Bipolarity in Flux: International Political Economy in Contemporary Times
Abstract
This paper explores the evolving dynamics of bipolarity and International Political Economy (IPE) in the context of contemporary global relations. Historically defined by the Cold War, bipolarity has shaped the interplay of power, economics, and security, creating a framework that dictated international relations and influenced global economic structures. As the world transitions into a post-Cold War era, the disintegration of traditional bipolarity has not eliminated power dynamics but has instead given rise to new forms of polarization characterized by ideological, economic, and cultural divides. The unipolarity that followed has been scrutinized, revealing increasing divisions and conflicts rather than harmony. The theories of Fukuyama and Huntington illustrate the ongoing relevance of bipolarity, as cultural clashes and historical grievances continue to impact international relations. The relevance of IPE in this evolving landscape emphasizes the interdependence of political and economic factors, challenging traditional state-centric paradigms. Insights from scholars such as Susan Strange, Joseph Nye, and Robert Keohane highlight the necessity of integrating economic realities with political analysis, acknowledging the myriad of transnational actors and the complexities of global interactions. The emergence of a “control gap” signifies the challenges states face in maintaining authority in an interconnected world, complicating their ability to navigate the increasingly intricate landscape of international affairs. As global challenges such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and socioeconomic disparities persist, the remnants of bipolarity manifest in various forms. This paper calls for a renewed framework that accommodates the nuances of contemporary power relations and the dynamics of globalization, advocating for a paradigm shift towards a more inclusive understanding of global governance. Ultimately, the interplay between bipolarity and IPE remains a critical area for scholarly inquiry, offering valuable insights into the future of global order as nations navigate the complexities of a world marked by both interdependence and division.
References
Albekov, A., Polubotko, A., & Akopova, E. (2014). The problem of preserving the nation-state sovereignty in the context of globalization. Asian Social Science, 10(23). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n23p178
Animashaun, J. (2023). Contagious crowds and rational faithfuls: A club theory approach. International Journal of Social Economics, 51(2), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijse-11-2022-0719
Bambra, C., Riordan, R., Ford, J., & Matthews, F. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 74(11), 964–968. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214401
Basu, P. (2019). State sovereignty and stability: Conflicting and converging principles. In P. Basu (Ed.), State sovereignty and stability (pp. 1-7). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_290-1
Bekkevold, J. I., & Tunsjø, Ø. (2022). The geopolitical foundations for U.S. strategy in a new U.S.-China bipolar system. China International Strategy Review, 4, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-022-00109-y
Bell, M., & Quek, K. (2017). Authoritarian public opinion and the democratic peace. International Organization, 72(1), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002081831700042x
Bhattarai, G., & Lamichhane, D. (2024). Twigging the US-China competition from the lens of offensive realism: Implications for Nepal. Journal of APF Command and Staff College, 7(1), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.3126/japfcsc.v7i1.67005
Bown, C. P., & Irwin, D. A. (2021). The U.S.-China trade rivalry and its implications for global governance. Journal of International Commerce and Economics, 13(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3732043
Buzan, B. (2018). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge University Press.
Calzada, I. (2021). Data co-operatives through data sovereignty. Smart Cities, 4(3), 1158–1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4030062
Casier, T. (2021). Stumbling from incident to incident: The systemic crisis of the post-Cold War order. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 36(3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.1869182
Çirakli, Ü. (2021). Investigation of the impacts of economic crises on the health system in Turkey: An ARDL bounds testing approach. International Journal of Health Management and Tourism. https://doi.org/10.31201/ijhmt.819982
Close, P. (2010). Olympiads as mega-events and the pace of globalization: Beijing 2008 in context. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 27(16-18), 2976–3007. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2010.508303
Dentico, N. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on global health systems. Global Health Action, 14(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2021.1896896
Egeland, K. (2020). Who stole disarmament? History and nostalgia in nuclear abolition discourse. International Affairs, 96(5), 1387–1403. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa096
Everett, J. (2020). The future of EU-Russian relations: A common European home? The Review of European Affairs, 4(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.51149/roea.1.2020.5
Feng, X. (2023). Shaping the global business environment on the United States-China trade war. Pacific International Journal, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.55014/pij.v6i3.424
Fliess, P. (1966). Thucydides and the politics of bipolarity. Louisiana: Baton Rouge.
Gilpin, R. (1975). US power and the multinational corporation: The challenge of the American economic empire. Basic Books.
Gilpin, R. (2001). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press.
Hehir, A. (2023). 'An expensive commodity'? The impact of hope on US foreign policy during the 'unipolar moment'. European Journal of International Relations, 29(1), 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221143941
Hickmann, T., & Elsässer, J. (2020). New alliances in global environmental governance: How intergovernmental treaty secretariats interact with non-state actors to address transboundary environmental problems. International Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics, 20(3), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09493-5

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).