2. Metaphors of International Political Economy

IPE draws on metaphors from the field of economics, which are as common in that discipline as they are in political science. An examination of metaphors in economics is beyond the scope of this study. On metaphors in economics, see, for example, McCloskey (1985, 1995), Henderson (1994), Eubanks (2000), Bracker and Herbrechter (2005).

See, for example, Black (1962), Brown (2003).

The works of Deirdre N. McCloskey were previously published under the name Donald N. McCloskey.

Klamer and Leonard caution that not all economics metaphors have equal utility. Some provide only a pedagogical function (i.e., by illuminating basic principles), while others have a heuristic role serving to “catalyze our thinking, helping to approach a phenomenon in a novel way” (Klamer and Leonard 1994, 32). Still other metaphors in economics are what Klamer and Leonard refer to as constitutive of the very concepts under investigation.

For more on metaphorical thinking in mathematics, see Núñez (2000), Van Bendegem (2000).

McCloskey (1995, 225) writes: “The disagreements among economists turn often on metaphorical choices, unexamined because unselfconscious.”

In physics one can speak metaphorically of numbered dimensions (“first dimension,” “second dimension,” etc.), while in the law certain crimes can be imagined with ordinal metaphors such as murder in the “first” or “second” degree.

Wolf-Phillips was challenged on her dating and origins of the term “Third World,” but defends her findings in a later article in Third World Quarterly. See Wolf-Phillips (1987). Mark Berger and Heloise Weber (2014, 3) back up Wolf-Phillips’ claims.

On the history of Third Worldism as a political force in international affairs, see Berger (2004), Prashad (2007), Berger and Weber (2014).

Leslie Wolf-Phillips (1979, 106) refers to Gunnar Myrdal’s Asian Drama (1968) in which he suggests that opting for “developing” or “less-developed” over “under-developed” represents a linguistic gesture to countries in that category amounting to “diplomacy by terminology.”

The “core” metaphor is not limited to studies of relations between economically disparate parts of the world. Samuel Huntington (1996) uses the term in conjunction with his analysis of the “clash of civilizations.”

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first written use of the expression “north–south,” pertaining to relations between more and less industrialized parts of the world, was in Franz Schurmann’s Ideology and Organization in Communist China in which Schurmann (1966, 79) refers to the “growing north–south gap between industrialized and nonindustrialized countries.”

Cardoso and Faletto (1979, xxiii) prefer the expression “situations of dependency” instead of the “theory” of dependency.

As Debra Liebowitz and Susanne Zwingel (2014) observe, indications of global gender equality also rely on subjective measures.

It is not for nothing that Patsy Cline sang “And yet the hand that brings the rose tonight is the hand I will hold, for the rose of love means more to me more than any rich man’s gold.” From the song “A Poor Man’s Roses or a Rich Man’s Gold,” written by Bob Hilliard and Milton Delugg.

See, for example, Schön (1979).

See, for example, D’Anieri (2011).

While the OED includes a reference to the Non-Aligned Movement founded in Belgrade in 1961, it notes that the first written use of the term “non-aligned” was in 1957 in an article in the Journal of Asian Studies.

Bill and Melinda Gates (2014, 6) write in the Gates Foundation annual letter: “It is fair to say that the world has changed so much that the terms ‘developing countries’ and ‘developed countries’ have outlived their usefulness. Any category that lumps China and the Democratic Republic of Congo together confuses more than it clarifies. Some so-called developing countries have come so far that it’s fair to say they have developed. A handful of failed states are hardly developing at all. Most countries are somewhere in the middle. That’s why it’s more instructive to think about countries as low-, middle-, or high-income (Some experts even divide middle-income into two sub-categories: lower-middle and upper-middle.).”

These trends, and the implications for the utility of the term “Third World,” are also discussed in Randall (1992) and Berger (1994).

On theories of foreign aid failures, see, for example, Calderisi (2006), Easterly (2006, 2008), Lancaster (2007), Moyo (2009), Maurits van der Veen (2011), Riddell (2007), Picard et al. (2015).

Additional metaphors emanate from thinking about differing levels of economic prosperity in terms of the need for the provision of foreign “aid.” For example, foreign aid has been proposed as a solution to the so-called poverty trap from which less-developed regions of the world cannot “escape.” On the “poverty trap,” see Easterly (2006).

Boyd and Mackenzie mention “globalization” among other words such as “wholeness” and “integration,” “which would seem to be the keywords of the new education view of mind” (Towards a New Education 1930, 350, as referenced in the Oxford English Dictionary).

“The term globalisation denotes a set of inducing arguments and seductive images rather than a stark and incontestable fact of life” (Pemberton 2001, 185). As Nicole Oke (2009) points out, much of the discourse surrounding globalization involves a vocabulary of time and space. In most respects, this time/space language is used in a literal sense to involve the pace of globalization and its geographic scope. See also Fairclough (2006).

Nisha Shah (2008) suggests that the metaphor of globalization itself has been conceptualized metaphorically in three main ways, in the form of “cosmopolis,” “empire,” and “network society.”

See also Rosenberg (2005).

Timothy Luke (2008, 132) suggests an alternative to Falk’s “globalization from above” and “globalization from below” metaphors, suggesting instead that the spread of technology allows for a “globalization-from-in-between,” instantiating a “world that is more of the same, but never truly universal.”

The metaphor of the world as a “global village” has been captured in the expression “glocalization,” which implies that what globalization actually entails is increased interactions between processes that occur globally, locally, and in the form of some combination of the two. See, for example, Sullivan (2008) who prefers the metaphor of a “rhizome” to conceptualize the organization of “glocal” politics.

On sovereignty as a symbolic form, see also Bartelson (2014).

Branch (2) continues: “Because of changes in cartographic depictions and their use, Europeans shifted from seeing the world as a series of unique places to conceiving of the globe as a homogeneous geometric surface. This shift had direct implications for how they understood political space and territorial political authority.”

Krasner (3) points out that what typically is construed as “sovereignty” actually comprises four forms of political authority: “International legal sovereignty, Westphalian sovereignty, domestic sovereignty, and interdependence sovereignty.”

Fierke and Pouliot’s comments on reification convey the tensions in metaphors of globalization elaborated on in the edited volume by Kornprobst et al. (2008) in which their chapters appear. The subtitle of Kornprobst et al.’s edited book Metaphors of Globalization: Mirrors, Magicians and Mutinies captures the multifaceted quality of metaphors as concepts that can reflect, transform, and rebel.

Shore (140–145) notes that metaphors such as “Europe à la carte,” “variable geometry,” “concentric circles,” “two-tier” integration, and “multi-track” or “multi-speed” policy implementation reflect the prevailing ways in which political leaders conceptualize European integration.

For additional studies of the metaphorical language of policymakers in framing European integration, see Chilton and Ilyin (1993), Cattaneo and Velo (1995), Musolff (1996, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008), Schäffner (1996), Hülsse (2006), Carta (2014), Nitṃoiu and Tomić (2015).

On the distinction between conceptual metaphor and metaphorical expression in the study of European integration, see Drulák (2006) as well as a critique of Drulák in Onuf (2010) and Drulák’s reply (Drulák 2010).

Article 117 of the Treaty of Rome introduces the concept of “harmonization” of European social provisions: “Member States agree upon the need to promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living for workers, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained. They believe that such a development will ensue not only from the functioning of the common market, which will favour the harmonisation of social systems, but also from the procedures provided for in this Treaty and from the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action” (Treaty of Rome, 42, emphasis added). From a metaphorical perspective “harmonization” represents a lesser degree of coming together than “integration.” The former is defined in terms of “agreement,” while the latter is defined in terms of “unifying” (American Heritage Dictionary).

See, for example, Musolff (1996, 2001, 2004), Schäffner (1996), Shore (1997), Diez (1999), Drulák (2006).

“Spillover” should not be confused with the similarly sounding metaphor of “tipping points” in international regimes. On tipping points, see Vormedal (2012).

On functionalism, see Mitrany (1966).

On push–pull factors in European integration, see, for example, Farrell et al. (2002), Künhardt (2009), Finke (2010).

The European Neighborhood Policy was proposed and developed in two reports from the European Commission. See Commission of the European Communities (2003, 2004). The 16 countries and political units included in the ENP are Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria, Tunisia, and Ukraine.

This description is posted online at http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​world/​enp/​policy_​en.​htm.

On the common European “house” or “home” metaphor, see Chilton and Ilyin (1993), Chilton (1996, chapters 8–9), Schäffner (1996), Fierke (1997), Musolff (2004, 122–140).

On metaphorical constructions of areas outside the European neighborhood, see Šarić et al. (2010), Silaški and Đurović (2014).

Jones and Clark (552) quote Michael Smith (2004, 77) who writes that the ENP produces a “Europe of boundaries in which a variety of geopolitical, transactional, institutional and cultural forces create a world of separated spaces framing inclusions or exclusions. The resulting negotiations are focused on inclusions and exclusions, across boundaries.” See also Charillon (2004), Dannreuther (2004), Sedelmeier (2004), Comelli et al. (2007), Cierco (2013).

Ambiguity in the meanings associated with the European Neighborhood Policy created policy problems for the EU. As Karen Smith (2005, 769) observes: “Yet ambiguity is not boosting the EU’s leverage: in fact, it is forcing it into a reactive and defensive rather than a strategic mode. Thus a policy based on ambiguity may not produce the effects the EU expects—and will therefore probably not last very long.”

For a critical view of the ENP, see also Bialasiewicz et al. (2009), Scott (2009).