’
in which the divide between the international and the domestic dimensions of the policy process have
become less significant over time.

Required reading:

Michael Mann. 1997. “Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the nation-state?” Review of
International Political Economy 4(3): 472-496.
Shigeko Hayashi. 2010. “The developmental state in the era of globalization: Beyond the Northeast
Asian model of political economy”. Pacific Review 23(1): 45-69.
Richard Stubbs. 2009. “Whatever happened to the East Asia developmental state? The unfolding
debate”. Pacific Review 22(1): 1-22.
Linda Weiss. 2000. “Developmental states in transition: Adopting, dismantling, innovating, not
‘normalizing’”. Pacific Review 13(1): 21-55.
Linda Weiss. 2005. “The state-augmenting effects of globalization”. New Political Economy 10(3): 345-
353.
Kanishka Jayasuriya. 2005. “Beyond institutional fetishism: From developmental to the regulatory state”.
New Political Economy 10(3): 381-387.
Kanishka Jayasuriya. 2004. “The new regulatory state and relational capacity”. Policy & Politics 32(4):
487-501.
Hugo Radice. 2008. “The developmental state under global neoliberalism”. Third World Quarterly 29(6):
1153-1174.