Australian Journal of International Affairs From ...

This article was downloaded by: [Copenhagen Business School] On: 06 April 2015, At: 03:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of International Affairs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caji20

From multilateralism to microcosms in the world economy: the sociological turn in Australian international political economy scholarship Leonard Seabrooke & Juanita Elias Published online: 18 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Leonard Seabrooke & Juanita Elias (2010) From multilateralism to microcosms in the world economy: the sociological turn in Australian international political economy scholarship, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64:1, 1-12, DOI: 10.1080/10357710903459719 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357710903459719

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Australian Journal of International Affairs Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 112, February 2010

From multilateralism to microcosms in the world economy: the sociological turn in Australian international political economy scholarship

Downloaded by [Copenhagen Business School] at 03:22 06 April 2015

LEONARD SEABROOKE

AND

JUANITA ELIAS*

In recent years there has been a great deal of discussion about traditions in international political economy (IPE) scholarship.1 A number of essays and books have been produced that ponder how American IPE scholarship differs from British IPE scholarship, kicked off by Jerry Cohen’s (2008) intellectual history of the field. Journals such as the Review of International Political Economy and New Political Economy have spent significant amounts of time debating these issues. Conference panels have been formed, workshops organised, and essays prizes announced. Understandably, Australian IPE scholars have been keen to put forward their views on how Australian and Australia-based scholars fit within these traditions or schools of thought. The main answer has been ‘uncomfortably’. J.C. Sharman (2009) has located Australian IPE as neither Asian nor American and, in fact, rather quite British in its intellectual orientation. John Ravenhill (2008a) has argued that Jerry Cohen’s conceptions of what the ‘British’ school is are too ambiguous and has also suggested that the notable contributions from Australian IPE scholars have been their studies of East Asia (Ravenhill 2009). Furthermore, Ravenhill’s (2008a) concern is that the British versus American schools of IPE debate miss a lot of scholarship in the ‘missing middle’, including scholarship from Australiabased or Australian-trained scholars. Australian IPE scholarship has also been identified as something that has a capacity to learn more from trans-Pacific rather than transatlantic conversations (Blyth 2009: 14), a capacity that has not really been exploited, with little engagement with East Asian theoretical innovations, such as its blending of IPE with economic geography on topics such as transnational business networks (Yeung 2009). We agree that there are *Leonard Seabrooke is Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick, UK. He is the author of US Power in International Finance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2001) and The Social Sources of Financial Power (Cornell University Press, 2006), as well as co-editor on a number of political economy collections. [email protected] . Juanita Elias is Senior Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Adelaide. She is the author of Fashioning Inequality: The Multinational Corporation and Gendered Employment in a Globalising World (Ashgate, 2004) and co-author of the textbook International Relations: The Basics (Routledge, 2007). Recent journal publications have appeared in the Review of International Studies, Economy and Society and Third World Quarterly. [email protected] . ISSN 1035-7718 print/ISSN 1465-332X online/10/010001-12 # 2010 Australian Institute of International Affairs DOI: 10.1080/10357710903459719


2

Leonard Seabrooke and Juanita Elias

a lot of lessons still to be learned, but wish to point out how Australian IPE has changed in recent years in ways that demonstrate a great deal of intellectual diversity which does not follow British or American trends in the discipline. Indeed, many Australian-trained and Australia-based IPE scholars do tend ‘to center on critical theory, feminist, constructivist or institutionalist approaches (for example, varieties of capitalism)’, as Sharman (2009: 220) has pointed out. But many other Australian IPE scholars could be considered in the ranks of Ravenhill’s ‘missing middle’, who are primarily interested in problem-driven research that is also theoretically rigorous. This special issue contains ‘critical’ and ‘missing-middle’ types of Australian IPE scholars. Our aim is to highlight how Australian IPE is changing and how, in particular, a number of scholars have taken a ‘sociological turn’. By this, we mean that Australia-based and Australian-trained IPE scholars have increasingly shifted their attention towards a more sociological understanding of change to focus more on actors than international power dynamics. In doing so, the new wave of scholarship has moved away from the application of theories found in international relations and sought insight from sociology, development studies and social theory. Richard Leaver noted in the mid 1990s that IPE was going through a process of ‘involution’, rather than evolution. Leaver (1994) argued that through its obsession with the ‘neorealismneo-liberalism’ debates from international relations, IPE was losing focus in its search for theoretical parsimony. We suggest that Australian IPE has evolved rather than ‘involved’. In the positive sense, it is much more concerned with a diverse range of approaches and theories not found in international relations. In a potentially negative sense, it is much less concerned with policy-driven research, especially research on Australia’s international economic relations (with notable exceptions). We may speculate why this is the case and certainly one could easily forecast that research quality frameworks from grant councils will increasingly ask IPE scholars to specify their ‘impact’ on policy makers. One challenge for the new generation of Australian IPE scholarship will be demonstrating impact, while it is clear that the older generation of scholars were more directly engaged in Australian policy debates. Accordingly, we suggest that Australian IPE has seen a change in stress. The scholarship of the 1990s concentrated on defining national interests in the world economy and the need for Australia to embrace multilateralism and regionalisation (Higgott et al. 1993). Since 2000, there has been greater stress on how trends within the world economy can be derived from comparing smaller social environments, such as from specific case studies that are more transnational or focus on change within international organisations. In the new wave of scholarship, the state is often downplayed as the key actor in how change occurs in the world economy, with more room for transnational advocacy groups across countries, as well as the capacity of international organisations to influence logics of appropriateness on a range of economic, environmental and social standards. In general, we suggest a number of early


From multilateralism to microcosms in the world economy

3

career Australian IPE scholars have shifted from Australia’s engagement with multilateralism and foreign economic policy to studies of ‘microcosms’, where change within an organisation, community or institution is analogous to changes in the world economy. This brief introduction to the special issue highlights the shift from multilateralism to microcosms. It does not provide a review of Australian IPE more generally, since this challenge has been well and truly met by Ravenhill (2009) and Sharman (2009), as well as Stephen Bell and John Ravenhill’s (2003) and Richard Eccleston’s (2009) surveys of political economy literature in the Australian context. Rather, the task here is to outline the significance of this ‘sociological turn’ in Australian IPE. We stress that a ‘turn’ does not entail an entire transformation of the field. Indeed, there are excellent examples of new scholarship where analysing Australia’s role in international economic relations is first and foremost (such as Bisley 2004; Capling 2005; Kelton 2008; Weiss et al. 2004). Still, we believe that has been a movement in scholarship from Australiabased and Australian-trained scholars which makes it qualitatively different from the 1990s. This short introduction raises some of the key points from this earlier Australian IPE scholarship that stressed multilateralism and regionalisation, and contrasts them with what we have ambitiously termed a ‘sociological turn’. Rather than assuming that interests are given to a broader structural logic of interstate competition, this scholarship seeks to specify why interests and ideas change together, or why more diffuse structures, such as the structure of global or regional forms of capitalism, matter in conjunction with intergovernmental structures. We suggest that what this means is that Australian IPE is attempting to learn more about social phenomena from the bottom up (be it within international organisations or from non-elites within countries) than politics being determined from the top down. Unlike common criticisms of the ‘American school’ of IPE, Australia-based and Australian-trained scholars ask a very diverse range of questions. Not a lot of attention is placed on trying to ‘outperform’ other theories on standard topics, such as trade sanctions of political conditions for attracting foreign direct investment. Australian IPE scholarship is eclectic. However, this does not make it more ‘British’. Unlike much of the ‘British school’ of IPE, these scholars do not take being ‘critical’ to mean pointing to broader structures of capitalism as overwhelmingly constraining, but show how actors mitigate both a variety of institutional forms as well as interests from social forces, be they regional or global. The stress on agency often asserted in ‘critical’ IPE is clearly present in much Australian IPE scholarship. Multilateralism and state capacity in Australian IPE In Australian IPE scholarship that emerged during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the dominant topics of debate were trade and finance, and the role of international economic institutions in regulating relations between states and


4


markets in these two key areas. Within the study of trade issues, unsurprisingly, a key emphasis has been on the regional dynamics of trade in Asia (Higgott et al. 1993). Political economy traditions in Australia did differ considerably from those underway elsewhere in terms of the strength and influence of institutionalist perspectives that stressed the key role of the state and domestic politics in policy making (Bell 1993). These studies have played a significant role in countering claims of the ‘decline of the state’. Given Australia’s close proximity to the Asian region and considerable academic strength in the broad area of Asian studies, the dominance of institutionalism reflected the way in which studies of Asian developmentalism reflected the importance of key institutions and intergovernmental agreement rather than simply open markets. Many scholars played an agenda-setting role in the debates on ‘state capacity’ in Asia (see, for example, Weiss 1998), and an important recent emphasis of this research has been on the ongoing centrality of the state to Asian economies, despite the pressure for greater and deeper neo-liberal-oriented reform in the region (Jayasuria 2004). For example, we see in work by authors such as Richard Robison, Kevin Hewison and Andrew Rosser the centrality of state institutions and domestic coalitions in driving neo-liberal-oriented reform agendas in post-1997-crisis Asia and how domestic interests (often located within, or closely connected to, the state) can also play a key role in resisting and challenging reform (Robison 2006; Robison and Hadiz 2004; Robison and Hewison 2006; Rosser 2002). The work on ‘state capacity’ also pointed to the role of key institutions within governments that could select industrial winners and push growth. This work, such as that on ‘pilot economic agencies’ and ‘governed interdependence’ (Weiss 1998), specified strategies for development not only in East Asia, but also the presence of state intervention for international economic competition in a range of economies. Issues of state capacity and related concepts could be found in earlier work on African states (Ravenhill 1985, 1986) and also the often-thought ‘neo-liberal’ USA (Seabrooke 2001; Weiss 2010). There is also a continued stream of work on state capacity in East Asia that has become concerned with more localised and administrative policy issues (Mok and Yep 2008). The institutionalist perspective also underpinned work on Australia, such as Capling’s (1997: 339) analysis of Australian trade politics, in which she argues for ‘an institutional approach, which examines policy preferences in the context of the interplay between societal interests, government, bureaucracy and political parties’. Stephen Bell (1993, 1997, 2004) also provided a range of excellent work on how state capacity issues in Australia have been coordinated, including studies of the Reserve Bank of Australia and also the relationship between the Australian government and (dis)organised business groups. More generally, it can be argued that the strength of institutionalism within Australian IPE, often expressed through work on East Asia, was the creation of a viewpoint that was counter-hegemonic to American IPE and also to British


5


IPE. For example, Richard Higgott’s stress on the importance of an ‘Antipodean IPE’ marked out some clear territory. Unlike American scholarship, Australian IPE was not obsessed with American power and could also see beyond the state. Multilateralism was, in part, about the creation of new normative orders as well as securing intergovernmental agreement. Unlike British IPE, the actors studied by Higgott and others were not simply trapped in a broader capitalist system which they had to reluctantly accept. No. In the Antipodean conception of IPE, smaller states could fight back and even win against the big boys. In 1991, Higgott asserted that [t]he innovations in economic statecraft in recent years have far-reaching implications for the nature of conflict and cooperation in the international economy be it at the multilateral level, the bilateral level between major actors such as the USA, Japan, and Europe, or at the level of the relationships of smaller states as third parties to increasingly hard-driven multilateral and bilateral bargains. These international interactions, and especially their implications for Australia, should become a principal agenda item for Australian international relations scholarship in the 1990s.

Not only is this important for analysis of Australia but, more generally, it could provide a useful non-hegemonic counter to the predominantly hegemonicoriented scholarship on cooperation and conflict to date (Higgott 1991: 419). The counter-hegemonic concept was elaborated by Higgott and his collaborators. A specific focus of the project by this group of scholars was Australian sponsorship of the Cairns Group of agricultural exporting countries, which linked Australia with, among others, its South-East Asian neighbours Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand (Higgott and Cooper 1990). The point here is that this scholarship sought to specify how small and middle powers could forge a multilateral order that enhanced prosperity and, in the case of East Asia, provided a counterweight to the USA and to Europe.2 Within East Asia, the work on intraregional trade and financial cooperation detailed how domestic politics was connected to intergovernmental agreement (Beeson 2003). It also followed a long and healthy line of policy-engaged scholarship by Stuart Harris (1991, 2000) and others. This work continued after the Asian financial crisis of 19978, which provided a challenge to dominant ways of thinking in Australian IPE, since the pilot economic agencies had done little to prevent the crisis, while it was also clear that much of the capital involved was not American*and therefore from the ‘neo-liberals’*but from within Asia and also from Europe (Leaver 2000; MacIntyre et al. 2008). The Asian financial crisis provided an important change for Australian IPE in the sense that it led to a split in scholarship between those who continued to work on state interests, regionalism and regionalisation, and those who became more interested in how international organisations had failed miserably during the crisis (with some crossover; see Beeson 2002). On the former literature, scholars such as John Ravenhill, the benchmark scholar of Australian IPE for /

/

6



many decades, became interested in the rise of preferential trade agreements between states (Ravenhill 1999, 2008b; see also Capling 2008). On the latter literature, his students, such as Andre´ Broome (in this issue), began to work on why staff within international organisations are prone to getting things wrong. In addition, a range of scholars began to assess the impact of the Asian financial crisis not in terms of how governments reacted (MacIntyre 2001), but the impact on a range of non-state actors, such as female workers, who were negatively affected (Pettman 2003). From crisis, aspects of a new generation of Australian IPE scholarship could be seen. Microcosms in the new Australian IPE In positing that there has been a sociological turn within recent IPE scholarship, we are not suggesting that there has been a radical break with the past. But we can also observe new sources of sociologically informed theory and subjects of enquiry opening up IPE scholarship in Australia. We can point to a number of scholars who have followed on from, and updated, a tradition of Australian IPE scholarship that is concerned with issues of multilateralism and state capacity. John Mikler’s (2007) work, for example, provides an excellent example of policy-engaged IPE. Similarly, Tom Conley’s (2009) work on Australian responses to globalisation also provides an example of a focus on Australian foreign economic policy, just as Richard Eccleston’s (2007) comparative work on taxation provides an insight into how Australia fits with global economic trends. As suggested above, there are also new strands of literature that seek to specify new actors and new relationship dynamics. Much of this work borrows from sociology, especially in understanding how actors, be they everyday people or governments, fit into intersubjective constructs. J.C. Sharman’s (2006) work, for example, has discussed how an international organisation, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has sought to ‘shame’ tax havens. He has also worked on the notion of hierarchy in world politics that departs from former concerns with multilateralism as intergovernmental cooperation (Hobson & Sharman 2005). Within this work, the importance of reputation between international organisations, states and non-state actors is highlighted (see also Broome 2008). In another example, Len Seabrooke’s work on everyday politics and international financial orders borrows from economic sociology and anthropology to attempt to highlight how non-elite actors and their conceptions of what is legitimate, ‘how the economy should work’, informs the character of financial systems (Hobson and Seabrooke 2007; Seabrooke 2006). Seabrooke has also sought to identify the role of intersubjective preferences among non-elite actors in informing the uptake of new policy ideas, such as Keynesian policies (Seabrooke 2007a), as well as phenomena such as housing bubbles and their relationship to change in the world economy (Schwartz and



7

Seabrooke 2009). Work by others, such as Charlotte Epstein (2008), has focused on how international institutions can radically change their normative agenda, identifying why discourses are drivers of change rather than by-products of the expression of political interests. Susan Park (also in this issue) has identified how an international organisation’s identity prevents it from taking a course of action that would enhance its international standing, such as on green issues, as well as discussing the importance of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) within what we would normally consider to be intergovernmental politics (Park 2005). The articles in this special issue reflect a similar sociological turn. Here we highlight some aspects of the contributions that point to a sociological turn in Australian IPE. From our contributions, the few themes we wish to highlight are: (a) cultures within international organisations and their influence on world politics; (b) how discourses can enable or hinder the development of local and regional economies and identities; and (c) how issues of gender and identity inform change in the world economy. Let’s start with the contributions linked to the study of international organisations. Susan Park’s contribution draws directly upon the US sociologist John Campbell (2005) to understand the creation of accountability mechanisms within the World Bank (cf. Seabrooke 2007b). Park draws upon Campbell’s understanding of foreground and background ideas*the former are directly in the policy realm and the latter held by a broader population who may choose to organise. Park suggests that external accountability mechanisms demonstrate, more clearly, a bottom-up initiative than a command from policy elites. Park draws from constructivist work, which has long drawn from the sociological world society work of John Meyer and others (Krucken and Drori 2009), and contrasts it with rationalist thought to demonstrate the power of ideas in generating organisational change. Andre´ Broome’s contribution also points to the importance of organisational culture, this time within the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in how international organisations react to changes in the world economy. Broome discusses how it is the IMF’s organisational culture rather than its ideology that really matters in creating change. Broome highlights, in particular, how the IMF’s role can be understood as a ‘reputational intermediary’ (Broome 2008) and the role reputation plays in association with its organisational culture in determining how the IMF can respond to the most recent international economic crisis (see also Broome 2010). Susan Engel’s contribution provides a bridge between work on culture within international organisations and how discourses can enable or distort regional economies and identities. Engel points to the importance of organisational factors within the World Bank, but also suggests that broader ideologies can act both as a driver and also provide a context for regional and international change. Engel’s study of the World Bank’s engagement with regionalism in development planning and policy advice in South-East Asia points to how the Bank’s state-centred discourses distort its capacity to connect to regionalism /


8


and regionalisation. For Engel, the Vietnamese case demonstrates that the Bank has a blind spot in recognising how important regionalism and regionalisation are for Vietnam’s development. Heloise Weber’s contribution highlights the importance of everyday lived experiences within broader structures of political and economic reproduction. Weber’s ‘social-relational’ perspective on poverty reduction locates the replication and generation of poverty as phenomena that cannot be understood within a state-centric framework. Rather than viewing poverty reduction strategies as relationships between neo-liberal international organisations and states, Weber stresses how non-elite actors seek to mitigate poverty in their everyday lives. Weber outlines how macro-sociological constructs, such as private authority, interact with everyday behaviour. She also points to how NGOs can be dislocated from those they seek to assist and how they are heavily involved in replicating capitalist structures that do not provide poverty alleviation but instead further immiseration. Weber stresses how a sociological turn in IPE cannot privilege the ‘international’, since treating the international as an independent domain inhibits our capacity to see non-elite actors. Juanita Elias’s contribution provides a bridge between work on the regional replication of political and economic structures and work on issues of gender and identity in non-state political activism. Elias highlights how rights discourses are important for mobilising political action in relation to migrant domestic workers in South-East Asia. Elias’s ‘critical feminist human rights approach’ stresses how gendered inequalities are replicated within the region and how attempts to address this issue have fallen on deaf ears within the International Labour Organization and its support of core labour standards. Similar to Engel’s criticism of the World Bank, for Elias, the discussion of workers’ rights within a state-based discourse ignores how actors on the ground actually behave and how they articulate their own identities. Drawing upon the feminist IPE tradition, Elias discusses how human rights discourses inadequately deal with women’s economic rights. She also discusses the formation of what can be understood as a regional civil society in South-East Asia, promoted by local and transnational advocacy groups, based on a political reinterpretation of conventional rights discourses to reflect the concerns of domestic migrant workers in the region. Penny Griffin’s contribution discusses the role of gender and identities that inform the replication of the knowledge about ‘who exists’ for international organisations. Griffin suggests that neo-liberal globalisation discourses privilege heteronormative power relations on how men and women should be treated, including perceptions of labour. Drawing upon Pierre Bourdieu (2005) and other sociologists, Griffin articulates how international organisations engage in the replication of heavily gendered economic markets that stress hierarchy and competition. Such activities make the concerns of women less invisible within



9

the global political economy and draw our attention to the need to make women visible. Finally, Richard Leaver’s contribution highlights some of the key foreign economic policy issues for Australia in the current period and is hopeful that the sociological turn can help us see the blind spots missed by government policy. Our hope is that lessons from ‘microcosms’ hopefully extend back out to issues of macroeconomic and political concern. We are thankful to Richard and all of our contributors for highlighting how Australian IPE has developed and which turns it is taking. For our money, Australian-trained and Australia-based IPE scholars conform neither to the British or American schools, but are forging their own path. We hope that the contributions provide both food for thought and a demonstration of confidence in how Australian IPE is going through a process of evolution rather than ‘involution’.

Notes 1.

2.

We thank the School of History and Politics at the University of Adelaide for providing funds to host the ‘Sociological Turn in Australian IPE’ workshop in October 2007. We apologise in advance to any Australian IPE scholars who feel they have not been adequately represented in our brief review. Our aim is to highlight key trends rather than provide a comprehensive account of Australian IPE, and no harm is intended. We realise that there are a number of scholars who do excellent work who we have not squeezed into our brief review. Finally, we thank Tracey Arklay and Andrew O’Neill from the Australian Journal of International Affairs for their patience. Furthermore, this scholarship also emerged from the deployment of comparative case studies. Thus, whilst Phillips (2005: 252) has raised important concerns about tendencies within conventional IPE scholarship to sideline a comparative political economy perspective (in particular one that focuses on the comparative political economy of development), this was not the case within much Australian IPE scholarship.

References Beeson, Mark (ed.), 2002. Reconfiguring East Asia: regional institutions and organizations after the crisis (London: RoutledgeCurzon). Beeson, Mark, 2003. ‘East Asia, the international financial institutions and regional regulatory reform: a review of the issues’, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 8(3): 30526. Bell, Stephen, 1993. Australian manufacturing and the state: the politics of industry policy in the post-war era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bell, Stephen, 1997. Ungoverning the economy: the political economy of Australian economic policy (Melbourne: Oxford University Press). Bell, Stephen, 2004. Australia’s money mandarins: the Reserve Bank and the politics of money (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bell, Stephen and John Ravenhill, 2003. ‘Political economy’, in Ian McAllister, Steve Dowrick and Riaz Hassan (eds), The Cambridge handbook of the social sciences in Australia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 374405.


10


Bisley, Nick, 2004. ‘Asia-Pacific regionalism and preferential trade agreements: the Australian case’, International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 4(2): 23964. Blyth, Mark, 2009. ‘Introduction: IPE as a global conversation’, in Mark Blyth (ed.), Handbook of international political economy (London: Routledge), pp. 120. Bourdieu, Pierre, 2005. The social structures of the economy (Cambridge: Polity Press). Broome Andre´, 2008. ‘The importance of being earnest: the IMF as a reputational intermediary’, New Political Economy, 13(2): 12551. Broome Andre´, 2010. The currency of power: the IMF and monetary reform in frontier economies (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Campbell, John L., 2005. Institutional change and globalization (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Capling, Ann, 1997. ‘Who makes trade policy? Australia and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Trade-Related Investment’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 51(3): 339345. Capling, Ann, 2005. All the way with the USA: Australia, the US and free trade (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press). Capling, Ann, 2008. ‘Preferential trade agreements as instruments of foreign policy: an AustraliaJapan free trade agreement and its implications for the Asia Pacific region’, Pacific Review, 21(1): 2743. Cohen, Benjamin J., 2008. International political economy: an intellectual history (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Conley, Tom, 2009. The vulnerable country: Australia and the global economy (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press). Eccleston, Richard, 2007. Taxing reforms: the comparative political economy of consumption tax reform in the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia (London: Edward Elgar). Eccleston, Richard, 2009. ‘Political economy’, in R.A.W. Rhodes (ed.), The Australian study of politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Epstein, Charlotte, 2008. The power of words in international relations: birth of an anti-whaling discourse (Ann Arbor: The MIT Press). Harris, Stuart, 1991. ‘Varieties of Pacific economic cooperation’, Pacific Review, 4(4): 30111. Harris, Stuart, 2000. ‘Asian multilateral institutions and their response to the Asian economic crisis: the regional and global implications’, Pacific Review, 13(3): 495516. Higgott, Richard, 1991. ‘International relations in Australia: an agenda for the 1990s’, in Richard Higgott and J.L. Richardson (eds), International relations: global and Australian perspectives on an evolving discipline (Canberra: Department of International Relations, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University), pp. 394426. Higgott, Richard and Andrew Fenton Cooper, 1990. ‘Middle power leadership and coalition building: Australia, the Cairns Group and the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations’, International Organization, 44(4): 589632. Higgott, Richard, Richard Leaver and John Ravenhill (eds), 1993. Pacific economic relations in the 1990s: cooperation or conflict? (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin). Hobson, John M. and J.C. Sharman, 2005. ‘The enduring place of hierarchy in world politics: tracing the social logics of hierarchy and political change’, European Journal of International Relations, 11(1): 6398. Hobson, John M. and Leonard Seabrooke (eds), 2007. Everyday politics of the world economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Jayasuria, Kanishka, 2004. ‘The new regulatory state and relational capacity’, Policy and Politics, 32(4): 487501. Kelton, Maryanne, 2008. More than an ally: contemporary AustraliaUS relations (Aldershot: Ashgate). Krucken, Georg and Gili S. Drori (eds), 2009. World society: the writings of John W. Meyer (Oxford: Oxford University Press).



11

Leaver, Richard, 1994. ‘International political economy and the changing world order: evolution or involution’, in Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey R.D. Underhill (eds), Political economy and the changing global order (London: Macmillan), pp. 13041. Leaver, Richard, 2000. ‘Moral (and other) hazards: the IMF and the systemic Asian crisis’, in Richard Robison, Mark Beeson, Kanishka Jayasuriya and Hyuk-Rae Kim (eds), Politics and markets in the wake of the Asian crisis (London: Routledge), pp. 28396. MacIntyre, Andrew, 2001. ‘Institutions and investors: the politics of the financial crisis in Southeast Asia’, International Organization, 55(1): 81122. MacIntyre, Andrew, T.J. Pempel and John Ravenhill (eds), 2008. Crisis as catalyst: Asia’s dynamic political economy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Mikler, John, 2007. ‘Varieties of capitalism and the auto industry’s environmental initiatives: national institutional explanations for firms’ motivations’, Business and Politics, 9(1): article 4. Mok, Ka Ho and Ray Yep, 2008. ‘Globalization and state capacity in Asia’, Pacific Review, 21(2): 10920. Park, Susan, 2005. ‘Norm diffusion within international organizations: a case study of the World Bank’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 8(2): 11141. Pettman, Jan Jindy, 2003. ‘Gendering globalization in Asia through miracle and crisis’, Gender, Technology and Development, 7(2): 17187. Phillips, Nicola (ed.), 2005. Globalizing international political economy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Ravenhill, John, 1985. Collective clientelism: the Lome´ conventions and NorthSouth relations (New York: Columbia University Press). Ravenhill, John (ed.), 1986. Africa in economic crisis (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Ravenhill, John, 1999. ‘APEC and the WTO: which way forward for trade liberalization?’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 21(2): 22138. Ravenhill, John, 2008a. ‘In search of the missing middle’, Review of International Political Economy, 15(1): 1829. Ravenhill, John, 2008b. ‘Preferential trade agreements and the future of Australian trade policy’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 62(2): 1218. Ravenhill, John, 2009. ‘East Asian regionalism: much ado about nothing?’, Review of International Studies, 35(S1): 21535. Robison, Richard (ed.), 2006. The neoliberal revolution: forging the market state (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Robison, Richard and Kevin Hewison, 2006. East Asia and the trials of neoliberalism (London and New York: Routledge). Robison, Richard and Vedi Hadiz, 2004. Reorganizing power in Indonesia: the politics of oligarchy in an age of markets (London and New York: Routledge). Rosser, Andrew, 2002. The politics of economic liberalisation in Indonesia (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press). Schwartz, Herman M. and Leonard Seabrooke (eds), 2009. The politics of housing booms and busts (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Seabrooke, Leonard, 2001. US power in international finance: the victory of dividends (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Seabrooke, Leonard, 2006. The social sources of financial power: domestic legitimacy and international financial orders (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Seabrooke, Leonard, 2007a. ‘The everyday social sources of economic crises: from ‘‘great frustrations’’ to ‘‘great revelations’’ in interwar Britain’, International Studies Quarterly, 51(4): 795810. Seabrooke, Leonard, 2007b. ‘Legitimacy gaps in the world economy: explaining the sources of the IMF’s legitimacy crisis’, International Politics, 44(2/3): 25068.

12



Sharman, J.C., 2006. Havens in a storm: the struggle for global tax regulation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Sharman, J.C., 2009. ‘Neither Asia nor America: IPE in Australia’, in Mark Blyth (ed.), Handbook of international political economy (London: Routledge), pp. 21022. Weiss, Linda, 1998. The myth of the powerless state (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Weiss, Linda, 2010. The hybridisation of the 21st century state (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Weiss, Linda, Elizabeth Thurbon and John Mathews, 2004. How to kill a country: Australia’s devastating trade deal with the United States (Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin). Yeung, Henry Wai-Chung, 2009. ‘The rise of East Asia: an emerging challenge to the study of international political economy’, in Mark Blyth (ed.), Handbook of international political economy (London: Routledge), pp. 195209.