IR vs. CP

[Poli92]

Hey all,

 

You have all been very helpful thus far so I figured I might just as well keep asking questions. 

 

Would anyone be so kind as to illustrate the main methodological and substantive cleavages between IR and CP studies? I have heard mixed responses from almost every source I've encountered and I'd like to see what the patrons of this fine forum have to say.  

 

My purpose with this is to try to understand with which group I should identify myself as I am interested in examining how domestic and foreign-assisted development programs might be employed to mitigate the risk of both substate and international conflict, particularly in Middle Eastern states. 

 

Thank you all in advance! 

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

At quick glance, it sounds to me like you're interested in IR. But you should keep in mind that the lines between CP/IR aren't always clear (and often the two can compliment each other). Programs will understand this, and I've heard that often students applying for CP or IR will have their applications considered for the subfield they hadn't originally considered (which, if they've gotten that far with your application, you're not doing too bad).

Edited November 19, 2013 by TakeMyCoffeeBlack

[IRToni]

In general, IR and CP at this point have a lot of overlap, and I know people who did their PhD in CP and methods, but went on to teach and "research" IR and the other way around.

 

For your topic, I would say that if you want to focus on the aid-giving state, majoring in IR might make sense, as foreign aid is a traditional IR and IPE topic. At the same time, a minor (2nd major) in CP might be necessary/good for your topic, because most of the civil war literature is in CP. Interstate war literature is usually in IR, though. If you want to employ quantitative methods, having a methods minor field might also make sense. I personally feel that CP has much more of a focus on methods, which is why it often employs more advanced quant and formal methods, while IR, while also employing more and more of these methods, isn't as methods-centric.

 

A traditional distinction that is very blurred by now was that IR is more concerned with overarching grand theories, while CP is more concerned with middle-level and micro theories. CP still has no (or almost no) grand theories (as a prof of mine likes to say: messy, eclectic core of CP), but IR research has, IMO, moved away from (pure) grand theorizing since the big theory debates of the 1990s. Traditionally, also, a regional focus was not very common in IR, but it is becoming more and more common, I would say.

 

With your topic, you could also look at schools that offer a political economy field, and choose this as your primary field, IMO.

 

Good advise that I've got is to look at where your potential advisors are. While a lot of them are cross-listed in different fields, this (and the courses they teach) might give you at least a point of reference. Ultimately, however, I believe that the distinction between IR and CP is becoming more and more blurred, and having one or the other declared your primary field won't make or break anything.

[TheGnome]

I think many (most?) people who do Civil War stuff tend to identify with the IR camp, though people from both fields produce good work in that area. 

 

 

...If you want to employ quantitative methods, having a methods minor field might also make sense. I personally feel that CP has much more of a focus on methods, which is why it often employs more advanced quant and formal methods, while IR, while also employing more and more of these methods, isn't as methods-centric....

 

Beware of the wrath of the Coach!!! 

[catchermiscount]

Oh hey you won't get my wrath.  First, I'm not that much of a technician, and second, I have no freaking idea what makes IR IR and CP CP.  No idea at all.  I'm pretty sure that what I do is IR (because it's about relations among nations...?), but that's anybody's guess.

[Poli92]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses! They are very helpful! 

 

With your topic, you could also look at schools that offer a political economy field, and choose this as your primary field, IMO.

 

My topic is definitely an economic as well as political issue, however, I have heard that trying to sell yourself as having a PE emphasis can be somewhat hazardous, as you aren't entirely a political scientist or an economist and the interdisciplinary nature of such a field might leave you wanting for specificity or concentration in one area or the other. On the flip side, though, I have heard others argue that a hybrid course of study can be beneficial in providing a multifaceted view of issues. I may very well be totally misinformed, but what is your (or anyone who reads this) impression? 

[catchermiscount]

So, we've had CPE searches a few times in the past few years, and this brings out a huge difference in interpretation of what "political economy" is.  Our comparativists typically say it's "POLITICAL economy" and end up looking for applicants that study economic phenomena in non-American settings (corruption, rent seeking, vote buying, land, etc.).  Generally the work is largely empirical:  if there is a theoretical section, it's more about illustrating the argument instead of making some big technical contribution.   Our theorists typically say it's "political ECONOMY" and end up very dissatisfied with these theoretical sections (or lack thereof).  They're interested more in stuff that directly maps into, say, Acemoglu and Robinson or Persson and Tabellini or something like that.

 

So, it's important to know if you intend to be an empiricist (be it via large-N work, or interviews, or whatever) or a theorist (be it informal or formal).  One defining characteristic is "do you think you'll have to do field work?"  If so, we're talking about something more similar to traditional comparative politics.  If not, we're probably talking about IR (if it's about...international relations) or CPE or something like that.

[TheGnome]

None says POLITICAL ECONOMY then?

[catchermiscount]

People try, but it seems inevitable that some folks will always lump you into one camp or the other.

[Poli92]

So, it's important to know if you intend to be an empiricist (be it via large-N work, or interviews, or whatever) or a theorist (be it informal or formal).  One defining characteristic is "do you think you'll have to do field work?"  If so, we're talking about something more similar to traditional comparative politics.  If not, we're probably talking about IR (if it's about...international relations) or CPE or something like that.

 

I certainly see myself being more of a mixed-methods empiricist. I appreciate the usefulness of more qualitative studies for formulating/articulating questions largely because I come from a more qualitative political science department, but I also believe there is a necessity for quantitative methods in order to provide evidence for qualitative claims and to scientifically analyze phenomena, which I think stems from my econ training (I'm a double-major in poli sci and econ). 

 

So, if I understand correctly, this puts me more into the CP camp? 

[catchermiscount]

Sure.  Note that I generally consider most qualitative and quantitative approaches to be in an "empirical" category distinct from theory, by which I mean formal theory for the most part.  My nomenclature is bastardized by my home.

 

But yeah, sounds CPish.

[IRToni]

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but from what I hear, having a political economy PhD can also be beneficial to you, especially if/when you also have an IR and/or CP major/minor. The programs I referred to above either have specific Political Economy PhDs (Harvard and to some degree Stanford, though the latter is much more about formal methods than about substantive political economy), or have a specific field Political Economy within the PoliSci PhD (Princeton, NYU). It is my understanding, corraborated by profs, that such a degree can make you more marketable in academia, especially with the right topic, by opening up doors that are otherwise closed (teaching at a B school, e.g.). I also heard that many of the policy schools prefer you to have more of a technical/econ education, but that's purely anecdotal. For me, I'm also thinking of what happens if academia/think tank work doesn't work out, and feel I'd get more transferable skills in a interdisciplinary setting. I have heard the advice (I think even on here) that your actual subfield (IR/CP) is more important than an "artificial one" like (PE), which is why I'm choosing schools that are strong in IR as well as PE (and IPE and CPE, and CP). coachrjc is certainly right to point out there's different ways to understand political economy. Depending on how you understand it, some places might be better than others. You seem to understand it more substantively, same as I am, although I do want to do some formal theory. Because of that, I'm not applying to pure formal places (like Stanford GSB and Rochester).