The political economy machinery: toward a critical anthropology of development as a contested capitalist practice

This article discusses anthropology’s current mainstream understandings of development and offers a historical materialist alternative. According to these, development was and is either a discourse-backed anti-politics machine that strengthens the power of postcolonial governments or a category of practice, a universal that generates frictions when it clashes with local historical–cultural formations. The approach proposed here reintegrates the analysis of development into the anthropological analysis of capitalism’s uneven and contested histories and practices. A reassessment of World Bank reporting on Lesotho and an analysis of the Bank’s impact on the wider policies of development in postcolonial Mauritius, one of the twentieth century’s preeminent success stories of capitalist development, underlines that development is best understood as a political economy machinery that maintains and amends contested capitalist practices in an encounter with earlier global, national, and local historical–cultural formations

Red globalization: The political economy of the soviet cold war from Stalin to Khrushchev

© Oscar Sanchez-Sibony 2014. Was the Soviet Union a superpower? Red Globalization is a significant rereading of the Cold War as an economic struggle shaped by the global economy. Oscar Sanchez-Sibony challenges the idea that the Soviet Union represented a parallel socio-economic construct to the liberal world economy. Instead he shows that the USSR, a middle-income country more often than not at the mercy of global economic forces, tracked the same path as other countries in the world, moving from 1930s autarky to the globalizing processes of the postwar period. In examining the constraints and opportunities afforded the Soviets in their engagement of the capitalist world, he questions the very foundations of the Cold War narrative as a contest between superpowers in a bipolar world. Far from an economic force in the world, the Soviets managed only to become dependent providers of energy to the rich world, and second-best partners to the global South.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Capitalism's fellow traveler: The Soviet Union, bretton woods, and the cold war, 1944-1958

This paper is a reinterpretation of the origins of the Cold War from a novel point of view: Soviet foreign economic policy. It questions two fundamental concepts that have formed the basis for our understanding of that conflict: Soviet autarky, and bipolarity. Soviet autarky has been the basis for an understanding of a war that, although never fought on military terms, needed two sides to be so conceptualized. Just as enemies in war can have no areas of meaningful cooperation, so did academics require of these Cold War rivals an all-encompassing enmity. To do so they came to consider the Soviet Union a camp apart, unconnected and hostile to the capitalist order. Scholars required a Soviet Union politically committed to autarky. Using archives from Moscow, however, the article argues that the Soviet Union was not autarkic by political choice and, at length, not autarkic at all. It followed a similar trajectory in international economic engagement as that of the countries in the so-called free world, and what's more, sought to do so. In other words, when one looks at the political economy of Soviet economic relations, the conceptual framework of bipolarity that sustains much of the work on the Cold War becomes difficult to maintain. Instead, I argue, an immensely powerful liberal world order acted on the Soviet Union in ways that should be familiar to scholars of global capitalism. © 2014 Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Soviet industry in the world spotlight: The domestic dilemmas of Soviet foreign economic relations, 1955-1965

The mid-1950s marked the beginning of tremendous growth in the Soviet Union's foreign economic relations. Based on archival research, this article argues that this growth masked two contradictory processes. On the one hand, Kremlin leaders encouraged ever more economic engagement with the world. On the other hand, the Soviet system discouraged industrial managers from producing for export, and it often caused precious imports to be wasted. This struggle between industry and the Kremlin over foreign trade gave impetus to the treadmill of reforms launched by the Khrushchev leadership. © 2010 University of Glasgow.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Economy and power in the Soviet union, 1917-39

Link_to_subscribed_fulltex