Political Economy

[PhDhopefull]

I am having a difficult time finding the top PhD in Political Economy programs. Could someone provide me with a list of perhaps the top 50 or so? Thanks.

[PhDhopefull]

Here is a quick uncompleted profile:

Background: Undergrad at a nationally accredited university ranked in the top 50 in the U.S.

GPA: 3.7/4.0/4.0 (Overall/Poli Sci/Econ)

Econ Courses: Introduction Courses in Micro and Marco (A), Intermediate Micro (A), Intermediate Macro (A), International Trade (IP), International Macro (IP)

Poli Sci Courses: American Gov't (A), International Relations (A), Comparative Politics (A), Political Economy (A), Marxist Theory and Practice (IP), International Institutions (A), Politics of Developing Nations (A)

Math Course: Pre-Calc (A), Trig (A), Calc I (IP), Calc II (IP), Stats I (A)

LORs: Still in the process I am only a junior

SOP: I expect it to be good

GRE: scored a 740Q/660V on a practice test

Research Experience: plan to have a year of RA experience and a semester of individual work

Teaching Experience: None

Research Interest: Political Economy, International Relations, Political Theory

Concerns: I am not sure if my background in statistics will be enough. Also, I am not sure if getting a PhD in Poli Sci would be wise since I feel as if the market for Poli Sci professors is rather competitive with very little openings.

[Humanomics]

Hi,

 

From what I gather, political economy is no longer an official discipline or its own department because much of it has been subsumed under economics proper, and there are strong divides thus between the usually pro-market conclusions in economics and anti-market conclusions outside economics in the social sciences. Political economy has come to mean many things, which is unfortunate. There is classical political economy and its ties to liberalism -- if this is your interest I suggest applying to Poly Sci programs and aiming at a focus on Political Theory (you can also do this in philosophy departments). If you're very keen to criticize rational actor models and tout the injustices that results from economic institutions, sociology programs are probably the way to go. Aside from that there are many economists who list an interest in political economy, but most of this work will take mathematical form, so here "political economy" means "mathematical optimization models of political institutions." Again, there is plenty of that in Poly Sci departments as well.

 

Since your interests are somewhat specialized already, and not of the mainstream in any one program, you're probably best off pursuing the work of various notable scholars whom you already take cues from, and trying to work your way into an advisership from them. This is the tack I'm taking.

 

Cheers

[SeriousScholar]

Hi,

 

If you're very keen to criticize rational actor models and tout the injustices that results from economic institutions, sociology programs are probably the way to go.

 

Cheers

 

I liked your points about the different perspectives. It is good to see what your interests are and choose accordingly. I come from a soc background and I always thought that a scholar would be very strong if s/he had a background in both sociology and economics. The two perspectives are often at odds but I think they can complement each other very well. Anyone who did research that finds a balance between the two would have a really unique perspective and would probably be a leader publishing in the field. Just a thought! :)

[Humanomics]

Well thanks! Coming from the economics side, Weber and Marx and others seem less ferociously opposed to an inquiry of the interests of people than their descendants. I also see a lot of confirmation bias in the ethnographic literature emerging after the turn of the 20th century, following Mauss' tradition (Malinowski's work on the very same Trobriand Islanders calls into serious question the alleged property-less-ness of these people). I can't remember which: either Herbert Simon or Albert Hirschmann pointed out that all social sciences seemed to accept some degree of "reason" in people, without necessitating the ardent stricture of Samuelsonian optimization. My main concern right now is that economists take preferences as given, leaving the study of variation in them to the rest of social science. So too, the rest of social science largely takes social structure (or ecology? I don't understand this new trendy term) as a given variable, without systematically explaining how purposeful agents might create such a structure in the first place. I really don't like the Hegelian and Gramscian way of talking about hegemony, structure, and ideology. We cannot allege ideational forces to have a dialectical, or any other agency of their own without the reasoning, meaning-making people behind them breathing life into them. The dead-lock between economics and the rest of social science, and the presupposition that such deadlock is bound to happen at the hands of fundamentally incompatible models of behavior is to me silly. Both models take hugely important parts of their models as mere data, with no systematic explanation of how preferences and social structure arise in the first place. I intend to find out, and hope to build bridges rather than bicker over "gov v. markets" and such.