سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات161
تعداد شماره‌ها6,532
تعداد مقالات70,504
تعداد مشاهده مقاله124,122,841
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله97,231,049
پوراحمدی میبدی, حسین, جامه, عباس. (1402). بنیان‌های نظریه سازه‌انگارانه اقتصاد سیاسی بین‌الملل ‏. , 53(1), 110-83. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2023.338468.1007916
حسین پوراحمدی میبدی; عباس جامه. "بنیان‌های نظریه سازه‌انگارانه اقتصاد سیاسی بین‌الملل ‏". , 53, 1, 1402, 110-83. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2023.338468.1007916
پوراحمدی میبدی, حسین, جامه, عباس. (1402). 'بنیان‌های نظریه سازه‌انگارانه اقتصاد سیاسی بین‌الملل ‏', , 53(1), pp. 110-83. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2023.338468.1007916
پوراحمدی میبدی, حسین, جامه, عباس. بنیان‌های نظریه سازه‌انگارانه اقتصاد سیاسی بین‌الملل ‏. , 1402; 53(1): 110-83. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2023.338468.1007916

بنیان‌های نظریه سازه‌انگارانه اقتصاد سیاسی بین‌الملل ‏

فصلنامه سیاست
مقاله 4، دوره 53، شماره 1، خرداد 1402، صفحه 110-83    اصل مقاله (738.76 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jpq.2023.338468.1007916
نویسندگان
حسین پوراحمدی میبدی* 1؛ عباس جامه2
1استاد گروه سیاست جهانی و منطقه‌ای، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم‌ سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران،
2دانشجوی دکترای سیاست جهانی و منطقه‌ای، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ‏تهران، ایران. ‏
چکیده
سیاست و اقتصاد در رابطه‌ای تنگاتنگ با یکدیگرند، سیاست قاطعانه بر سرنوشت اقتصاد جهانی تأثیر می‌گذارد و اقتصاد نیز تأثیر بسیاری بر سیاست ‌بین‌الملل و جهانی دارد. درهم‌تنیدگی اقتصاد و سیاست رشته آکادمیک اقتصاد سیاسی ‌بین‌الملل را با مرزهای انعطاف‌پذیر آن شکل داده است. امروزه بازارها جهانی شده‌اند و همکاری و یا تضاد منافع از واقعیت‌های آشکار عرصه اقتصاد سیاسی است. ازاین‌رو نظریه‌پردازی اقتصاد سیاسی بین‌الملل– بررسی‌کننده رابطه میان دولت‌ها و بازار– نیز پا را از دنیای نظریه‌های متعارف فراتر گذاشته و نظریه‌هایی مانند سازه‌انگاری، پست‌مدرنیسم، انتقادی، فمینیسم و محیط‌زیست‌گرایی مورد توجه قرار گرفته‌اند. نظریه سازه‌انگاری همچون یکی از این نظریه‌های امروزی، نگاه‌های بسیاری را به خود جلب کرده و حجم پژوهش‌ها در این زمینه بسیار افزایش ‌یافته است. دو پرسش پژوهشی این مقاله عبارت‌اند از: 1. بنیان‌های نظریه سازه‌انگارانه اقتصاد‌ سیاسی‌ بین‌الملل چیست؟ 2. سازه‌انگاری تا چه اندازه با اقتصاد سیاسی بین‌الملل تناسب و ارتباط دارد؟ با رویکردی تحلیلی-تبیینی، دیدگاه‌ها و نقدها، و نیز یافته‌های پژوهشی ارائه‌شده در آثار مکتوب پژوهشگران و نظریه‌پردازان این حوزه بررسی شده است تا گزاره‌ها، مقوله‌ها و مضمون‌های مهم شناسایی شوند. سپس تلاش شده است تا با تحلیل و استنباط از داده‌های کیفی برگرفته از این متون معتبر به پرسش‌های پژوهشی پاسخ داده شود. در فرضیه پژوهشی استدلال می‌شود که تکیه صرف بر تجزیه‌و‌تحلیل اقتصادی و یا سیاسی در جهان پویای کنونی به ناتوانی درک پویایی‌های نظام‌‌ بین‌الملل می‌انجامد.  هنجارها، هویت، واقعیت اجتماعی، معانی، نبود قطعیت، شناخت و بین‌الاذهانی بودن مبانی تشکیل‌دهنده نظریه سازه‌انگارانه اقتصاد سیاسی ‌بین‌الملل هستند. از‌این‌رو هدف اصلی این پژوهش منسجم‌سازی و ارائه این نظریه به‌مانند ابزاری کاربردی برای تحلیل موضوع‌های مطرح در این حوزه است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
اقتصاد سیاسی؛ ایده‌ها؛ روابط اجتماعی؛ سازه‌‌های اقتصادی و سیاسی؛ سازه‌انگاری
عنوان مقاله [English]
Foundations of Constructivist Theory of ‎International Political Economy
نویسندگان [English]
Hossein Pourahmadi Meibodi1؛ Abbas Jame2
1Professor, Faculty of Economy & Political Science, University of Shahid ‎Beheshti, Tehran, Iran. ‎
2A PhD Candidate, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Shahid ‎Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran‎
چکیده [English]
Politics and economics are closely related, politics decisively affects the fate of the world economy, and economics has far-reaching consequences for international and global politics. The complexity of the interactions of economics and politics has formed the academic discipline of international political economy (IPE) with its flexible boundaries. Liberalism, realism, and Marxism have been the three dominant and traditional approaches to the study of international political economy. In an analogous way to the studies of international relations, the field of IPE has undergone theoretical diversity since the 1990s. At present, markets have become globalized, and cooperation or conflict of interests is one of the obvious realities of political economy. Therefore, theory building and hypothesis testing in international political economy—examining the relationship between governments and the markets—has also gone beyond the conventional theories. Thus, theories such as constructivism, postmodernism, criticism, feminism, and environmentalism have been taken into consideration. Of these, constructivism as a new intellectual endeavor has attracted a great deal of attention in the research on the global political economy. In this paper, the two research questions are as follows: 1. What are the foundations of the constructivist theory of international political economy? 2. To what extent is constructivism relevant to the study of international political economy? Using an analytical-explanatory approach, various research findings of the prior works have been examined to identify propositions and important themes. To get insight into the constructivists’ perspectives, we compare and explain different constructivist arguments about the need to apply their theoretical approaches to the field of IPE. Then, an attempt has been made to answer the research questions by analyzing and inferring from the qualitative data taken from these texts. In the research hypothesis, it is postulated that relying solely on economic or political analyses without considering the interaction of politics and economics leads to the inability to fully understand the dynamics of the international political and economic order. Given the diversity of the objectives of the stakeholders in the political economy, the multiplicity and ambiguity of their preferences and strategies, as well as the uncertainties of the outcome of the actions of the competing state and non-state actors have increasingly made the researchers’ goals of explaining and predicting international political and economic processes and outcomes more difficult. Constructivism is an approach which attempts to understand "the dynamic roles played by ideas, norms, values and identities in political processes and outcomes", and provides a viable theoretical framework for analyzing issues in international political economy (i.e., the nature of conflict and cooperation in the areas of trade, finance, defense, development), and explaining the interaction between political and economic forces at international level.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Constructivism, Economic and Political Structures, Ideas, Political Economy, ‎Social Relations
مراجع

         References

  1. Abdelal, R (2009). "Constructivism as an Approach to International Political Economy," in Mark Blyth, ed. Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy (IPE). London, UK: Routledge.
  2. Abdelal, R; and et al. (2010). Constructing the International Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  3. Balaam, D; Bradford, D. (2011) Introduction to International Political Economy. Boston, MA: Longman.
  4. Beckert, J. (1996). “What is Sociological about Economic Sociology? Uncertainty and the Embeddedness of Economic Action,” Theory and Society 25, 6: 803–840, <DOI:10.1007/BF00159817>.
  5. Blyth, M. (2002). Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Blyth, M. (2006). "Great Punctuations: Prediction Randomness and the Evolution of Comparative Political Science," American Political Science Review 100, 4: 493-498. 1017/S0003055406062344>.
  7. Broome, A. (2013). "Constructivism in International Political Economy," in Ronen Palan, ed. Global Political Economy: Contemporary Theories. London, UK: Routledge.
  8. Brubaker, R; Loveman, M eds. (2004). "Ethnicity as Cognition," Theory and Society 33: 31–64, <DOI:1023/B:RYSO.000002 1405. 18890.63>.
  9. Buzan, B (1994). "The Interdependence of Security and Economic Issues in the New World Order," in Eric Helleiner and Richard Stubbs, eds. Political Economy and the Changing Global Order. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.
  10. Campenhoudt, L.V; Quivy, R. (2010). Ravesh-e tahghigh dar oloom-e ejtemāʿi (Research Method in Social Sciences), trans. Abdol Hossein Nik-Gahar. Tehran: Totia, 5th [In Persian]
  11. Chwieroth, J. (2007) "Testing and Measuring the Role of Ideas: the Case of Neoliberalism in the International Monetary Fund," International Studies Quarterly 51, 1: 5–30, < DOI:1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00437.x>.
  12. Chwieroth, J. (2010). Capital Ideas: The IMF and the Rise of Financial Liberalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  13. Cohn, T; Hira, A. (2020). Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice. London, UK: Routledge, 8th
  1. Denzau, A.T; North, D.C. (1994). “Shared Mental Models-Ideologies and Institutions,” Kyklos 47: 3-31, 10.1111/j.1467-6435.1994.tb02246.x>.
  1. Dunn, B. (2009). Global Political Economy: A Marxist Critique. London: Pluto Press.
  2. Erlange, S. (2013). "As Drilling Takes off in the U.S., Europe Proves Hesitant," The New York Times. Available at: https:// ww w.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/ world/europe/as-drilling-practice-ta- kes-off-in-us-europe-proves-hesitant.html (Accessed 8 January 2022).
  1. Fatahizadeh, A; and et al. (2010). "Enghelāb-e eslāmī-ye Iran and nezām-e eghtesād-e siyāsi-ye bein’ol mellal-e jadid (Iran's Islamic Revolution and the New International Political Economy System)," Tahghighāt-e siyāsī and bein’ol mellali, Journal of Political and International Research. 2, 2: 236-203. Available at: https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1009035 (Accessed 22 November 2021). [In Persian]
  1. Finnemore, M; Sikkink, K. (2001)."Taking Stock: the Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics," Annual Review of Political Science 4: 391–416, <DOI:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.391>.
  2. Florini, A. (1996). "The Evolution of International Norms," International Studies Quarterly 40, 3: 363-389, <DOI:10.2307/2600716>.
  3. Gilpin, R. (2011). Global Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Goldstein, J; Keohane, R.O, eds. (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  5. Gourevitch, P. (1986). Politics in Hard Times. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  6. Hacking, I. (2001). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  7. Hall, P.A. (1989). The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  8. Herrera, Y. (2005). Imagined Economies: The Sources of Russian Regionalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Hopf, T. (1998). "The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory," International Security 23, 1: 171–200, <DOI:1162/isec.23.1.171>.
  10. Katzenstein, P.J.; Keohane, R.O, eds. (1998). "International Organization and the Study of World Politics," International Organization 52, 4: 645–85, /S002081830003558X>.
  11. Keohane, R. (1978). "Economics, Inflation and the Role of the State: Political Implications of the McCracken Report," World Politics 31, 1: 28-108, <DOI:10.2307/2009969>.
  12. Kessler, O. (2016)."The Failure of Failure: On Constructivism, the Limits of Critique, and the Socio-Political Economy of Economics,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44, 3: 348–369, <DOI: 10.1177%2F03058298166440 57>.
  13. Keynes, J.M. (1921). Treatise on Probability, London, UK: AMS Press.
  14. Knight, F.H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  15. Krugman, P.R. (1991). Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Latour, B. (2003). "The Promises of Constructivism," in Don Ihde, eds. Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  17. McNamara, K.R. (2009). "Of Intellectual Monocultures and the Study of IPE,” Review of International Political Economy 16, 1: 72–84, <DOI:1080/09692290802524117>.
  18. O'Brien, R; Williams, M. (2020) Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics. New York, NY: Macmillan, 6th
  19. Palan, R. (2000) Global Political Economy. London, UK: Routledge.
  20. Palan, R; Petersen, H (2015). "International Political Economy: Conceptual Affinities and Substantive Differences with Security Studies," in Hannah Bourbeau, ed. Security Dialogue across Disciplines. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Parsons, C. (2003). A Certain Idea of Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  22. Payne, A eds. (2006). Key Debates in New Political Economy. London: Routledge.
  23. Phillips, N. (2005) “’Globalizing’ the Study of International Political Economy,” in Nicola Phillips, ed. Globalizing International Political Economy. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-19.
  24. Phillips, N. (2005). Globalizing International Political Economy. New York: Macmillan International Higher Education.
  25. Polanyi, K. (1957). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  26. Reus-Smit, Ch. (2001). "Constructivism," in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater, eds. Theories of International Relations. Basingstoke, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  27. Ruggie, J.G. (1992). "Multilateralism: the Aanatomy of an Institution," International Organization 46: 561–98, .
  28. Ruggie, J.G. (1998). Constructing the World Polity. London, UK: Routledge.
  29. Seabrooke, L. (2007). "Varieties of Economic Constructivism in Political Economy: Uncertain Times Call for Disparate Measures," Review of International Political Economy 14, 2: 371-385, .
  30. Wang, Q. (2001). "Cultural Norms and the Conduct of Chinese Foreign Policy," in Richard Hu and Gerald Chan, eds. China’s International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts. Washington, DC: The University Press of America.
  31. Wang, Q.K; Blyth, M. (2013). "Constructivism and the Study of International Political Economy in China," Review of International Political Economy 20, 6: 1276-1299, <DOI: 1080/096 92290. 2013.791336>.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 400
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 417


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب