Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Boyle, C. (2008). The mystery of modern wealth: Mercantilism, value, and the social foundations of liberal international order. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), 405-429. doi:10.1177/1354066108092305

Summary: This article examines the nature of value and how the conception of value has shifted over time. It argues that understanding the way value has been conceived in various economic eras is important to understanding the evolution of international political economies.

Questions to Consider

1. How did the collective conception of value evolve as industrialization spread across Europe?

2. How do we conceive of value in national economic systems today?

3. Do you agree that our concept of value is important in understanding the relationships between politics and economics?

 

Journal Article 2: Ikenberry, G. J. (2010). The liberal international order and its discontents. Millennium, 38(3), 509-521. doi:10.1177/0305829810366477

Summary: Ikenberry argues that the liberal international order will continue regardless of whether or not the US is its leader. He argues that there is no meaningful alternative to the liberal international economic order, and that China and Russia are not necessarily enemies of that order.

Questions to Consider

1. What does Ikenberry consider to be the key attributes of the liberal international order?

2. What factors could threaten US leadership of the international order?

3. This article was written in 2010. Do you believe recent events in Europe and the United States have supported or undermined Ikenberry’s argument?

 

Journal Article 3: Mukherjee, N., & Krieckhaus, J. (2012). Globalization and human well-being. International Political Science Review, 33(2), 150-170. doi:10.1177/0192512111402592

Summary: This article tests the effects of globalization on human well-being by examining the impact of economic, social, and political integration on human well-being, finding that overall, all three forms of globalization positively affect human well-being.

Questions to Consider

1. How do the authors define human well-being?

2. The authors look at a limited number of statistical indicators to measure human well-being. Do agree with the way the authors operationalize human well-being?

3. The authors findings show robust statistical support for the idea that increased integration leads to improved conditions for most people. What are the policy implications they identify based on their findings?

 

Journal Article 4: Stephen, M. D. (2014). Rising powers, global capitalism and liberal global governance: A historical materialist account of the BRICs challenge. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 912-938. doi:10.1177/1354066114523655

Summary: This article examines the rise of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). It argues that these rising middle powers are integrating into to the world economy, but their more statist nature leads them to challenge existing governance structures. It argues that what is emerging, then, is a hybrid structure that is continuing economic integration while challenging the existing liberal governance order.

Questions to Consider

1. What does the article mean when it argues that the rising economic powers (the BRICs) are more statist in orientation?

2. How does the statist orientation of the BRICS inhibit their integration in transnational capitalist networks?

3. Does this article question the argument put forward in the above reading from Ikenberry?

 

Journal Article 5: Van, d. H. (2010). The liberal divide over trade, peace and war. International Relations, 24(2), 132-154. doi:3A10.1177%2F0047117809362401

Summary: This article is less about the empirical impact of trade on war as it is an examination of the liberal political tradition. It suggests that the equation of trade with peace did not necessarily originate in the liberal tradition and, that in fact, the liberal tradition allowed for the possibility of trade leading to war.

Questions to Consider

1. The article questions whether or not trade leading to peace is really part of the liberal intellectual tradition. In particular he discusses Hume and Smith’s views of human nature and conflict. How did they view the relationship between trade and conflict?

2. One thing this article calls into question is the unity of liberal thought on questions such as trade and the difficulty of truly defining “liberalism.” This type of diversity is not unique to liberalism (many realists disagree as well). Given the disagreements even within paradigms, do you think it is realistic to find overarching theoretical explanations for state behavior?