Robert W. Cox

Bio: Robert W. Cox is an academic researcher from University of York. The author has contributed to research in topics: Hegemony & International relations. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 1084 citations.

Gramsci, hegemonía y relaciones internacionales: Un ensayo sobre el método | Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method

Abstract: Este articulo es, a dia de hoy, una de las piezas clasicas y fundamentales para la posibilidad de estudiar las relaciones globales de poder a partir de las herramientas conceptuales desarrolladas por Gramsci a lo largo de su obra. Cox, contribuye de esta forma a las corrientes criticas de las Relaciones Internacionales al discutir varios conceptos gramscianos y cuales serian las implicaciones para estudiar las relaciones internacionales en distintos periodos de hegemonia y contrahegemonia. De igual forma, el autor planteo la cuestion –en su momento novedosa– de la relevancia de tomar en cuenta los procesos internos de construccion de bloques historicos contrahegemonicos como aquellos que podrian tener un efecto revolucionario en las estructuras y organizaciones internacionales, asi como ruptura con la hegemonia plasmada como una clase perteneciente a un orden economico universal transnacional. This article is a classic and fundamental for approaching global power relations with the conceptual tools developed by Gramsci. Cox contributes to critical thought in International Relations by discussing various gramscian concepts and what their implications are for the study of different historical forms of hegemony and counter-hegemony. Also, the author draws our attention –novel at the time of its publicaction– to the relevance of taking into account the construction of domestic counter-hegemonic historic blocs. He suggests that these could have a revolutionary effect on international structures and organizations, as well as rupture with the hegemony performed by the transnational economic order.

Gramsci, hegemonía y relaciones internacionales: Un ensayo sobre el método

Abstract: This article is a classic and fundamental for approaching global power relations with the conceptual tools developed by Gramsci. Cox contributes to critical thought in International Relations by discussing various gramscian concepts and what their implications are for the study of different historical forms of hegemony and counter-hegemony. Also, the author draws our attention –novel at the time of its publicaction– to the relevance of taking into account the construction of domestic counter-hegemonic historic blocs. He suggests that these could have a revolutionary effect on international structures and organizations, as well as rupture with the hegemony performed by the transnational economic order.

The False Promise of International Institutions

Abstract: Since the Cold War ended, Western policymakers have sought to create security arrangements in Europe, as well as in other regions of the globe, that are based on international institutions In doing so, they explicitly reject balance-of-power politics as an organizing concept for the post-Cold War world During the 1992 presidential campaign, for example, President Clinton declared that, “in a world where freedom, not tyranny, is on the march, the cynical calculus of pure power politics simply does not compute It is ill-suited to a new era” Before taking office, Anthony Lake, the president’s national security adviser, criticized the Bush administration for viewing the world through a “classic balance of power prism,” whereas he and Mr Clinton took a “more ‘neo-Wilsonian’ view” 1

The agent-structure problem in international relations theory

Abstract: While neorealism and world-system theory both claim to be “structural” theories of international relations, they embody very different understandings of system structure and structural explanation. Neorealists conceptualize system structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of preexisting state agents, whereas world-system theorists conceptualize system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves. These differences stem from what are, in some respects, fundamentally opposed solutions to the “agent-structure” or “micromacro” problem. This opposition, however, itself reflects a deeper failure of each theory to recognize the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures—a failure which leads to deep-seated inadequacies in their respective explanations of state action. An alternative solution to the agent-structure problem, adapted from “structuration theory” in sociology, can overcome these inadequacies by avoiding both the reduction of system structures to state actors in neorealism and their reification in world-system theory. Structuration theory requires a philosophical basis in scientific realism, arguably the “new orthodoxy” in the philosophy of natural science, but as yet largely unrecognized by political scientists. The scientific realist/structuration approach generates an agenda for “structural-historical” research into the properties and dispositions of both state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded.

Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global south

Abstract: This article revisits the notion of radical planning from the standpoint of the global South. Emerging struggles for citizenship in the global South, seasoned by the complexities of state—citizen relations within colonial and post-colonial regimes, offer an historicized view indispensable to counter-hegemonic planning practices. The article articulates the notion of insurgent planning as radical planning practices that respond to neoliberal specifics of dominance through inclusion — that is, inclusive governance. It characterizes the guiding principles for insurgent planning practices as counter-hegemonic, transgressive and imaginative. The article contributes to two current conversations within planning scholarship: on the implication of grassroots insurgent citizenship for planning, and on (de)colonization of planning theory.

Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital

Abstract: dimensions. These distinctions are elaborated to help explain aspects of the changing nature of present-day capitalism, with particular reference to aspects of transformation in the 1980s and beyond. Partly building upon Robert Cox's analysis of social forces and world orders, and Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony, we seek to explain some of the conditions under which a more "transnational" regime of accumulation and an associated hegemony of transnational capital might develop. Such a hegemony could never be complete because of counterhegemonic forces and contradictory elements in the internationalization of capital. Some requirements for an alternative counter-hegemonic historic bloc are sketched, with suggestions for a research agenda. In this essay we seek to advance the theorization and interpretation of the dynamics and contours of the emerging global political economy, and to outline an agenda for study in this field. Our perspective differs from and can be read as a critique of classical marxism, world systems theory, public choice, and neo-realist theory. Central to our argument is the distinction between direct and structural forms of power and their place within present-day capitalism. Through developing this contrast, in combination with Gramscian concepts-of hegemony historic bloc and the "extended" state-we seek to meet two major challenges. The first is to better integrate domestic and international levels of analysis. We think that a key to the resolution of this problem has been provided by Cox (1987). His analysis of social forces points to a more comprehensive and flexible approach to the question of

The European Union and Forms of State: Westphalian, Regulatory or Post-Modern?

Abstract: This article sets out to chart the evolving institutional structure of the EU, in the context of theories about forms of state. ‘Forms of state’ are taken to be conceptually possible expressions of political authority organized at the national and transnational levels, here dealt with as emphases and qualities to be accented rather than phenomena to be sorted into categories. The EU is examined in the light of three stylized state forms - the Westphalian state, the regulatory state and the post-modem state. Each of these captures important elements of the evolution of the EU, and provides support for analysis of its development as a form of ‘international state’. Such an analysis implies attention not only to forms of state, but also to related concepts such as government and governance which give leverage on the exploration of ‘international state forms’. Conclusions are drawn about the power of the three ‘metaphors’ used, and the relationship to possible empirical studies.