Political economy as a secondary field

[Zahar Berkut]

Please help settle a debate:

 

Let's say that an applicant to PhD programs were to apply with IR or comparative as her main subfield, but said applicant has an interest in doing some coursework in political economy (comparative or international, probably with an institutionalist bent) and incorporating it into her scholarship, up to and including a second or third field in political economy if the department formally offers it. Methodologically, she intends to use advanced statistical techniques, and she is unsure about the extent to which she will learn/employ formal theory.

 

How much of a minimum background would that candidate need to have to credibly argue for this interest in CPE or IPE in a personal statement? Economics courses, mathematics/statistics, familiarity with formal theory, etc.? How amenable are departments to training candidates on the lower end of that minimum threshold, bearing in mind this is not their primary interest (meaning the burden to be well-versed ought to be lower than someone intending to work primarily in CPE or IPE)? And if this threshold, or expectations thereof, varies by department, could you point to the extreme and median expectations?

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

I would say having a decent footing in Economics, and Average to above average Statistical skills may be enough.

I have not started, but I have been told that a BS in Econ (i have that) pretty much covers the prep needed.

Now can you answer me a question. What is the difference between CPE and IPE? What questions would each answer (a basic question is fine). I cannot find a clear cut answer to this question

[eponine997]

If you have a primary field of interest and can make a strong case for yourself for that primary field, you should be fine.  There are lots of people who shift their interests once they start grad school.  They expect you to have clearly defined research interests when applying to a PhD program, they don't expect you to be an expert in the field (you attend a PhD program to BECOME an expert in the field, not because you are one already).  

If the school requires you to express interest in a secondary field, then do so, explain how that interest came about and what questions puzzle you within that field and explain what preparation you do have, even if it is only familiarity with relevant literature that led you to explore questions X, Y and Z.  

Expressing this interest can also be helpful if you are trying to convey "fit" with the school (ex: "the presence of Prof. A, Prof. B, who study this is part of the reason your program applies to me because of my closely related interest in questions pertaining to this" (though obviously don't say it like that)).  But your statement of purpose is not a binding contract or plan of study, they won't throw you out once you get there because you said you wanted to study political behavior in your SoP and after your first term you decide to focus on methodology (or whatever).  

To answer your question, you need enough training/background to be able to convey a clear, coherent research interest in the topic (however much that is, however you acquire it).  It sounds like you are looking at next cycle so you have time, talk to your current profs or anyone studying relevant questions to your interest in CPE/IPE and ask what the key literature someone interested in this field should be familiar with - then talk about it in your SoP in terms of how it shaped your research interests and the questions you want to further explore.  

[eponine997]

Now can you answer me a question. What is the difference between CPE and IPE? What questions would each answer (a basic question is fine). I cannot find a clear cut answer to this question

CPE would usually be something like cross-national (or sometimes subnational) comparison of units that don't interact, for example, comparing the social welfare systems of Canada and New Zealand, or the effect of state income tax between Maryland and Ohio.  They have no effect on one another but can be individually measured and compared.  IPE would involve some sort of international actor (IMF, WB) or international interaction between countries (trade, FDI, labor migration, etc.) and its effects on whatever (which can be done by comparison of two or more countries/sets of countries, comparing one country to itself over time, process tracing, etc).  Does that make sense?  Not a great distinction, if someone else can come up with a better one, feel free, but I don't necessarily think there is an obvious textbook definition because there is some significant overlap.  

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

CPE would usually be something like cross-national (or sometimes subnational) comparison of units that don't interact, for example, comparing the social welfare systems of Canada and New Zealand, or the effect of state income tax between Maryland and Ohio.  They have no effect on one another but can be individually measured and compared.  IPE would involve some sort of international actor (IMF, WB) or international interaction between countries (trade, FDI, labor migration, etc.) and its effects on whatever (which can be done by comparison of two or more countries/sets of countries, comparing one country to itself over time, process tracing, etc).  Does that make sense?  Not a great distinction, if someone else can come up with a better one, feel free, but I don't necessarily think there is an obvious textbook definition because there is some significant overlap.  

thank you!!! I am trying to decide between doing CPE and IPE

[eponine997]

thank you!!! I am trying to decide between doing CPE and IPE

Glad that helped, but honestly, there is NO NEED to decide right now.  Go in to your introductory grad coursework with an open mind, you'll be surprised how your interests can take shape in unexpected ways.  I started my MA program convinced I would have an area-focus and use qualitative methods, and somehow instead became highly interested in quantitative and experimental methods (no one in my department does this work so its not like they persuaded me so much as they failed to talk me out of it).  They didn't admit you because you have it all figured out (so they don't expect you to have it all figured out when you get there), they admitted you because they think you're capable of figuring out something awesome once you've had some more training.  In those first couple years of coursework you get to explore, that is part of the fun.  

[Zahar Berkut]

Thank you all for the responses. Assuming that there's no stipulation I should discuss second or third fields, would you only recommend a paragraph in the personal statement to deal with these peripheral interests?

[eponine997]

Thank you all for the responses. Assuming that there's no stipulation I should discuss second or third fields, would you only recommend a paragraph in the personal statement to deal with these peripheral interests?

There is no hard or fast rule on this.  It really depends.  My suggestion is you write a statement of purpose saying everything you would say if you had an unlimited word count.  Then have someone (ideally multiple someones) go through and help you eliminate/change the weaker and unnecessary parts.  You don't want to spend a full paragraph on something you can't articulate well while limiting your words on your primary interest.  Similarly you don't want to ramble on about your primary interest if it can be explained more concisely.  

 

Its also not a bad plan to explain how your interests (primary and peripheral) relate if possible for the sake of appearing focused rather than having scattered interest.  You don't want to say, "my primary interest is civil wars in Africa but I'm also interested in elections in the United States," instead, tying the two together, you could say "readings in my American politics class on how experimental methods help explain the impact of something or other on the outcomes of congressional elections in the U.S. led me to wonder how this methodology could be applied elsewhere in the field, particularly to my interest in civil wars in Africa.  From there I developed an interest in quasi-experiments and matching methodologies to help explain blah blah blah about African civil wars."  Once you are in, you can study (almost) anything you want.  

 

Tell a story that makes sense, and that demonstrates your interest, preparation and how you fit with the program to which you are applying.  There are a thousand and one ways to do that.  

[catchermiscount]

There are all sorts of terms.  IPE might mean that you're interested in doing (formal) theory applied to international relations, or it might mean that you're interested in actual matters of international economic phenomena like investment or trade.  The same goes for CPE.  Good grounding in theory can help you to be aware of what's going on in theoretical political economy, though it doesn't necessarily mean that you're THAT much more prepared than somebody with less background but more work ethic.  Since you're more interested in empirics than theory, obviously less background will be required, though being able to digest things remains relevant.  In general, being aware of these things is a really good start, and being able to ask the right sets of questions remains the most important skill of all.

 

eponine is right on:  you don't have to know exactly what you want to look like.  In fact, you probably shouldn't know exactly what you want to look like, else you probably won't grow as much as you can. 

[RWBG]

There are all sorts of terms.  IPE might mean that you're interested in doing (formal) theory applied to international relations, or it might mean that you're interested in actual matters of international economic phenomena like investment or trade.  The same goes for CPE.  

 

PE is used interchangably with formal theory all the time, but I've never seen someone use IPE to mean formal models of conflict! IPE has always seemed to me to have a distinctly substantive interpretation.

[GopherGrad]

 

Thank you all for the responses. Assuming that there's no stipulation I should discuss second or third fields, would you only recommend a paragraph in the personal statement to deal with these peripheral interests?

 

Not that anyone should ever emulate me in terms of anything, but I just described my puzzle, why I thought it was important and who is presently doing good work on it (especially at the school in question). Considering that (as noted above) most problems are susceptible to IR and Comparative methods and theory depending upon how you frame the actors in question, I let the subfields of interest come through in the puzzles.

[catchermiscount]

PE is used interchangably with formal theory all the time, but I've never seen someone use IPE to mean formal models of conflict! IPE has always seemed to me to have a distinctly substantive interpretation.

 

Ha, well, you know the particulars of my project more than most do---I don't consider what I do "IPE," but some folks here have called it IPE.

Edited April 17, 2013 by coachrjc

[RWBG]

Ha, well, you know the particulars of my project more than most do---I don't consider what I do "IPE," but some folks here have called it IPE.

You discuss the interplay between an economic model (albeit a simple one) and a political model of conflict. Close enough! Especially when considered within the context of IR research at Rochester.

[wtncffts]

I know the term is used (though I think less and less commonly), but I dislike using PE as denoting the application of economic models to political puzzles - I'd be happy with it referring to, as you pointed out, a set of substantive concerns. I never refer to the use of formal models as PE, but as, in various uses, positive political theory, analytical politics, or rational choice analysis (similarly, I'd never call myself a political economist, but rational choice analyst, etc., are fine with me). To me, IPE is the study of international economic relationships, the difference between 'international economics' as a subfield of economics and IPE being the greater emphasis on political actors and processes in the latter.  

[Zahar Berkut]

So I'll reveal a little more about my own background (the debate in question concerned where programs' expectations on methods training lie, especially programs known for offering "rigorous" training/approaches-- I'd still like to hear more on this!).

 

I've done coursework in basic micro and macro econ and international trade and finance, but did not receive any quantitative methodological training-- the closest I have on my transcript is one impressive mark in formal logic, and a notation for basic calculus and physics, neither of which I've touched in years. My interests have shifted away from political theory (in which I invested way more time than the average undergrad) and security studies and toward a few theoretical and substantive topics in comparative with reference to my region (political institutions, identity politics, political economy of development), where I've been spending a significant amount of time in a semi-academic research capacity. I did graduate coursework related to these topics and produced some work with a heavy theoretical bent and some empirical analysis, but I couldn't actually create my own dataset and run analytics on it.

 

I want to substantially bolster my methodological repertoire in grad school, and I'm attracted to scholars who employ some formal theory or/and quantitative methods in their work-- mainly because I just think what they're doing is very creative and I can imagine going in a similar direction based on my interests. Ultimately I want a mixed methods approach, with a heavy emphasis on combining theory building with empirical inquiry, and with the ability to at minimum do econometric/advanced statistical analysis as my research questions demand. I am curious about formal theory, but I have no idea if I'll be qualified to "do" that or if it will be worth the investment-- I'll need the program's guidance on that.

 

But some of the programs and scholars I'm most attracted to seem to work with students who did a major in economics already, and I was essentially trying to feel if I'm precluded simply because of a weak methods background. I'm taking time to do independent coursework in introductory probability/stats, and possibly linear algebra or multivariate calculus in the fall or spring, as a way to prepare for actual graduate coursework. I don't know what sort of signaling effect this would have for an admissions committee (or the best way to go about doing that on my own time outside a university... help?). I also don't know what my quant GRE will be, but I intend to bang my head against the review books until I get a high enough mark. (Figuratively speaking. Obviously.)

 

Ultimately, I'll make the case that a strong theoretical grounding, extensive area studies experience, and years outside the academy provide the grounding and maturity to follow the path I propose my forthcoming statement, and that I can shift some of my attention to methods without sacrificing substantive knowledge because of said experience. Hopefully I have not answered my own question here... at the very least, I'd still like more input on minimum and common backgrounds for proposing to learn/use formal theory or advanced quant methods.

[eponine997]

I am curious about formal theory, but I have no idea if I'll be qualified to "do" that... 

It sounds like your interests are pretty clear and you have a strong foundation for your SoP.  

Stop worrying so much about being "qualified" to use/learn a method, getting a PhD is intended to be a training process.  A friend of mine who was a lib arts undergrad (background was mostly theory/philo) decided to take up econ/formal theory in grad school at a top program without a prior background and managed to do very well (on the job market).  

 

If it is troubling you that much, I would email professors you are interested in working with (make sure to do this long before the deadlines).  Explain your concerns/dilemma to them similar to how you explained it in your post (but shorten it up a bit).  It is completely acceptable to ask what the minimum expectations are for a new PhD student interested in formal theory, etc.  You might not get a response from EVERYONE you email, but don't let that deter you and remember that its not personal.  They are really the ones in the best position to comment if your background is deficient for what you want to pursue, and what you can do to prepare between now and then - but you really won't know until you ask.

 

Also, if you can afford it, take a stats class over the summer, this will help.  Kennedy's "A Guide to Econometrics" is also a useful read.  

[GopherGrad]

Stop worrying so much about being "qualified" to use/learn a method, getting a PhD is intended to be a training process.

 

Seconded.