ABSTRACT
In a seminal article, Susan Strange (1973) chastised international economists and international relations scholars for not communicating across their disciplinary boundaries. Such has not been the case with the nascent, but growing Chinese IPE on finance and money. Chinese IPE scholars have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and analytically eclectic in terms of their willingness to draw from international economics. This intellectual openness was, and continues to be, driven by necessity. The reality is that the IPE of finance and money inside China is still at an early stage of development and the leading research has been produced not by political economists (either international or comparative), but by international economists. The foundational literature on money and finance in Chinese IPE-by
scholars who self-identify as studying ‘IPE’—is still in formation and the quality of the published work is rather uneven. To date, much of the scholarship on finance and money has concentrated on transferring and commenting on theWestern canon or analysing the international financial problems and the policies of the advanced countries, and using the already established (read Western) IPE theoretical constructs and terminology. In doing so, this literature has contributed mainly to advancing IPE as a specialized area of academic study and research inside China-and to framing analysis in terms of the established IPE theoretical perspectives (the so-called ‘realist’, ‘liberal’ and ‘critical’ theories). However, the overall quality of the scholarly output to date has
been limited by two shortcomings: first, in the consistency and depth of the research attention, and second, in the degree of rigor in applying social scientific methods. IPE research on international finance and money inside China heretofore has been crisis-driven (as seen in the preceding section). Ironically, each crisis scenario also magnifies the consequences of such inconsistent attention to money and finance. The analysis of global finance and international money in Chinese IPE is hindered by methodological shortcomings, specifically the imbalanced attention to description over explanation. The existing Chinese IPE analysis of money and finance tends to be heavily descriptive and there seems to be limited interest in pursuing theoretical and methodological innovation. At the main schools of IPE training in Beijing and Shanghai,
there has been limited interest in positivist modelling and rational choice and game theoretic methods from the scholars working on money and finance. A primary factor behind the underdevelopment of the IPE ofmoney and
finance inside China has been insufficient technical knowledge on international money and finance. Chinese IPE scholars are usually trained in IR and evenmore narrowly in Strategic Studies (now ‘international security’) or foreign policy analysis. They have generally lacked technical training in international economics, money and finance. This is not surprising given that IPEwas introduced in China as a specialized area of study in the early 1990s, mainly by IR scholars in China’s elite universities. Other factors are more general constraints that afflict IPE inChinamore broadly, which have also inhibited the development of research on international financial and monetary issues inside China. These include a small IPE scholarly community, the short lifespan heretofore of the main IPE programmes in the Chinese academy,12 the lack of in-depth studies on a broad range of issues, and limited capacities in social scientific and researchmethodology (Wang Zhengyi, 2006; Song Guoyou, 2011). The aforementioned constraints are complex, interlinked and multi-faceted and it should be noted that they arise not just from limits in academic training or in the community of researchers. Chinese IPE on finance and money has also been constrained by lack of direct access to information about internal decision-making on Chinese financial and currency policy and the strategic and policy considerations that influence China’s participation in international financial and monetary governance. This situational reality disadvantages Chinese IPE researchers in carrying out systematic data collection as well as their ability to conduct interviews with key participant-observers, and thus to do critical case study analysis. How have Chinese IPE scholars overcome the obstacles to researching
the political economy of international money and finance? A survey of the broader relevant literature shows that Chinese IPE scholars have figured out how to draw selectively on the technical expertise of their colleagues in economics, especially on the work of the influential and policy-relevant economists who are located in key policy think-tanks, academia and the financial sector. This broader literature encompasses the aforementioned leading IPE-related journals and the formative books and extends to include other social science journals and leading periodicals that have published works on the politics and political economy of international money and finance such as Caijing, China Reform, China and World Affairs, Comparative Studies, Contemporary International Relations, Economic Perspectives, Fudan International Relations, International Political Studies, International Review, International Trade,Nankai Economic Studies,New Century, Pacific Journal, Research on International Finance, Shanghai Finance, World Affairs and World Economy.
