Gamboa, Joelyn Marie G.

BPS 4-1

Prof. Adam Ramillo

October 24, 2013

What is IPE?
Michael Veseth
Reaction Paper
Entering the world of studies about International Political Economy really is still a
vague thing to me. Studying Political Science for four years per se should indicate that I
should have even the tiniest capability to relate to these studies, but mathematical
theories, examples, equations and what have you tend to hinder me from being
interested to such. I know having this course would not give me the opportunity to
choose what I just wanted to know and study but would send me under a fixed
curriculum including studies I dont have interest to, I dont want to enter into and worst,
I dont even want to remember, but still I should have to have to have a Bachelors
degree.
International Economy as defined by Mr. Michael Veseth is the rapidly developing
social science field of study that attempts to understand international and global
problems using an eclectic interdisciplinary array of analytical tools and theoretical
perspectives. IPE is a field that thrives on the process that Joseph Schumpeter called
"creative destruction." The growing prominence of IPE as a field of study is in part a
result of the continuing breakdown of disciplinary boundaries between economics and
politics in particular and among the social sciences generally. Increasingly, the most
pressing and interesting problems are those that can best be understood from a
multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary point of view. If there is an "IPE
Project" its objective is to pull down the fences that restrict intellectual inquiry in the
social sciences so that important questions and problems can be examined without
reference to disciplinary borders.
IPE is the study of a problematique, or set of related problems. The traditional
IPE problematique includes analysis of the political economy of international trade,
international finance, North-South relations, multinational corporations, and hegemony.
This problematique has been broadened in recent years as many scholars have sought
to establish a New IPE that is less centered on International Politics and the problems of
the nation-state and less focused on economic policy issues. These scholars seek to
create a new discipline of IPE that would transcend the perceived limits International
Politics and International Economics as fields of study and research, having said that, I
simply define to myself that IPE is the result of the collapse of the disciplinary
borderlines that divides international politics and international economy from each other.
In simple Math, international + politics + economics = international political economy, (I
just wish its that simple.) and oh, I believe Ive done something Math-ish in there.

Also, included in the article is that the main line of development of IPE in the
1970s and 1980s was centered in the International Relations community and took the
form of the analysis of what was called in book titles and course catalogues "The
Politics of International Economic Relations" or "The Political Economy of International
Relations." By either name, the goal was to analyze the interaction of economics and
politics in the international affairs of nation-states or, more narrowly, how economic
factors influenced International relations. Although IPE research took many directions in
this period, five sets of questions dominated the agenda: international trade,
international finance, North- South relations, MNCs, and the problem of hegemony. A
sixth concern -- globalization -- was soon added to the list.
So, okay, I believe Im not here to discuss each agenda here in my reaction
paper but to discuss If I agree or not, or what my say is for example on how Michael
Veseth principles were a silver-lining in the study of IPE. But before all of those, I dont
even know Michael Veseth. To make him more reliable, I even took time to know him
and his studies about IPE.
Searching about Michael Veseth gave me some unexplainable knowledge in a
way. I dont even find him in Wikipedia, so I checked out some of the links related to him
below. So, Mike is a Wine-addict, but basically not. Economist Mike Veseth is editor of
The Wine Economist blog and author of more than a dozen books including best-selling
Wine Wars (2011) and the just released Extreme Wine (October 2013).
Mike is professor emeritus of International Political Economy at the University of
Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. He is an authority on the political economy of
globalization and the global wine market. Mike was named Washington Professor of the
Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for
the Advancement and Support of Education. His 2005 book, Globaloney, was named a
Best Business Book of 2005 by Library Journal. Wine Wars was named a 2011 Wine
Book of the Year by JancisRobinson.com.
Mike speaks frequently at regional, national and international wine conferences.
Click on The Wine Economist World Tour link to see where Mike has been and is
going next.
Mike has also taught at the American Institute on Political and Economic
Systems in Prague and at the Bologna Center of the Johns Hopkins University School
of Advanced International Studies in Italy. He was Academic Advisor to the award
winning educational website for the PBS/WGBH series, The Commanding Heights: The
Battle for the World Economy.
Mike earned the B.A. degree in Economics and Mathematics from the University
of Puget Sound and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics from Purdue University.
I believe there really is something about Wine and Economy that puts both
together, unbreakable. Who said that a blogger about wines cannot be an economicprofessional? So Mike really is a chosen one.

These researches even made me believe that his article: What is International
Political Economy really is a something that must be a required handout to be studied
for a semester, or even more, if given the chance.
In our status quo, as said by our professor, Mr. Adam Ramillo, Economics,
Politics and Society cannot be put out from each other. Political scientists describe iron
triangles that dominate policy arenas. An iron triangle consists of a special interest
group, a political faction, and a professional society (usually manifest in a government
agency). The economic growth iron triangle is formidable. The special interest group is
essentially the entire corporate community, which benefits from a theory of perpetual
growth and resulting policies. Given our campaign finance system, the entire political
community is wedded to corporate interests. (Have you heard a politician mention the
perils of economic growth?) The professional side of the iron triangle is neo- classical
economics, whose practitioners run the Council of Economic Advisors, Federal Reserve
System, and Department of Commerce. In any way, the three factions are related from
one another making stable the principles of International Political Economy. Thank God
there are these people who are still willing to understand the world today, without them,
we will continue to believe that people dictates their economic way of life without having
into consideration politics as one related discipline.
My stance with Mr. Veseths article is that every agenda he discussed really
affected and continue to affect the worlds economy, politics, and society today. It has
different areas to touch which explained each. At the end of the day, he gave me a clear
explanation on how nation-states affect each other, even their tiniest corporations. Even
discussing hegemony gave me the true idea of such after having read it. At first I just
know that hegemony is the dominance of a single race or what have you, but I
extremely agree to Mr. Veseths statement that hegemony really dictates the economic
growth of each and every state and vice versa. Economically speaking, it gave me the
idea that a state cannot stand alone even if it has its own sovereignty; it stabilizes
interstate connections and the principles of amity and cooperation.
His words somehow attend the needs to persuade people about the argument of
States Responsibility in debates. He explained that States should really commit
themselves to other territorialities even at the expense attending their local needs for
example, or should have themselves open to other states, which is like risking their
national security. In both ways, they can grow even more. They can survive the ever
changing phase of economy, that even if hegemony per se, affects their economic
growth, its not enough to just depend on that principle for example if a hegemonic
states economy is growing, then so do yours, too. Its not okay to stop in that stage.
Because even your own state can affect the economy of that hegemonic state, and can
even, at the end of the day, be the root cause of the breakdown of such state.
The end goal I believe of Michael in writing this article is to make people realize
the importance of Interstate connections to a nations economic growth.
Especially in the Philippines wherein we have this idea of Pinoy Pride which
explains how Filipinos all over the world are actually super nationalistic or should I say,
super confident and prideful of their race. I believe it should not be like that, that people

of the Philippines for example tends to be outraged-netizens whenever another race

would be somehow discriminatory or not of the Filipinos. In a way, yes that is right but I
believe, the wrongful act is on the part of the outrage-level these Filipinos do have. They
cant even understand that the Philippines for example, currently is a developing country
which needs the help of the outside community to have prosper continuously.
At the end of the day, what I am trying to say is that the Philippines in its current
status is in need of the help for example of the US which is indeed the current
hegemonic state, maybe not I a negative way, but I really believe and it may be obvious
that we are partly depending on the US but still in a way, not affected by their
experiencing of government shutdown, maybe not now, because we are merely tackling
about the problems for example of Bohol, the Zamboanga rebels, Napoles issue and
what have you, but until the time of discussing naval bases, world debts and everything,
we will be surprised of the difference the shutdown has done to us.
International Economy and International Politics have always been the backbone
of each and every state in staying alive or surviving in spite of all the challenges. The
international community has always been dependent with each and every state given
that exports and imports for example affect their economies, for them to grow and so do
other states because of them.
International Political Economy I believe indicates how people will live basically
because of the iron triangle. The point is, the way we live will be dictated on how our
politics would work out our economy, and we will live through it, and that fact is
inevitable.
Through a semester studying it, I agreed that the iron triangle really is true, on
how for example the East and the West are different in their ways of living, culture and
what not, on how North and South nation state were indicated and all. But at the end of
the day, each and every state helped each other be in their todays position in the North
and South, no regards whether they are in the upper side or the lower.