Abstract illustration of power dynamics in economic thought.

Decoding Disciplinary Politics: How Power Shapes Comparative Political Economy

Reese Marlowe in Politics & Policy August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Uncover the hidden influences shaping economic thought and explore how disciplinary norms impact social science research, with insights for navigating today's complex academic landscape."

Understanding the historical evolution of political economic thought is crucial for anyone seeking to think like a political economist. The lineage of ideas significantly differentiates political economy from mainstream economics. In the realm of Comparative Political Economy (CPE), this understanding is vital for interpreting state/market relations and engaging effectively in CPE analysis.

This article delves into the disagreements about method and the merits of simplifying assumptions, abstract modeling, and generalization in political economy. These debates, which divided thinkers like Ricardo and Malthus centuries ago, continue to resonate within contemporary CPE. While there's merit on both sides, a definitive resolution remains elusive.

We address the question: 'Where did the tradition of classical political economy go?' By tracing the genealogy and history of CPE, we shed light on the legacy for contemporary CPE scholarship. This involves examining the norms, assumptions, and practices associated with different schools of thought, particularly concerning the appropriate methods for studying CPE.

The Methodenstreit: How a Disagreement Reshaped Social Science

Abstract illustration of power dynamics in economic thought.

Central to our explanation is the disagreement on method that began in the 1880s, known as the Methodenstreit. This profound intellectual battle transformed not only CPE but all social scientific inquiry. It entrenched differences over substantive focus and method, leading to the institutionalization of distinct academic disciplines we recognize today. We analyze this as the stuff of disciplinary politics and how powerful disciplinary norms can shape what is deemed appropriate conduct in the pursuit of social scientific knowledge.

The classical political economy tradition, with its foundational assumptions about analyzing the political, economic, and social as a complex interrelated whole, struggled to survive the rise of academic specialization. The 20th century saw political economy marginalized as a sub-discipline within economic sociology, political science, and economic history. CPE's development was further hindered by the need to straddle these academic divides. Mainstream economics, dominating academic social scientific inquiry into economic matters, largely shifted the focus away from the differentiated institutions of market capitalism so central to CPE.

Admissibility: What is considered acceptable work and knowledge.
Conduct: The legitimate means and methods for gathering knowledge.
Borders: The limits of the discipline and its scope.
External Relations: The engagement and interaction with related social scientific disciplines.

Indeed, as a result of the Methodenstreit, economics as a discipline confined itself to a substantive focus that would have been virtually unrecognizable by Smith, Marx, and List. These disciplinary political issues were never faced by the classical political economists because they wrote in a pre-disciplinary era. Contestation surrounding biases and prior assumptions is part of disciplinary politics, and it can be healthy for an academic discipline. What is important is that biases and assumptions are transparent and not hidden.

The Enduring Relevance of Disciplinary Awareness

In conclusion, modern CPE has a range of methods and approaches it can draw on, arguing for a methodologically pluralist approach. More is lost than gained by asserting one single way of doing political economy as superior. The rich variety of different approaches to engaging in CPE analysis and interpreting the world economy is a considerable source of strength within the field. By understanding the power dynamics and norms that shape academic disciplines, researchers can better navigate the complexities of social science research and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of comparative political economy.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1007/978-1-137-40600-2_4, Alternate LINK

Title: Disciplinary Politics And The Genealogy Of Comparative Political Economy

Journal: Comparative Political Economy

Publisher: Macmillan Education UK

Authors: Ben Clift

Published: 2014-01-01

Everything You Need To Know

What is Comparative Political Economy (CPE) and why is understanding its historical evolution important?

CPE is a field of study that examines the relationship between the state and the market within different economic systems. Understanding the historical evolution of political economic thought is crucial for anyone seeking to think like a political economist. The lineage of ideas significantly differentiates political economy from mainstream economics. In the realm of CPE, this understanding is vital for interpreting state/market relations and engaging effectively in CPE analysis.

What was the Methodenstreit and how did it impact the development of social sciences, particularly CPE?

The *Methodenstreit*, a significant disagreement on method in the 1880s, profoundly transformed social scientific inquiry, including CPE. It led to the institutionalization of distinct academic disciplines by entrenching differences over substantive focus and method. This intellectual battle is central to understanding disciplinary politics and how academic norms shape what is deemed appropriate conduct in the pursuit of social scientific knowledge, influencing what is considered acceptable work, the legitimate means for gathering knowledge, the limits of the discipline, and its engagement with other disciplines.

How did the rise of academic specialization affect the classical political economy tradition?

What are the key elements of 'disciplinary politics' and how do they influence the field of study?

Disciplinary politics revolves around the norms and power dynamics within an academic field. Key elements include 'Admissibility' (what work and knowledge are acceptable), 'Conduct' (legitimate methods for gathering knowledge), 'Borders' (the discipline's scope), and 'External Relations' (interaction with other disciplines). These elements shape what is considered appropriate and influence research, the pursuit of knowledge, and the boundaries of the field. Biases and assumptions are part of disciplinary politics, and it can be healthy for an academic discipline if transparent.

Why is a methodologically pluralist approach beneficial in contemporary CPE, and what are the implications of this approach?

A methodologically pluralist approach in modern CPE involves drawing on a range of methods and approaches. This recognizes that more is lost than gained by asserting one single way of doing political economy as superior. The rich variety of different approaches to engaging in CPE analysis and interpreting the world economy is a considerable source of strength within the field. By understanding the power dynamics and norms that shape academic disciplines, researchers can better navigate the complexities of social science research and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of comparative political economy.