Page 27 - Global Political Economy_Understanding The International Economic Order

CHA PTER O NE
One criticism of my 1987 book was that I did not adequately state
my own intellectual position: Was I a liberal, a Marxist, or a nation-
alist? The short answer is “none of the above.” However, before giv-
ingmy longer answer, I must comment on the three perspectives and
on a weakness in my 1987 book. I failed to make clear that each of
these perspectives is composed of both analytic and normative ele-
ments. Economic liberalism, for example, is not only an analytic tool
based on the theories and assumptions of neoclassical economics, but
it is also a normative commitment to a market or capitalist economy.
As I mentioned, Karl Marx himself accepted the basic analytical ideas
of the liberal economics of his time, but he despised capitalism—a
term he coined—and asked questions that he considered more funda-
mental than those asked by earlier nineteenth-century classical econo-
mists: questions about the origins of the capitalist system, the laws
governing its evolution, and its ultimate destiny. As Joseph Schum-
peter has emphasized, whereas economists are interested in the day-
to-day functioningof the capitalist system, Marx and Schumpeter
himself were interested in the long-term dynamics of the capitalist
system.
Nationalism or, more specifically, economic nationalism, is also
composed of both analytic and normative elements. Its analytic core
recognizes the anarchic nature of international affairs, the primacy of
the state and its interests in international affairs, and the importance
of power in interstate relations. However, nationalism is also a nor-
mative commitment to the nation-state, state-building, and the moral
superiority of one’s own state over all other states. Although I accept
“economic nationalism,” or what I below call a “state-centric” ap-
proach, as an analytic perspective, I do not subscribe to the normative
commitment and policy prescriptions associated with economic na-
tionalism. My own normative commitment is to economic liberalism;
that is, to free trade and minimal barriers to the flow of goods, ser-
vices, and capital across national boundaries, although, under certain
restricted circumstances, nationalist policies such as trade protection
and industrial policy may be justified.
In retrospect, I should have distinguished clearly between economic
nationalism as a normative position and political realism as an ana-
lytic perspective. Or, to put the matter another way, while all nation-
alists are realists in their emphasis on the crucial role of the state,
security interests, and power in international affairs, not all realists
are nationalists in their normative views regarding international af-
fairs. Therefore, in this book I employ the broader term “realism” or,
more specifically, “state-centric realism” to characterize my approach
14