Dear readers, in case you haven't noticed--in which case I suggest laser eye treatment, pronto--the blog's template has changed. Over the weekend I have been tinkering with a new template to give the blog a contemporary look and feel. Since messing around with blog templates got me into this line of "business" in the first place, I have a keen interest on presentation. Ever come across blogs that had pretty good content but you didn't visit that much since they looked, well, blah? To better serve my beloved readers, I have always striven to deliver the best in form and function.

I suppose I am not doing too shabbily in either department since the blog still ranks third among Google search results for the term "international political economy." First is the (Humpty Dumpty-esque) Wikipedia entry, second is the excellent description of IPE by Michael Veseth that even I use. Fourth is the Warwick University IPE site--as a graduate of arch-rival Birmingham University I am glad to put them behind (just kidding, Warwick friends)! Fifth is the Review of International Political Economy, a fine journal edited by Greg Chin who I met a while ago.

Some notes in case you are interested:

1. The blogroll has been moved to the footer area. One of the major innovations in web design has been moving a lot of content to this area, so I'm just keeping up. (From three columns we now move back to two columns, too.) Again, I do not necessarily agree with these blogs and sites, but I think they provides a fair representation of interesting material for the wide-ranging discipline that is IPE. Inactive links have been removed.
2. All Foreign Policy blogs have been removed. What sort of jerks put blogs behind a paywall? It's totally against blogging ethos--even the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal which are the finest subscription-based sites do nothing of that sort of shameless money-grubbing. FP hucksters are thus banished. I will not register, let alone pay, for readily available content. A sucker is born every minute, but I hope you are not one of them.
3. The blog title and description are now hard-coded into the header.
4. The Archives and Tags sections have been combined in this neat template I found. For continuity's sake, familiar elements such as the textured background, the LibraryThing widget and the followers list carry over unchanged.
5. The column width is now 1250 pixels. Most visitors to the blog have widths of 1280 or more, so it makes sense to make this move to maximize screen real estate. Ever visit sites that use only half the screen and have teeny-weeny text when viewed at 1920x1080 or higher? I certainly have, and they waste today's higher resolution screens. Previous templates dating from 2007 and 2008 were optimized for 1024x768 and 1280x800 screens that I was operating then, but time moves on. 
6. All blog posts now have folds after a couple of lines on the main screen. For my next blog template, I will probably move to a title + picture template especially if readership keeps moving to mobile devices.
7. The body font is now Open Sans. 
8. There are still some things I am tinkering with such as the drop-down menus. I am also trying to shave off bits of HTML code here and there to speed up page loading by a few milliseconds. Pingdom suggests it loads reasonably fast already...

Otherwise, you are now witness to the firepower of this fully (re)armed and operational battle station. I target all forms of globaloney and hypocrisy. As it has for seven years now, the IPE Zone maintains its integrity by taking no prisoners. You may certainly not favor ideas and opinions expressed here, but rest assured they are mine alone. I do not entertain ads, paid placements, paywalls or other forms of commercial debasement. If you want people trying to sucker you into buying doodads at every turn, head elsewhere.

There will never be enough fish to fry even if I had all the time in the world.

PS: The new "Z" favicon is made to match the new color scheme. I am still deciding which of of the two above I should use.

To my surprise today, I entered "international political economy" into Google and lo and behold, the very site you're looking at has emerged as the top search result. While I've found that results do vary from country to country--don't ask me why, ask Google--IPE Zone is usually in the top five. But, having acquired a track record over the five years it's been in existence, I suppose that all the incoming links have brought me up to today's result... and find I'm King of the Hill, Top of the Heap, A#1! It's particularly rewarding to me to have (finally) bested the wretched Wikipedia entry, which if you ask me, is a FrankenPage from hell that I outdo in PageRank anyway--but more on that some other time.

As always, many thanks to the loyal readers over the years who have brought about this magnificent showing. I literally couldn't have done it without you [sigh]. Of course, I am also grateful for newer readers who have entered the IPE Zone fold. Sometimes I honestly feel lazy about blogging, but I have somehow persevered long enough to get somewhere. Let this be a lesson to me...

That said, international political economy as a field is admittedly low in terms of general public awareness. Perhaps it's because the state of the art is stuck in what IPE stalwart Jerry Cohen calls "economistic mid-level theory" wherein economics envy has made us nearly as dull and formulaic as that certain other discipline. At any rate, I think this blog represents something of a change insofar as (a) it is not written by yet another white guy and (b) it is written by someone from the developing world. Just as there are certain problems with White People Trying to Dance, I believe there are issues with White People Trying to Pass Judgement on Us Coloured People. While I am not entirely bereft of colleagues from mainstream IPE, I remain something of an outsider because I don't suck up to anyone--least of all the practitioners of what I call "White PE" [sic].

To be truly worthy of the term "international," I believe you must have certain things like a diversity of backgrounds, ethnicities, experiences, genders, outlooks and perspectives. I'm sorry to say that mainstream IPE--alike much social science, to be fair--suffers from the phenomenon of Lots of Monolingual White Guys at American and British Universities Talking to Each Other and Calling It "International." See the academic blogosphere and the offenders are more plentiful than you can shake a stick at.  Maybe it's precisely because I am not part of their echo chamber that I have gotten this far as an an outsider, but I do think we can go even farther.

With your help, we will!

Five Years of Fearless Blogging

Unbeknownst to me, the IPE Zone just turned five in February.. Belatedly, then, it's time to celebrate! I once had a nearly octogenarian boss who morbidly observed that her peers were all retired and many dead besides. With blogging the very model of a throwaway medium, the cycle of existence is much, much shorter than that. I too observe that most of the peer blogs I started out with are by now inactive or have since moved on to the Great IP Address in the Sky. There also have been a lot of changes in where I draw readers from. I have been through all the fads and fashions cycling in and out: blog aggregators, syndication, Facebook, Twitter and now iPhones. I am sure there will be more to come.

Originally meant to house surplus class material way back when I was still a postgrad, I remain amazed at the longevity of this blog. I certainly didn't anticipate that I would still be maintaining it five years on. Reasonably good mainstream media coverage as well as it being the world's most visible dedicated IPE blog--Google "international political economy" to see for yourselves--have made it viable for me to continue.

All the while, I believe that the IPE Zone's diversity in terms of geographical and political-economic issue coverage appeal to a broader swathe of readers. It is encouraging that many visitors come from outside of Western nations as evidenced by our blog followers' profiles, for instance. I do appreciate that, IPE having been founded largely by American and British scholars, this blog may be a harbinger of better representation by neglected third world voices. Not that I can say the same for the World Bank and IMF, but I would certainly like to see moves away from much of the whitebread sameness that permeates much of the political-economic blogosphere. The world has changed. Obviously, people with similar backgrounds tend to view the world in the same way. It is thus remarkable that an outsider has persisted in making IPE more accessible to more folks online.

So here's looking forward to more years of pull-no-punches commentary. Whether it's questioning Western hypocrisy over leadership at international organizations or the self-serving rhetoric over the value of university education, there really ought to be other voices offering....attitudes of elegant despair on subprime globalization as the subtitle says. Here at least there's truth in advertising even if you may not entirely agree with the perspectives taken here.

It goes without saying that I too have persevered due to the continuing loyalty of IPE Zone readers despite times when I simply felt tired with the whole shebang. Like Comrade Bob Mugabe, this blog is still standing--albeit under what I hope are more positive reasons

Well here's a nice bit of news concerning LSE IDEAS, the research centre I am associated with. The good folks at the University of Pennsylvania Think Tank and Civil Societies Program recently came out with the 2011 edition of their authoritative report on the world's leading thinktanks. To my personal surprise considering that LSE IDEAS only started in 2008, we are now considered the world's fourth most influential university thinktank alongside our colleagues from the Public Policy Group. Launched at the United Nations no less, the UPenn report is not a trifling one. Here is the relevant table with the 30 top-ranked university thinktanks:

Those who come ahead of us are obvious given their advantages in being longer-established and better-funded. However, consider as well those we've bested that I would not have suspected to have surpassed at all. Being a blogosphere minnow myself, I was bemused to see that the Mercatus Center of Marginal Revolution and Koch Industries-funding of the Tea Party variety fame came in 8th. Or, consider that we bested the mega-famous Jeffrey Sachs' very own Earth Institute at Columbia. The same sort of surprise comes from outranking the likes of the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex, the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard, and the Center for the Study of Globalization at Yale. (On another note, I am chuffed by the emergence of so many influential think tanks from outside the West. There are more folks in developing countries who also can benefit from considering policy advice, right?)

Perhaps one of the sources of strength of LSE IDEAS is its unity in having a diversity of opinions. Whether you like libertarian thought or not, the Mercatus Center is certainly consistent in its advocacy and vantage point. For us, though, our co-directors don't even agree on such basic things as a power shift from the West to the East occurring in the world economy. The same holds true with our visiting fellows and their ideological perspectives. On one hand we've hosted Niall Ferguson who styles himself as a "punk Tory." On the other hand we've also had Martin Jacques of "When China Rules the World" fame--a former editor of Marxism Today and a columnist for The Guardian.

While the IPE Zone is for now an orbiting offshoot of LSE IDEAS, note that there too is an official LSE IDEAS blog (to which I contribute to sometimes in, er, more sedate fashion).

Recalling early last year, attempts to tar us with the Libyan involvement at LSE may have actually done us good by bringing attention to our unique work alike inviting Chinese foreign ministry officials to come and share with us "What China Wants" instead of embarking on the umpteenth rehash of "Why America is So Great and You Stupid Coloured People Should Fall In Line" and its corresponding whitebread echo chamber. While some pitiably misinformed tabloid linked the presence of many top British diplomats here to being "useful idiots" of Moammar, the Woolf Report found no links between us and the the previous Libyan leadership. Sorry, there are no Moammar outfits in our closet.

Ah, but enough of that. I must salute the powers-that-be at LSE IDEAS for I did not really appreciate the comprehensiveness of their vision. It has come a long way from its humble start as the Cold War Studies programme--understanding the collapse of the Soviet bloc is the key to understanding contemporary globalization, they kept telling me--to its current recognition as one of the world's finest academic thinktanks.

From left to right: your humble IPE blogger (in need of a haircut), Li Fan who is Deputy Director of the Department of Policy Planning at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Niall Ferguson who is Philippe Roman Chair for 2010-2011

I sometimes wonder if we here at the LSE have a monopoly on having the most intriguing speakers coming to campus to deliver a talk. Is there any place you'd rather be if you're at all interested in the social sciences? I certainly can't think of one as an embarrassment of riches always seems to occur, especially at the start of term.

Sometime last term, I wrote about a day that had both Paul Collier and Adam Posen deliver interesting talks that I unfortunately wasn't able to attend since there was a third I was more interested in. Well, this Tuesday, there's going to be Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and longtime critic of development orthodoxy Ha-Joon Chang coming to speak who I probably won't be able to see because there are other presentations I'm keener on. You see, there are another four events occurring that should hold interest to a general audience. Incredible.

Once more, London readers are invited to come along and listen to any of these presentations. Those who can't make it can hear the podcasts as we make them publicly available, too. I guess part of what makes LSE unique is its ability to draw so many interesting authorities discussing a myriad of topics. If you're thinking of a place to get an MA for a year, it's certainly an unparalleled draw. On Tuesday, let me count the ways:

(1) Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, needs no introduction. While Bill Gates has dedicated his life to good causes, the often-combative tech supremo is still keen on growing the software giant. Microsoft almost famously missed the Internet wagon due to Gates' reluctance to recognize its potential. Apparently, Ballmer & Microsoft are keen on not missing out on possibly the Next Big Thing--cloud computing. He's spoken about it at length before, and now it's his turn to address a British audience:

Seizing the Opportunity of the Cloud: the Next Wave of Business Growth
Department of Management public lecture

Date: Tuesday 5 October 2010
Time: 8.30-9.30am
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building
Speaker: Steve Ballmer

The pervasive nature of technology and the ever increasing pace of development are rapidly changing the way we work, live and play. These changes bring enormous opportunity for individuals, organisations and society. For more than three decades, Microsoft, and current CEO Steve Ballmer, have played a vital role in leading a technology industry that has transformed the world of business in dramatic fashion. In one of the opening public lectures of the LSE term, Ballmer will discuss what's next, how cloud computing is radically altering paradigms, and new business opportunities enabled by the cloud.

Steve Ballmer is Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft Corporation. He joined Microsoft in 1980 as the first business manager hired by Bill Gates. Since then, Ballmer's leadership and passion have become hallmarks of his tenure at the company. Ballmer and the company's business and technical leaders are focused on continuing Microsoft's innovation and leadership across each of the company's core businesses. Variously described as ebullient, focused, funny, passionate, sincere, hard-charging and dynamic, Ballmer has infused Microsoft with his own brand of energetic leadership, vision and spirit over the years.

(2) There' s also a promising looking engagement dealing with how Spain's third largest savings institution is dealing with Europe's trying times. Financial institutions are likely the focal point in whether the EU gets out of this episode alive, and among EU nations, Spain is definitely too big to fail. So, if the survival of Spain and, indeed, European Union interests you, do come along:

Some thoughts on the macroeconomic situation: the role of La Caixa
LSE Enterprise and the Catalan Observatory

Date: Tuesday 5 October 2010
Time: 11.30am-12.45pm
Venue: Thai Theatre, New Academic Building
Speaker: Juan Maria Nin

Juan Maria Nin will be discussing the financial crisis with reference to the Spanish economy.
Juan Maria Nin is President and CEO of La Caixa.

(3) For those interested in how former KGB have assumed positions of political-economic power in Russia and beyond, we also have an interesting talk for you courtesy of Andrei Soldatov who's followed the rise of the likes of Vladimir Putin:

The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia's Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB
LSE public lecture

Date: Tuesday 5 October 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House
Speaker: Andrei Soldatov
Chair: Dr Roy Allison

Andrei Soldatov – a journalist who has covered Russia's security services for more than a decade – penetrates the secret world of the FSB to illustrate how, abetted by their most famous alumnus Vladimir Putin, the security services were given unprecedented rein, and emerged a more shadowy and powerful force than the Soviet KGB.

Andrei Soldatov and his The New Nobility co-author Irina Borogan are-founders of Agentura.ru, a highly respected website covering the Russian security services. Soldatov and Borogan worked for Novaya Gazeta from January 2006 to November 2008

(4) Negotiation is a very interesting and important field of study. At the global level, trade agreements and peace pacts are forged. At the corporate level, deals are done and contracts must be negotiated, At the individual level, you and I need to haggle prices with vendors and hammer out salary details with employers. Stuart Diamond, one of the experts in this area, has a new book he's introducing that he will talk about:

Getting More
Department of Management public lecture

Date: Tuesday 5 October 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building
Speaker: Professor Stuart Diamond

You're always negotiating. Whether making a business deal, talking to friends or even driving a car, negotiation is going on. And most of us are terrible at it. Experts tell us to negotiate as if we live in a rational world. But people can be angry, fearful and irrational. To achieve your goals you have to be able to deal with the unpredictable.

Negotiation expert Stuart Diamond reveals the real secrets behind getting more in any negotiation - whatever 'more' means to you - in his new book Getting More|, published on the 7th October by Portfolio Penguin, and joins us at LSE to offer accessible, jargon-free and innovative insights into negotiation.

Stuart Diamond is Practice Professor of Legal Studies and Adjunct Professor of Law at Wharton. He has taught and advised on negotiation to corporate and government leaders in more than 40 countries. He teaches negotiation and entrepreneurship at Wharton Business School, where he runs the most popular course. Diamond is President of Global Strategy Group which advises companies and governments on negotiating, and also CEO of Four Star Airlines. He has consulted extensively for the United Nations, and worked as a journalist for the New York Times.

(5) Development students are undoubtedly familiar with Ha-Joon Chang who believes globalization is rigged in favour of developed countries via Friedrich List's metaphor of "kicking away the ladder." (More on him in a recent post.) Not only did the likes of the US freely violate intellectual property of European powers when it was in its infancy, but it also made frequent use of subsidies and tariffs to promote activity earlier on. However, today's international regimes prohibit such practices, allegedly disfavouring the rest of us latecomers. Chang is here to promote his new book 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism:

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
Department of International Development public lecture

Date: Tuesday 5 October 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building
Speaker: Professor Ha-Joon Chang
Chair: Professor Robert Wade

We may like or dislike capitalism, but surely we all know how it works. Right? Wrong. Today, most arguments about capitalism are dominated by free-market ideology and unfounded assumptions that parade as 'facts'. This lecture in which Ha-Joon Chang will talk about his new book 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism| tells the story of capitalism as it is and shows how capitalism as we know it can be, and should be, made better.

Ha-Joon Chang is a professor in the faculty of politics and economics at Cambridge University where he has taught since 1990. In addition to numerous articles in journals and edited volumes, he has published seven authored books (three of them co-authored) and eight edited books (six of them co-edited). His most recent books include Bad Samaritans: Rich Nations, Poor Policies and the Threat to the Developing World (2007), Kicking Away the Ladder - Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (2002), which won the 2003 Myrdal Prize, Restructuring Korea Inc. (with Jang-Sup Shin, 2003), Globalization, Economic Development and The Role of the State (2003), and Reclaiming Development - An Alternative Economic Policy Manual (with Ilene Grabel, 2004). His writings have been translated into 13 languages.

Ha-Joon Chang has worked as a consultant for many international organisations, including various UN agencies such as UNDP (United Nations Development Program) and UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and a number of governments on development policies. He was awarded the 2005 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.

(6) And lastly we at LSE IDEAS are hosting Philip S. Golub, the French journalist who's (surprise!) not keen on American bossiness post-Cold War:

Power Profit and Prestige: A History of American Expansionism
5 October 2010, 6.30pm, COL.B212

Power, Profit and Prestige applies incisive historical and sociological analysis to make sense of the United States' post-Cold War imperial behaviour.

Philip Golub argues that an embedded culture of force and expansion has shaped American foreign policy. He will show how these deeply rooted assumptions about American primacy, in a world where America is no longer able to set the global agenda, may lead the US empire into a crisis of its own making.
--------------------------

It's a mind-boggling line-up of interesting events, I'm sure you'll agree. I'd go to all of them if I could but I'm afraid I can't separate myself into four!

Dear readers, in my constant quest to provide you with the best possible service, please note that the International Political Economy Zone is now available on Amazon Kindle. A few years back, Twitter asked me to join and I thought, "Why the !&£$ would people want to follow 40-letter snippets from other folks?" That shows you how much I knew way back when. In any event, I still don't follow tweets even if they've effectively surpassed blogs as sources of folks linking here, rendering Technorati and similar sites practically obsolete.

However, I have not been able to pass up the opportunity to include this blog on Amazon. (BTW, if you are a user of databases like LexisNexis and Proquest, this blog's content is already accessible there.) I remember Amazon's financial statements being a spreadsheet case study in an accounting course I took during my MBA years. Back then, my inclination was, "Why does the prof bother with this e-tailer when they're all just going under in a few years?" While I appreciated buying stuff for less than at bricks-and-mortar stores, I was understandably cautious about Amazon turning a profit eventually. Remember, this was way back in 2000 when the Super Bowl was filled with ads from various e-commerce startups that bit the dust shortly thereafter in the absence of a real business model other than adding "e-" to their name. But, as we all know, Amazon has survived and thrived.

So, mea culpa to Amazon (a decade late) and may it live long and prosper. Anyone with the good sense to offer this blog to Kindle readers is in my good books. This underdog wants to run with the big dogs, and I now have some credentials to show I'm doing so! I don't write a little girlie man blog here. Even now, I follow the principle of kaizen--constant improvement.

Dear readers, I mentioned earlier that I was invited to present at a conference on multiculturalism run in conjunction with UNESCO Iran. And so I'll be leaving shortly and should be back sometime during the middle of next week. Being an inherent believer in peace, love, and understanding, I am off to learn more about how cross-cultural communication can function better in our stressed-out world.

At the same time, I'll be presenting on how the "ASEAN Way" which is the diplomatic process used by Southeast Asian countries might serve as a template for fruitful cross-cultural collaboration--especially in the economic sphere. Here is the abstract of my talk if you're interested.
---------------------------------------

The ‘ASEAN Way’ as a Paradigm for Intercultural Dialogue

Since its formation in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has grown in stature to become the preeminent regional organization in East Asia. At the beginning, its focus was on fostering peace in a region with a tumultuous past. Its success in this respect has been reflected by the lack of major conflicts among founding members Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei (1984), Vietnam (1995), Laos and Myanmar (1997), and Cambodia (1999) have, since joining ASEAN, also contributed to securing peace in the region. This situation has set the stage for ASEAN to work towards the establishment of a single market by 2015.

What makes ASEAN unique among other regional integration projects is the cultural and political diversity of its membership. Those of Europe (European Union) and North America (Nafta) have predominantly Christian democracies; South America (Mercosur) Roman Catholic democracies of Latin lineage; the Caribbean (Caribbean Community) postcolonial Christian democracies; and the Middle East (Gulf Cooperation Council) Islamic monarchies. By contrast, ASEAN has a plurality of religions—Buddhism, Catholicism, and Islam; and political systems—fledgling democracies, Communist republics, a monarchy, and a military junta.

Despite the challenges of accommodating cultural and political diversity, however, ASEAN has made notable strides in setting foundations for durable economic, socio-economic and security mechanisms in Southeast Asia. Over the years, ASEAN has developed a mode of diplomatic conduct now known as the ‘ASEAN Way’. Given the plenitude of vexing global governance questions we face that require more political-economic cooperation among countries with diverse cultures and polities—the environment, the world economy, and so forth—the ‘ASEAN Way’ holds strong suggestions on how fruitful interfaith dialogue and cross-cultural communication can take place. Drawing from the ASEAN experience, this paper explains how unity in diversity may become more of a reality worldwide by distilling the virtues of the ‘ASEAN Way’.
---------------------------------------

Until then, best regards to all!

I thought those who work in fields at the intersection of international economic law and global governance would find this event interesting. Our friends over at the University of Minnesota Law School sent along a notice of their upcoming symposium. By all means, get in touch with them if the subject matter is of interest...
-------------------------------------------

The International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law wishes to solicit paper and panel submissions in connection with its Biennial Conference at the University of Minnesota from November 18-20, 2010. The conference is a wonderful opportunity to collaborate with a broad cross-section of international economic law specialists and hear from prominent keynote speakers including Professor Jose Alvarez at NYU and WTO Appellate Body member Ricardo Ramirez (Mexico).

Under the theme of International Economic Law in a Time of Change: Reassessing Legal Theory, Doctrine, Methodology and Policy Prescriptions, the Interest Group has issued the following call for papers:

“The start of the second decade of the twenty-first century is witnessing a confluence of events affecting international economic law that calls for re-evaluation. The international context has radically changed. Most analysts contend that we are shifting toward a multi-polar world in light of economic transformations in China, India, Brazil, and other developing and transitional countries, coupled with economic stagnation in the United States and Europe which are beset by a financial crisis and embroiled in foreign wars and security concerns. These developments have arguably complicated international economic governance, yet other factors–such as the current financial crisis–press consideration of new forms of international economic governance, such as the G-20. Global economic interdependence, exemplified by global production and supply chains, calls for sustained attention to international economic law and institutions.

With this backdrop, the November conference will organize sessions that address the full range of international and transnational economic law. We encourage scholars to submit papers or panel proposals related to trade, investment, international financial regulation, transnational private law, and development law, as well as their intersection with social regulation such as over global warming, labor rights and consumer safety. This call for papers welcomes submissions that provide new analytic frameworks, reassess legal theory, evaluate developments in legal doctrine, engage in empirical analysis of the way international economic law operates, and provide guidance for policymakers, regulators and adjudicators in this time of international economic change.”

It's somewhat hard to believe but this blog turns three today. At the start, I was just a PhD student at the University of Birmingham who sought to add course materials online for my students. Despite some lulls, I've pretty much stuck with the programme. For something with such modest beginnings, I was rather astounded that this blog has managed to do well for itself in a world crowded with economics and political science sites. But, don't take my word for it. Perhaps because it is my third year of blogging here, my love/hate relationship with the blog directory Technorati is temporarily on the upswing: it currently ranks me #3,902 out of 1,181,017 blogs. As I am sure this won't last given the funky and undisclosed way Technorati determines these authority figures (and thus reverts to being Techno-ratty to yours truly), I figured I'd PrtSc the moment for posterity. I'll be able to tell my grandchildren, "Y'now, kids, grandpa was a pretty dab hand at blogging back in the day..."[I can hear it now: "grandpa, what is 'blaggin'?"]

It's also fairly surprising to me that I've managed to become the second-highest ranking Google search result after the Wikipedia entry for "international political economy" while still a PhD student. Even now, this holds. It's due either to (1) some people actually liking my stuff; (2) IPE being so little known that a minnow like yours truly can make it; or (3) bigger names not bothering to blog. While I like to think that the first factor is at play here, I highly suspect it's the second and third that deserve mention. I recently commiserated with our friends at IPE@UNC over the sad state of IPE awareness in the blogosphere, and I am not one to disagree that the public's knowledge of IPE is minimal to negligible. Such, of course, is a shame since IPE possesses far more analytical tools to understand today's global governance problems than economics--political economy's sterilized offspring. Revisit my first two posts [1, 2] on this point that are as valid--if not more valid--today than they were in those pre-global financial crisis times.

At any rate, I enjoin all comers to blog about IPE so together we can raise public awareness of the discipline in the blogosphere and beyond. And, of course, it's good if others can keep me on my toes--like I do to others who aren't quick enough on theirs. Make no mistake: blogging is an ephemeral medium and I don't want to be caught sleeping on the blog. I firmly believe that competition improves the breed.

Finally, I wish to thank all my visitors, RSS feed readers, fellow bloggers, and other supporters in the wider digital realm. It's a cliche but I wouldn't have gotten here without your continued support over the years. Don't worry; there's always more in store as I can only post so much that comes to mind on a daily basis.

I have been remiss in not mentioning this before: I must once again voice my amazement at the depth of talent my current institution attracts. A few days ago, I brought you news of the just-launched Global Policy journal here at the LSE featuring a virtual who's who of mostly centre-left academics. In the spirit of academic openness, remember that that fine academic publication is open to all for now. Today, though, I bring more good news that should be suitable to an even wider audience. Whenever American academics cross the pond, the natural place to present their work is the United Kingdom for linguistic reasons. And, when it comes to presenting social science research in particular, it often happens in the capital. Even more specifically, A-list academics inevitably show up at the LSE.

But don't take my word for it. European, American, and (sometimes) Asian academics and policymakers, whatever their political orientation, do make their way here. Indeed, I am often astounded by the sheer number of renowned speakers who come to this University of London institution. Best of all, you too can glimpse what's going here by way of podcasts and, oftentimes, video clips as well. In the past few months, for example, we've hosted the likes of (DfID honcho) Douglas Alexander, Joseph Stiglitz, Jonathon Porritt, Vince Cable, John Bercow, Dambisa Moyo, Amartya Sen, Ed Miliband, Saskia Sassen, Martin Jacques, George Soros, Chris Patten, Will Hutton, (former Spanism PM) Jose Maria Aznar, Steves Dubner and Levitt (of Freakonomics fame), John Kay, (DHS Secretary) Janet Napolitano, Noam Chomsky, (Ecuadorean PM) Rafael Correa , Andrew Gamble, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (rat choice notable), (World Bank head of Research) Justin Yifu Lin , Robert Skidelsky, Tim Harford, RK Pachauri, Esther Duflo...the list goes on and on.

I'd be lying if I said I've attended even a quarter of these events as those who come a-calling are truly spectacular in quality and quantity--and I have not even bothered mentioning our own experts like Lord Stern and David Held.

Aside from the big name social scientists and politicians, however, I have also enjoyed commentary from those on the outside looking in on how they perceive the social sciences to be like, especially after the credit crisis rolled around. For instance, I attended the talk of Whitbread Book Award winner John Lanchester--Reality 1, Economics 0--who made several cogent points about how once-in-a-jillion lifetime events as predicted by those dabbling with fancy risk management models seem to have convulsed at the same time during the credit crunch. Instead of (rightly) further pillorying economics, though, he made a call for better financial awareness among the civilian population a rallying cry to ensure that future crisis-fuelled boom and busts are kept in check by an informed citizenry. Elsewhere, Jaron Lanier makes the argument that the Internet has not really empowered us but has reduced us to gadgets--mere simulacra of our offline selves made to fit prepackaged corporate conceptions of "online presence." Though I am more optimistic than Lanier, he does make some good points.

Whatever your interests, I am sure that there will be something for you as the speakers touch upon nearly every topic and take nearly every viewpoint imaginable. If you're in London or the UK, all events are free to attend although the more popular ones require a ticket for entry. The main events site is here; a catalogue of current events is also online. Meanwhile, you can check the Twitter feed as well for upcoming events.

It's all fascinating, and I'd be absolutely gobsmacked if there's another institution that puts more effort into making such a wealth of knowledge free of charge to anyone with an Internet connection. It guarantees that I will take a bit of Houghton Street with me when the time comes to move on. Enjoy!

Dear readers, I almost forgot to mention this one: If you're at all interested in pursuing a PhD at the LSE, now is your chance to do so provided that your area of interest is Southeast Asia. This region (my region) has always been an important one for security concerns--think of the Vietnam War and the importance of the Malacca Straits to international shipping trade. With the imminent arrival of the ASEAN single market in 2015, though, it's bound to become more important in the economic realm. Although I myself am working on issues of economic integration, there are any number of other topics of interest you may have for your dissertation that can be considered here. Among others that come to mind are the following, though you may have some other ideas as well:

• Regional integration and its challenges, both in terms of security and economic growth;
• The growth of participatory democracy in Southeast Asia and its links to transnational cooperation and freedom of information;
• Diplomacy and international affairs connected to issues of conservation and climate change;
• Territorial issues and disputes, and their transnational dimensions, including dimensions outside the region itself;
• Limited sovereignty and norms for international intervention - atrocities, human rights violations and state breakdown;
• Handling the threat of international terror.

Without further ado, here is the advert:
----------------------------------------

LSE IDEAS Southeast Asia International Affairs PhD studentships

For 2010 entry, LSE IDEAS is offering two full scholarships for PhD students in the field of politics, security and international affairs in Southeast Asia. The scholarships cover all fees and an annual stipend for two years. Scholarships will be awarded on academic merit and research potential.

Application process

There is no separate application form for these awards. However, if you wish to be considered for an award, you must hold an offer for a place at LSE by 12 June, 2010.

As we only receive fully completed applications into the departments, you should be thinking of applying in good time for this (to allow for collation of references, etc. which cause delay). Therefore the deadline for these applications is 1 May, 2010

The award will be made solely on outstanding academic merit and research potential with annual renewal subject to satisfactory academic performance at the School. This relates not only to your past academic record, but also to an assessment of your chosen topic and to your likely aptitude to complete a PhD. The recipients will be expected to carry out a small amount of administrative assistance at IDEAS as part of the tenure of the scholarship.

We aim to notify the successful applicants by 30 June 2010.
Enquiries about these awards should be directed to Dr Svetozar Rajak in LSE IDEAS, s.rajak@lse.ac.uk
----------------------------------------

Given how expensive London can be--believe me, I am learning about it, having all expenses paid for two years is a really sweet deal. Note that LSE IDEAS won't be paying for the third year, however. Still, an LSE PhD is pretty much as good as it gets as far as UK social science degrees are concerned.

If you're thinking of doing an IR, IPE or history PhD focussed on Southeast Asia, applying to this is a no-brainer, IMHO. Heck, you may even meet up with some weirdo IPE bloggers ;-)

Dear friends, another year is almost done. However, I wish to thank all of you for your continued patronage of the IPE Zone as it's still a going enterprise that will soon celebrate its third year of existence. I never imagined that it would become Google's highest-ranked website for the search term "international political economy" after the Wikipedia entries (at least in my parts of the world). Originally, my ambition was a more modest ones of putting extra course material online for my students. However, it's kept going even after I completed my PhD at the University of Birmingham and headed to the London School of Economics and Political Science given--you guessed it--your continued patronage.

Dear readers, my apologies for the light posting these past few days. It is with some regret that I must disclose inadvertently renting a place without an Internet connection. Although I am working to fix this, expect lighter commentary until I am wired once more. The thing is that I don't want to be tied to a long broadband contract given my present circumstances. As you probably surmise by now, there's been a miscommunication between me and the landord. To paraphrase this turn of events -

Dear readers, you may be glad to know that I've begun a new appointment at the London School of Economics after completing my PhD from the University of Birmingham. (Hence the sporadic posting the last few days.) I foreshadowed this eventuality when I wrote about visiting London for a job interview [1, 2]. As someone who's written in some detail about Southeast Asia, you shouldn't be surprised that I will be working on matters concerning ASEAN economic integration. As the Asia watchers among you know, ASEAN is scheduled to establish a single market by 2015. Long regarded as a "talk shop," it's an exciting time for a once-dormant grouping in economic terms.

ASEAN economic integration also attracts attention for the political-economic heterogeneity of the countries involved in the process. Whereas European Community countries generally share a history of democratic institutions and Christianity, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) ones British or French colonial histories, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) ones an Arabic lineage, the same cannot be said for ASEAN. You have Asia's only predominantly Catholic country (the Philippines), Islamic ones (Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei), and the other, mostly Buddhist countries. We have military juntas (Myanmar), Communist republics (Vietnam and Laos), fledgling democracies, and monarchies. All this mixed together with states at various stages of development--Singapore leads the pack and rivals Western countries in most indicators--and you have a very interesting project of gelling all these disparate interests.

I of course do not envision ASEAN integration being a mini-EU. That's out of the question given the political contingencies of the association's core principle of "non-intervention in the internal affairs" of other countries. Hillary Clinton suggesting that Myanmar be booted out of ASEAN is certainly viewed as a Yankee intrusion and I think it's she who's more likely to be booted out of Southeast Asia than anyone else. Moreover, a regional currency is certainly not in the cards until ASEAN+3 (including China, Japan, and South Korea) come into the mix. Certainly, there is much research fodder here in goods and services trade as well as investment. One of the things which certainly merits study is how the proliferation of bilateral trade deals in the region hasn't resulted in any substantial increase in the share of intraregional trade. Given the slowdown of traditional export markets in the West, this is no small beer.

Otherwise, I'm still adjusting to my new surroundings. The LSE itself needs no introduction from me. Wikipedia introduces it as the finest institution for studying the social sciences, and it regularly tops the league tables for these disciplines. They say that politics is showbiz for ugly people; perhaps academics is showbiz for brainy people (or those who would like to see themselves as such). Either way, there is no bigger stage than London--the world's capital IMHO despite all the subprime hullabaloo--and the LSE. I just hope that I can leverage my new appointment for greater things in the future.

Once more, I am something of the odd person out in my new post as most of the folks at LSE IDEAS are International Relations people while I am an IPE guy, obviously. At Birmingham, I was, despite my protestations, usually regarded as the token "neoliberal" guy among those into Marxist and neo-Gramscian theory who could debate endlessly about what really happened at the umpteenth Workingmans' International. Seriously, though, it's always good to be among those who do not share your worldview who can open you up to different perspectives. Oftentimes in academia, I've found that those who think most like you are not usually those must willing to help you out.

Before I end, a word of caution: I've found blogging to a be an absolute waste of time in finding a job in academia. This despite the IPE Zone getting decent attention for a blog in a disciple few are admittedly aware of. Either I've written something that's rubbed someone the wrong way--I don't follow simple categorizations--or blogging still doesn't carry much weight in academic circles. Who knows; it may be both. Nevertheless, I will continue to write at the IPE Zone to try and bring the discipline to a wider audience, my warped perspectives and all. I don't really understand my motivation sometimes as it neither earns me money or gets me work. However, the show must go on, albeit from fancier digs!

Regardless of what happens, my best to everyone and thank you for your continued patronage after all these years.

Longtime readers probably know by now that I freshen the blog layout once in a while. At least for me, blogging gets somewhat boring when you look at the same interface day in and day out. Your truly maintaining an ugly blog? Never! Accordingly, here are some changes I've made:

1. While doing an image search, I found this absolutely gorgeous rendition of a hulking container ship. Named after the US Navy's former naval base in the Philippines, Subic, the vessel pictured here is almost 1200 feet long and carries a mind-boggling 12,800 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs). You see, after the Yanks left, the famous Korean shipbuilder Hanjin established a shipyard there. This seafaring leviathan is one of its proud manufactures. (It is called a "post-Panamax" vessel in that it will only be able to traverse the Panama Canal after the canal's widening is completed.) I sure hope its scheduled delivery date next year isn't delayed by global slowdown for I would love to see this sea monster in the flesh. The sheer size of the thing has made cropping the image a challenge for me. As you can see above, I have elected to crop the image from the deck down. Newbies who glance upon it will probably wonder what it is, but let it be our inside joke :-)

2. I kept seeing this thingy called "Followers" on my Blogger account's start page. I didn't know what it was until very recently. It turns out various others on Blogger can nominate themselves as followers or readers of your blog. Out of politeness, I have included the IPE Zone's fellow Blogger users who have signed up, unbeknownst to me. Accordingly, there is a new widget on the blog's left column entitled "In the Zone" for those who are keen (or at least pretend to be) on my ruminations.

3. I felt that the blog subtitle deserved a change. In my initial effort, it read "Tales of Power, Money, and Occasional Violence". While this subtitle was certainly descriptive of the blog's subject matter, it sounded a bit, well, mundane. So, the next subtitle which you probably still recall went, "Sunspots, Walrasian Auctioneers & Impartial Spectators". I hope you caught these references, but if not...

Sunspots refers to the theory of William Stanley Jevons (one of acknowledged progenitors of the marginal revolution) that sunspots affect the business cycle by causing changes in agricultural output. Suffice to say, this was never conclusively demonstrated. However, sunspots are still invoked when extrinsic random variables instead of economic fundamentals are said to influence market outcomes. More than a century before Nicholas Nassim Taleb's schtick, you had Jevons.

Walrasian auctioneers refers to Jevons' fellow marginal revolutionist Leon Walras' idea of how markets cleared. Just as a thorny plot situation in Greek drama is resolved by bringing out a deus ex machina (God from the machine), so is the thorny plot behind "market clearing" resolved by a fictive device. Here, an auctioneer aggregates supply and demand across various economic agents to effortlessly find the clearing price. In practice, of course, this almost never happens as required conditions of perfect information and perfect competition are very rare. Nevertheless, your basic supply and demand curves are constructed with the notion of a Walrasian auctioneer firmly ensconced.

Impartial spectators refers to Adam Smith's notion in The Theory of Moral Sentiments similar to one's conscience or Freud's idea of the superego:

When I endeavour to examine my own conduct, when I endeavour to pass sentence upon it, either to approve or condemn it, it is evident that, in all such cases, I divide myself, as it were into two persons; and that I, the examiner and judge, represent a different character from that other I, the person whose conduct is examined into and judged of. The first is the spectator, whose sentiments with regard to my own conduct I endeavour to enter into, by placing myself in his situation, and by considering how it would appear to me, when seen from that particular point of view. The second is the agent, the person who I properly call myself, and of whose conduct, under the character of a spectator, I was endeavouring to form some opinion. The first is the judge; the second the person judged of. But that the judge should, in every respect, be the same with the person judged of, is as impossible that the cause should, in every respect, be the same with the effect.

Even now, orthodox economists like William Easterly have difficulty grasping the connection between political economy and its denuded progeny, economics--though Amartya Sen knows better. In several ways, IPE is more of a throwback to political economy than an offshoot of economics (which it often finds fault with).

I really loved that subtitle, but it has to go as new and casual visitors probably found it non-intuitive. Not all readers are as stuffy about political economy as I am. While IPE obviously builds on political economy, discussing the former can often be done without extensive knowledge of the latter. And so we have a new subtitle, "Attitudes of elegant despair on world economy". I believe that this statement accurately describes the blog content like the first subtitle while, at the same time, maintaining the elegance of the latter. See what you make of it!

Dear readers, I have been remiss in providing this blogging staple of pointing out fine new blogs that address similar fare to what you get here at the IPE Zone. Let me now correct this deficiency.

By all means, make a visit to the Global Economic Governance blog run by, well, the Global Economic Governance program at Oxford. Among the blogs mentioned here, it is the closest analog to yours truly's site. Although posting there is not very heavy, each topic receives thoughtful, in-depth coverage from acknowledged experts such as IPE godfather Robert Keohane talking about the possibilities for a global cap-and-trade climate change regime.

The credit crisis watchers among you will have probably seen the Baseline Scenario, a blog run by the insightful James Kwak and former IMF Chief Economist Simon Johnson. There is probably no more comprehensive source for up-to-the-minute commentary on the unfolding crisis. If you're thinking that Johnson and Co. are just rehashing the IMF line, note that Kwak has already found virtue in Joseph Stiglitz's proposals for dealing with the crisis. Stiglitz, of course, is the guy who unloaded on the IMF bigtime not so long ago in his book Globalization and Its Discontents. I particularly like the feature "Financial Crisis for Beginners" which should get anyone up to speed on the subject matter in no time.

Probably the heavyweight here is news of famous development aid skeptic William Easterly entering the blogosphere via Aid Watch. I am a bit disappointed to note that Easterly's schtick is becoming very repetitive as he starts by dumping on his former employer the World Bank, the Millennium Development Goals, and environmental concerns. I look forward to probing the libertarian-leaning Easterly on the latter point as I have received much flak for saying he has a Cato-esque attitude of "global warming...what global warming?"

And speaking of the World Bank, the world's most prominent aid institution has two more blogs, can you believe. The first has a regional focus, East Asia & Pacific. Their specialty is in case studies of World Bank operations in the region such as shrimp farming in Indonesia's restive Aceh region as well as fair trade cashews and ethical coffee cultivation elsewhere in Indonesia. Really, Easterly ought to go visit this fine blog. Next, it is a pleasure to note that probably the world's foremost expert on migration and remittances, Dilip Ratha, has put up a blog dedicated to the subject matter in People Move. Ratha and his team cover migration in fine detail.

All these blogs are definitely worth your while. Plus, I am sure that I have missed notable new blogs on the scene. If you have any more suggestions for the blogroll--as heroically stretched as it already is--just get in touch.

I was kind of amazed that using the search term "international political economy" in Google resulted in the IPE Zone being the second thing listed after the Wikipedia entry. Although results may vary depending on the region, I gather that the blog shouldn't be ranked outside the top 3. Outdo Wikipedia? Forget it; I have better things to do.

Accordingly, I must thank regular blog readers for their continued patronage in making the IPE Zone a noteworthy Internet destination. At the beginning, I only had the humble intention of placing additional course content for my students at the University of Birmingham, or "Brum" as we affectionately call our beloved town. That we now attract readers from all parts of the world is a blessing. Unfortunately, they don't include those from China as the Great Firewall of China prevents Blogger sites from polluting the minds of the Chinese people with subversive bourgeois nonsense.

Despite my occasionally OTT perspectives and rants--an underopinionated blogger is an oxymoron IMHO--I hope that I have been a serviceable ambassador for the field of study known as international political economy. While it is still in its infancy, it is growing at a healthy clip. Like many other disciplines, IPE strives to escape the long shadow of economic imperialism, with all due respect to our economics blogging colleagues. Yet, novelty in approaching contemporary issues concerning the world economy should not degenerate into the pitfalls of Freakonomics-style novelty for novelty's sake. There are many current events with surprising roots, from a rocket scientist launching China's one child policy (and thus its demographic imbalances) to the testosterone-driven ruination of Iceland. Integrating these into the larger scheme of things requires more than just the economist's toolkit. Like the label says, IPE is multidisciplinary.

Blogging is a process of discovery, and while I cannot devote too many resources here, I hope the IPE Zone continues to be a resource for keeping tabs on the latest developments in global governance and related topics. Together, let us plot our escape from the clutches of subprime globalization.

For some reason I can't explain, the formatting of my blog has become funky ever since I switched over to Firefox 3. The new browser version is causing me much agony with Blogger. Hopefully, I can get this issue sussed out and service will soon return to normal. Thanks!

I have two things here that may interest many, ranging from those who are semi-curious about IPE to the hardcore IPE junkies. Professor Benjamin Cohen over at UC-Santa Barbara has just released a new book entitled International Political Economy: An Intellectual History from the Princeton University Press This book traces the roots of the rapidly growing field, including the pioneering work of authors such as Robert Cox, Robert Gilpin, Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, Charles Kindleberger, Stephen Krasner, and Susan Strange. It tracks the development of the IPE field from the foundations set by these renowned authors to the present time. You can read excerpts from the book's introduction online as well. Of course, I highly recommend the What is IPE? introduction that I feature in a tab at the top right corner of the blog if you'd like a general overview of the subject as opposed to a history of the field like what Cohen offers.

Next, there is an upcoming event down the road at the University of Warwick featuring Professor Cohen going mano-a-mano with his British interlocutors. There is a longstanding debate about the differences between American- and British-style IPE that cleaves into objective-subjective, etic-emic, quantitative-qualitative, and nomothetic-ideographic dimensions. Cohen raised the issue of a transatlantic divide in an issue of the Review of International Political Economy that subsequently ruffled some feathers in the British IPE community. Richard Higgott and Matthew Watson at Warwick took umbrage, as did John Ravenhill at Australia National University. To these criticisms Cohen made a rejoinder. Round 2 of this transatlantic showdown get underway on May 12 at Warwick. If this sort of intellectual battle royale is your sort of thing, come along as this is an open event. Details follow:

The Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick announces a public debate on the future of IPE, involving Professor Benjamin Cohen of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who will be talking about and promoting his new book, International Political Economy: An Intellectual History (Princeton University Press, 2008). The event originates in the publication in the Review of International Political Economy of Professor Cohen's recent article on the Transatlantic Divide in IPE. It will take the form of a roundtable, to be chaired by Mark Blyth of Johns Hopkins University and one of the current editors of RIPE, and in addition to Professor Cohen it will also involve Richard Higgott and Matthew Watson from the University of Warwick, who have published a response in RIPE to Professor Cohen's original piece.

There is no entrance charge for attending the debate, so this message constitutes an open invitation for all to attend. It will take place on Monday 12th May between 4.00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. in Lecture Theatre MS.03 in the Zeeman (Maths) Building. The location of this building can be found on the University of Warwick campus map - http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/visiting/maps/central/ - and it is building number 35 in zone F4. Information about how to get to the University of Warwick is also included in links from that web page. The University Bookshop, in collaboration with Princeton University Press, will create a stall in the lecture theatre in order to sell copies of Professor Cohen's new book throughout the afternoon.

We look forward to seeing as many people as possible at the event.