CIAO DATE: 2/08
International political economy (IPE) has been enriched, since the late 1970s, by flourishing numbers of critical approaches. The contributions during the 1980s and 1990s to this literature by some members of the Department of International Relations at the University of Amsterdam occupy a distinct position. This article presents an attempt to construct a genealogy (or perhaps an intellectual autobiography) of what is called in this issue the Amsterdam Project (AP) in IPE. It traces the thinking in the group from the early critique on functionalist, federalist and Marxist explanations of European integration, through the development of the theory of capital fractions and transnational class formation, to the reception of Gramscian approaches. Finally, the article sketches the contours of the AP's distinctive theory of global neo-liberalism and its implicit research agenda for the coming years.
Although transnational relations is a frequently employed phrase in international relations (IR) since the early debates of the 1970s, the literature in fact still shows surprisingly little theorization of the concept. Seeking to theorize 'the transnational' beyond what is currently on offer in mainstream IR discourse, this article argues that the field of transnational relations has in fact much to gain from the insights articulated by the transnationalist perspective elaborated within 'transnational historical materialism', and in particular by the 'Amsterdam Project' in International Political Economy. After presenting a critical review of what are interpreted as liberal, ahistorical and actor-centred perspectives on transnational relations dominating the mainstream, this article elaborates and builds upon this alternative transnationalist perspective by showing how it is grounded in a historical materialism emphasizing the constitutive power of transnational (economic) structures, while at the same time re-claiming the role of class agency. Briefly sketching on this basis the development of transnational relations in the global political economy, the article examines the theoretical implications of such a historical (materialist) analysis for a theory of transnational relations. Rather than viewing transnational relations as moving us beyond international relations altogether, it is concluded that the question is rather how the former gives content to the latter. Critical here, it is argued, is the process of transnational class formation and the role of capitalist class strategy beyond national borders in restructuring global capitalist social relations.
This article argues that the integration of capitalist society at both national and international levels is coming about as a result of two processes of the 'socialization of labour' -- market socialization and planned socialization. All relations of power in contemporary society are established through these two forms of social cohesion in combination, one operating blindly, the other involving conscious management and control. Politics is the process of mediating between them, both nationally and internationally. In articulating the sphere of actual control with the uncertainties of the market, politicians tend to rely on implicit frameworks of rule, or concepts of control, in which a particular national/international balance of what is managed and what is left to the market is laid down for a longer period. In the 20th century, a new class of managerial cadre emerged in between the property-owning capitalist class and the working class; displacing an older middle class of state- or self-employed notables. This new cadre is entrusted with managerial tasks and tends to favour non-market solutions over market solutions even when employed to foster the latter. While the current neo-liberal concept of control apparently shifts the balance towards transnational market socialization compared to the preceding corporate liberalism with its managerial emphasis, non-market forms of socialization are therefore continuing to develop even under neo-liberal globalization. Although the world faces a crisis of the exhaustion of society and nature, the potential for re-regulation and manageability does exist and can be identified by reference to this cadre.
This article argues that the concept of peripheral capitalism, which was erroneously applied to the democratic transition and international integration of Spain, Portugal and Greece in the 1970s and 1980s, is a useful conceptual tool to understand the present incorporation of countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into the European heartland of transnational production and finance. The relatively successful incorporation of Southern Europe, inter alia exemplified by the outward expansion or transnationalization of Spanish, Portuguese and Greek capital in recent years, is absolutely no guarantee that a similar development will occur in the case of Central and Eastern Europe (after enlargement). The political and economic transformation in this region is much more complex than the previous democratic transition in Southern Europe, and takes place under fundamentally different, domestic and international circumstances. The absence of an indigenous capitalist class, the denationalization of the respective economies, the dominant role of transnational social forces in imposing neo-liberal restructuring on the post-1989 managerial elites, and the neo-liberal underpinnings of the present European Union's (EU) enlargement strategy all point at the peripheralization of the new capitalist democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.