Blind spots in IPE : marginalized perspectives and neglected trends in contemporary capitalism

Which blind spots shape scholarship in International Political Economy (IPE)? That question animates the contributions to a double special issue—one in the Review of International Political Economy, and a companion one in New Political Economy. The global financial crisis had seemed to vindicate broad-ranging IPE perspectives at the expense of narrow economics theories. Yet the tumultuous decade since then has confronted IPE scholars with rapidly-shifting global dynamics, many of which had remained underappreciated. We use the Blind Spots moniker in an attempt to push the topics covered here higher up the scholarly agenda—issues that range from institutionalized racism and misogyny to the rise of big tech, intensifying corporate power, expertise-dynamics in global governance, assetization, and climate change. Gendered and racial inequalities as blind spots have a particular charge. There has been a self-reinforcing correspondence between topics that have counted as important, people to whom they matter personally, and the latter’s ability to build careers on them. In that sense, our mission is not only to highlight collective blind spots that may dull IPE’s capacity to theorize the current moment. It is also a normative one—a form of disciplinary housekeeping to help correct both intellectual and professional entrenched biases

Race/Ethnicity in Candidate Experiments:a Meta-Analysis and the Case for Shared Identification

Does race/ethnicity effect how voters assess political candidates? To address this question, we pooled data from 43 published candidate experiments from the last 10 years with a combined N of 305,632. We distinguish three different schools of thought that authors apply: unjust stereotypes, useful stereotypes and shared identification. Voters use “unjust stereotypes” and discriminate against candidates of color or use “useful stereotypes” that inform them of the policy positions they expect candidates to defend. Scholars increasingly apply a “shared identification” perspective and study the effect of congruence between voter and candidate characteristics on assessments. The results show that voters do not assess racial/ethnic minority candidates differently than their majority (white) counterparts. This does not hold for Asian candidates in the US: voters assess them slightly more positively than majority candidates, although this effect is small (0.76 percentage points). Shared identification matters enormously: when voters share the same race/ethnicity as a candidate they assess them 7.9 percentage points higher than that they assess majority candidates. This effect is substantively meaningful and significant for all most researched (US-based) races/ethnicities. This indicates that the underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority citizens cannot be explained by voting behavior, but possibly by supply side effects