This review essay engages critically with Heikki Patomäki's The Political Economy of Global Security: War, Future Crises, and Changes in Global Governance. The book is built around the hypothesis that the current ‘era of Neoliberalism’ shares many similarities to the era of the ‘new imperialism’ of the late nineteenth century, ending, catastrophically, in World War I and the Great Depression. Patomäki undertakes this comparison by focusing on the principal long-term historical processes, structures, tendencies and contradictions that may be responsible for (...) the similarities between these two eras. To do so Patomäki constructs an explanatory model of the underlying causal processes and mechanisms involved. The implications are ominous and urgent. The essay uses a close examination of this exemplary case of critical realism in social science to discuss critically its historical explanations, the comparative analysis it makes, and especially the question of agency as theorised in the author's ‘future scenarios’. (shrink)

This study of three different approaches to social structure finds Pleasants’s ideas for the use of different concepts of social structure intriguing but based on an untenable view about the possibility to discern an empirical modality. Porpora’s approach is based on the idea that the relational concept of social structure cannot be bypassed, ontologically speaking. Easton’s idea is to apply the two relational concepts of higher-order and lower-order structure. Relational structures are also salient in the specific scholarly debate studied, which (...) strengthens the idea that it is this concept of social structure that we primarily should focus on. (shrink)

While mathematical economic theory is replete with structural relationships, it has been suggested that economists have been far to content with the structure created in their conceptual theoretical worlds, and have done too little to conceptualise or study the structure inherent in actual economic systems. I advance the state of the argument by proposing a typology of theory types - correspondence, instrumental, speculative, and literary - with differing attempts and approaches to building some kind of 'correspondence' between the ontological elements (...) and relationships in the real world and the ontological elements and relationships in the theoretical world. The central argument advanced in the present paper is that the use of mathematics in economics is of a fundamentally different nature than the use of mathematics in, for example, physics. In physics an attempt is made to capture the central and important features of the real world in mathematical equations, and a deeper understanding of the dynamics and relationships in the real world is gained as a consequence. In economics, by contrast, the use of mathematics does little to identify, abstract and capture the structure existing in real world social and economic systems. The use of mathematics may make economic theories very precise, may exclude individuals without extensive training to access economic theories, and may perform a rhetorical service in presenting economic theory as mathematical and, by analogy with physics, scientific. In many cases, however, the net effect of using mathematics in economic theory is the precise opposite of the effect of using mathematics in physics: in physics, mathematics brings us a greater focus on and awareness of structures and relationships in our physical reality, while in economics mathematics takes us away from a focus on and concern with the ontologies and structures in real world economic systems and focuses our attention on abstract, invented theoretical worlds often with unclear relationships to actual economic systems. (shrink)