Politics, Economics, and Political Economy

Having completed my Master's degree and continuing to be relatively reflexive on my education, abilities, knowledge, and skills. I find it interesting to note how often I will start with questions such as "what economic policies are best for country x" and end with questions like "what institutional regime permits certain policies to work and not others". The former is obviously a very economic-centric question while the latter is a very politically-centric question.

The reason the two often become so easily crossed in my mind is because of the types of sub-fields I'm interested in. In economics, I'm concerned with macroeconomic policy, especially development policy (i.e. fiscal and monetary policy, etc). Invariably, macro-policy is dependant on politics and, therefore, political science enters the scene.

The problem is, it makes it hard to have a debate. One can't simply come down with an opinion of whether stimulus should be halted. The timeless economics response becomes "it depends". It depends on whether we are discussing the US, Spain, or Thailand. It depends on how the stimulus was put into place, the cultural response that people will likely give, the autonomy of the government in power and whether they are will to risk a period of slow down in lieu of longer-term stability.

This is what makes economic questions political and what makes the study of the two together an opportunity for a spectacular synergy.

The "Third World"

A recent article from the Economist, "Rethinking the 'third world'", addressed some important backdrops for out understanding of global political economy with important implications for how we view aid, development, and the future.

The article starts with a reminder of World Bank President Bob Zoellick`s comment “2009 saw the end of what was known as the third world”. While the article provides a pretty even handed review of what this statement means and, ultimately, reasons why its probably not true, a couple of issues arose in my mind that weren`t explicitely addressed.

I remember the first time I was informed that the term ``third world`` was no longer p.c. I believe it was in my first or second year of university. The negative connotation and cold-war baggage made it an oppresive term, denoting condescencion towards less developed countries. And while the fall of the Berlin wall indicates that its original meaning is now lost, I don`t believe that its usefullness has gone out of style; many academics I still talk to use this term.

but the term has changed, third world still implies an ordering, the concept that the Asian Tigers were just a freak-show of growth is disappearing and a new level of global-political order is emerging. The BRICs (Brazil, India, Russia and China) represent a new `in-between` of the world`s super powers and suggest that positioning in them is no longer permanent. Some move up (China and India) and some are moving decisively down (Russia). This, of course, is primarily an economic analysis but in this environment, economics is important to note, if not the most defining feature in this new global political order.

Ultimately, the concept of "third world" is now addressing power structures of the have and the have nots. And its not all negative, the have-nots are showing force in numbers through international organizations, which are becoming increasingly important. The "third world" has effectively stalled out the Doha round, the "third world has the potential (sceptical as it may be) of creating regional pacts such as African Union, and the "third world" weather this recent economic crisis with much more finesse than the "first world".

While it may not be politically correct, I would argue that the term continues to be a useful descriptor of the reality of global political economy.