Working Paper 7 of the Global Biopolitics Research Group
Part of the project ‘The global politics of human embryonic stem cell science’ funded under the ESRC Stem Cell Initiative
Amanda Dickins
University of East Anglia
Abstract
The global bioeconomy is a crucial area for scholars of international political economy (IPE) as well as a vital topic in its own right. IPE frameworks are an indispensable aid to analysis, crucial to uncovering the politics of the global bioeconomy: in turn, the global bioeconomy sheds light on challenges that lie at the cutting edge of IPE theory. The 'invisible college' of
IPE has become divided between rationalist and critical scholars, but recent developments suggest that there is scope to rebuild it and the vivid politics of the global bioeconomy demonstrate why we should try. Focusing on human biotechnology, I show how different IPE perspectives shed light on the political and economic challenges presented by human biotechnology, illuminating the relationship between governance structures and the market, as well as the international dynamics shaping state strategies, both competitive and collaborative.
The global bioeconomy also highlights lacunae in existing IPE theories, in particular the importance of extending them to encompass gender and the political economy of development.
Address for correspondence:
Amanda Dickins
Institute of Health
Edith Cavell Building
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
UK e-mail: amanda.dickins@uea.ac.uk
tel: +44 1603 591020

Introduction
The global bioeconomy is a vital topic for its own sake, but also a vital area for scholars of international political economy (IPE). IPE frameworks are an indispensable aid to analysis in uncovering the politics of the global bioeconomy: in turn, the global bioeconomy sheds light on challenges that lie at the cutting edge of IPE theory. I begin by outlining a folk taxonomy of IPE scholarship and discuss recent developments in the field: developments that could and should facilitate conversation between rationalist and critical scholars. I argue that empirical work is much enriched when the object of study is viewed from different theoretical standpoints. Focusing on human biotechnology, I show how different IPE perspectives shed light on the vivid challenge of the growing global 'bioeconomy' and the political economy of commerce in human tissue. Critical scholars have played a crucial role in drawing attention to the importance of the bioeconomy and uncovering the conflicts engendered by the
(re)construction of the market to encompass new forms of intellectual property and a growing commerce in products based on human tissue. They have also analysed how state strategies in the field of human biotechnology are conditioned by the perceived imperatives of competition in the global economy. Rationalist scholars, though less attuned to the issues of the global bioeconomy, have important insights to offer regarding inter-state politics, shedding light on the dynamics of competition and collaboration in the global bioeconomy.
In turn, the global bioeconomy highlights lacunae in existing IPE theories, in particular the importance of extending them to encompass gender and the political economy of development.
1.
IPE frameworks
IPE emerged as a focus for study in the 1960s, as the rapid development of the international economy sparked interest in the politics of the international economy. The up-and-coming field drew upon diverse sources, including economics and history, as well as international relations, manifesting a disciplinary promiscuity that remains a feature to this day.
1
A feature of early IPE that has not survived, however, is the engagement that knit together an 'extensive invisible college' of pioneering scholars.
2
As this invisible college unravelled, two types of
IPE scholar emerged.
3
1
For detailed discussion see Geoffrey Underhill, 'State, market, and global political economy: genealogy of an (inter-?) discipline', International Affairs 76: 4, 2000, pp. 805-24 and Nicola Philips, '"Globalizing" the study of international political economy', in Nicola
Philips, ed. Globalizing international political economy , (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
2005).
2
Susan Strange, States and markets , (London: Pinter Publishers, 1988). Her remarks about the invisible college were cited with approval by Robert Keohane in his foreword to her
Festschrift , Strange power , Thomas Lawton, James Rosenau and Amy Verdun, eds,
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000).
3
Textbooks often introduce three IPE 'theories', typically realism, liberalism and Marxism.
However, this taxonomy is unhelpful: First, the forms of realism and liberalism prevalent in contemporary IPE, namely neo-realism and neo-liberal institutionalism, share a common
1

Although their range overlaps, one type predominates in the United States and the other in the United Kingdom and Canada. The predominant type in the United States is the rationalist species, Ratiosaurus Rex . Interactions between states are their traditional dietary staple and they have evolved sharply defined formal models and powerful quantitative tools to help them to cut through the complexities of interstate competition and digest the incentives for international collaboration.
4
Voracious for data, problem-solving by inclination,
5
Ratiosaur nonetheless devotes at least as much energy to theoretical debate as to empirical work.
6
Many are especially fond of theories relating to the role of hegemony in stabilising the international economy and in creating or shoring up its framework of governing institutions, a preference that may derive from the hegemonic features of their natural habitat.
By contrast, members of the diverse critical species who comprise the genus Querimonia , dominant in the United Kingdom and Canada, expend much effort uncovering the hidden workings of hegemony, both the international hegemony of the United States and the intellectual hegemony of Ratiosaur , and in exposing the distasteful effects of both. In taxonomy, a genus is a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics: the genius of this genus lies in problem-posing, rather than problem solving. Numerous species of varied theoretical origin discovered common purpose, if not unity, in their antipathy towards the reign of Ratiosaur . The work they produce is deliberately critical, self-consciously normative, often focused on the structures of (global) capitalism.
Despite their common origins, Ratiosaur and Querimonia appear happy to remain separate and there is very little exchange between them. Ratiosaur remains largely oblivious to the existence, let alone the charms of Querimonia , while the members of Querimonia remain bound by their shared hostility towards Ratiosaur . Nonetheless, there may be scope to rebuild the invisible college, to renew the exchange between them, despite their differences. Indeed, the motivation for rebuilding lies in their differences: for it is these that create the scope for mutually beneficial exchange. There is less to learn from someone whose work and approach precisely mirrors one's own. In order to learn, however, one must be willing to expend the effort required to understand what others have to offer. Such willingness has been in short supply on both sides, but recent developments suggest that spirits, at least, may become more willing: Ratiosaurs , forced to face normative questions, should become more open to critical approaches, meanwhile the members of Querimonia have developed an identity independent analytical approach. Second, the alternatives to this 'neo-neo' synthesis encompass a good deal more variety than the Marxist label suggests. Cf. Craig Murphy and Douglas Nelson, 'A tale of two heterodoxies', British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3: 3, 2001, pp. 393-412.
4
In the United States, IPE has become so thoroughly identified with its methodology that
'IPE' has become an ambiguous term that may indicate the politics of the international economy and / or the Ratiosaur approach to international politics. See Peter Katzenstein,
Robert Keohane and Stephen Krasner, ' International Organization and the study of world politics', in ' International Organization at Fifty', a special issue of International Organization
52: 4,1998, pp. 645-85.
5
See Robert Cox, 'Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory', Millennium , 10: 2, 1981, pp. 128-9. Also published in Robert Keohane, ed.,
Neorealism and its critics , (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).
6
See Murphy and Nelson, 'Heterodoxies'.
2

of their opposition to the Ratiosaurs , which should enable them to deploy rationalist tools of analysis without fear of losing their identity in the process.
The growth of the global economy creates issues of how to manage or regulate transnational economic flows and, ever the problem-solvers, Ratiosaurs have become much preoccupied with global governance.
7
Global governance, however, pushes Ratiosaurs to explore unfamiliar, overtly normative territory. For the neo-liberal Keohane: 'the question of governance is one of how the various institutions and processes of global society could be meshed more effectively, in a way that would be regarded as legitimate '.
8
From his Realist perspective, Gilpin observes: 'Governance first and last is about the exercise of power to achieve political, social, and other objectives. Every scheme to govern the global economy,
9 therefore, must confront the fundamental question: Governance for what ?' While Ratiosaurs have advanced on the empirical instrumental questions of governance with their formidable armoury of analytical tools, they are less adapted to tackle these normative questions regarding the legitimacy or purposes of global governance. The Ratiosaurs have traditionally understood their project as one of objective social science, defined by a division of labour that allots normative debate to specialist political philosophers, but this neat division of labour is difficult to maintain.
10
Swifter-footed Ratiosaurs have sought to engage with political philosophers who can help them unpack the normative issues.
11
They have yet to engage with the members of Querimonia , of whose work they appear to remain largely oblivious, but their new awareness of normative questions and exposure to the complex relationship between the empirical and the normative should make them more open to critical approaches.
Meanwhile the members of Querimonia are in their element: the complex relationships and shifting identities of the post-Cold War international economy create a habitat favourable to their diverse habits. Their critical drive causes them to probe and challenge the structures of the international economy; they are more alert to changes and to the emergence of new
7
Ever the bellwether, Keohane predicts: 'the subject of our study will be less individual states and their policies than governance at various levels'. Robert Keohane, 'APSA presidents reflect on political science: From international to world politics' in Perspectives on Politics 3:
2, June 2005, pp. 316-7.
8
Robert Keohane, 'Introduction', Power and governance in a partially globalized world ,
(London: Routledge, 2002), pp.15-16. Emphasis added.
9
Robert Gilpin, Global political economy , p.400. Emphasis added.
10
The relationship between normative and empirical claims is too complex to unpack here, but a couple of observations should suffice to make the point. For example, if a political philosopher stipulates that everyone significantly affected by a rule should have some say in the making of the rule, the question of who is significantly affected is not simply empirical or normative but combines elements of both. Moreover, political philosophers often make use of empirical claims to ground claims about norms, for example, that the international economy has knit us together so tightly that justice must be defined at the level of the global rather than the national.
11
See, for example, Helen Milner's review essay 'Globalization, development, and international institutions: normative and positive perspectives', Perspectives on Politics 3: 4,
2005, pp. 833-54. In 2006, Milner invited both empirical scholars and political philosophers to an inter-disciplinary workshop on 'Normative and empirical evaluation of global governance', organised at Princeton in collaboration with Robert Keohane and Charles Beitz.
3

formations than Ratiosaur . Normative issues are the dietary staple for the critical species that belong to this genus and their self-consciously critical approach is well adapted to tease out the complex relationships between things as they are and as they might be. Members of
Querimonia are increasingly happy to reach across internal theoretical divisions and absorb insights from the other species within their own genus. They also remain promiscuous in their use of other disciplines, drawing on the work of sociologists, feminist scholars and critical theorists.
12
There are, however, limits to this accepting eclecticism: it does not yet encompass
Ratiosaur and Querimonia continues to manifest animosity towards analyses exhibiting
Ratiosaur features, such as formal theory or anything more than the most cursory quantitative evidence. This self-denying ordinance is an unnecessary handicap. Querimonia need not struggle to retain a foothold in the academy: it has become as dominant in British IPE as
Ratiosaur is in the US and it is more than strong enough to draw on Ratiosaur methods without losing its identity and sense of alterity.
These recent developments in IPE have opened up the possibility of renewing the 'invisible college' of IPE: as Ratiosaur discovers the complexities of normative issues, they should be prepared to engage with the critical insights offered by Querimonia . Moreover, the development of an independent research agenda, no longer defined by opposition to
Ratiosaur , should allow Querimonia to use, where appropriate, the tools developed by the
Ratiosaur . Both types of IPE can usefully borrow from the expertise developed by the other, but the benefits of a renewed engagement have wider potential than such borrowings. There are (meta)theoretical issues that could be explored together: for example, it would be instructive to compare the relative merits of the industrial-style division of labour between
Ratiosaur and normative philosophers with the undivided labour, or craft approach, preferred by Querimonia .
13
Empirical studies also provide a promising field for constructive engagement and collaboration. A scholar's underlying theoretical concerns may determine which part they choose to study, but these predilections should not bind or blind the subsequent investigation: one gains nothing by denying oneself the full range of tools with which to investigate, and exposure to diverse theoretical perspectives brings out different aspects of a subject. As Cooley argues: 'the appropriateness of any given IPE method should depend upon the research question asked, not pre-existing assumptions about the inherent advantages of either rationalist or non-rationalist approaches'.
14
In this section, I have described recent developments in IPE theory, emphasising the fact that scholars from very different perspectives have been calling for the integration of comparative and international political economy. I also argued that both Ratiosaur and Querimonia could
12
Amin and Palan, aroused by the charms of 'libidinal political economy', suggest drawing upon 'anthropology, psychoanalysis, literary criticism, linguistics, architecture and history of art'. Ash Amin and Ronen Palan, 'Towards a non-rationalist international political economy',
Review of International Political Economy 8: 4, 2001, pp. 559-77. Gills, however, warns against losing our focus on the core material issues at the heart of IPE. See Gills, 'Reorienting'.
13
Does the 'industrial approach' overlook important issues because it over-simplifies and/or bring clarity? Does the 'craft approach' overlook features that do not fit a given critical perspective and/or highlight important new features? Much could be learnt from an open discussion about the merits and demerits of these different approaches.
14
Alexander Cooley, 'Thinking rationally about hierarchy and global governance', Review of
International Political Economy 10: 4, 2003, pp. 672-84.
4

benefit from collaboration, suggesting that empirical work was a particularly promising area for collaboration. The next section illustrates the potential benefits of renewing the invisible college by showing how insights from both types of IPE scholar illuminate different aspects of the (global) political economy of human biotechnology and, conversely, how the politics of the global bioeconomy highlight challenges facing contemporary IPE theory of both the
Ratiosaur and Querimonia varieties.
2.
Analysing the global bioeconomy
The commercial exploitation of biological material presents a vivid challenge to the institutions that frame economic exchange, the core concern of political economy. This
'bioeconomy' is a highly politicized economic arena: the fault-lines fall between as well as within societies, creating a complex global politics exacerbated by institutional differences and competitive pressures. At the international level, the most visible issue has been the transatlantic tension concerning genetically modified agricultural crops, but this is merely a foretaste of the conflicts ahead. Human biotechnology poses much greater political problems, for it involves the preservation, manipulation, propagation and consumption of human tissue and, in the process, breaks many taboos. Few arenas of economic activity activate so many forms of politics, connecting with so many of the issues that divide societies: gender and reproductive politics, culture and religion. Yet, despite these conflicts and the inherent uncertainties of the research process, the economic potential of human biotechnology appears immense: by promising to maintain the health (and looks) of ageing populations in the developed world, it taps into a vast and wealthy global market.
15
In the context of a growing international commerce in the materials, products and profits of human biotechnology, the visceral politics of the bioeconomy take on an inescapably global aspect.
In addition to their intrinsic interest, the global politics of the bioeconomy also provide an excellent proving ground for testing IPE theory. They illustrate the benefits of drawing from the fullest possible range of IPE theories: both Ratiosaur and Querimonia have insights to offer on the political economy of human biotechnology. I begin by discussing how the critically alert Querimonia have led the way in uncovering the politics of the bioeconomy and the insights that their theoretical perspectives offer. One of these insights is the role played by biotechnology in the development of the competition economy, a subject that lies at the interface between domestic and international aspects of political economy, underscoring the importance of integrating comparative and international political economy. As I go on to discuss, the competition state is also one of a number of areas where a Ratiosaur approach may provide a helpful perspective. Last but not least, I discuss how the global politics of the bioeconomy draws attention to challenges for both perspectives, highlighting areas where the work of both Ratiosaur and Querimonia would benefit from further development.
Querimonia
The global politics of the bioeconomy are fertile ground for Querimonia , and its nimblefooted members have been quicker to recognise the significance of the field as a subject for
IPE than the Ratiosaurs , in part because their critical antennae are attuned to the way in
15
As with many other areas of medical research, investment in human biotechnology has been geared towards the ageing of the wealthy, the pathologies of prosperity rather than the problems of the poor.
5

which the market relies upon governance and the politics inherent in the construction of the market.
16
(They are also more aware of work in sociology and anthropology, the fields that have pioneered the study of social and political impacts of science and technology.) In particular, critical work on the politics of the bioeconomy has drawn attention to two important aspects:
17
First, it draws attention to the way in which the commercialisation of human biotechnology has transformed the institutional framework of the market, in particular our understanding of property rights and the limits of market exchange. Second, it highlights the role of states in developing the bioeconomy as part of a competitive strategy in the context of global economic competition, and the role that played by global capital in creating that competitive context.
The central theme for Querimonia is the relationship between states and markets: their critical perspective reminds us that markets are social phenomena, dependent on institutional frameworks. Human biotechnology is an extremely disruptive technology that tests these institutions at their very foundations, providing an opportunity to study the political conflict generated by a market in the making. The rules and regulations that govern markets are typically complex but, at their most basic, they must clarify the shared expectations of market participants in two respects. First, a market relies on clearly defined property rights: who has the right to exchange what type of good. However, there are deep divisions regarding the propriety of constructing property rights that cover the products of human biotechnology, whether physical or intellectual. The creation of the bioeconomy forces societies to confront deep questions and taboos, as they redefine property rights to deal with biomedical knowledge or the commodification of human tissue. Querimonia has played a crucial role in broadening the scope of IPE analysis to take in the politics of property rights, especially intellectual property rights, and developing a body of work that is extremely helpful in unpacking this aspect of the bioeconomy.
18
Second, a market is defined by its limits, by which exchanges are blocked, excluded from the legal marketplace. Most societies place limitations on transactions involving human flesh, including proscriptions or limitations on the sale of human tissue. Transactions involving human tissue are not an entirely new phenomenon,
19
but tissue engineering, the propagation and transformation of human tissue, has opened up the potential scope for such transactions, presenting a severe challenge to these traditional limits on market exchange. This is another area in which scholars with a critical
16
See, for example, Rodney Loeppky, Encoding capital: the political economy of the human genome project , (New York: Routledge Press, 2005). Also, two articles by Loeppky: 'History, technology, and the capitalist state: the comparative political economy of biotechnology and genomics', Review of International Political Economy 12: 2, 2005, pp. 264-86 and
'International restructuring, health and the advanced industrial state', New Political Economy
9: 4, 2004. pp. 493-51.
17
Other important features that are highlighted from a Querimonia perspective include the role played by transnational networks and organisations such as the Catholic church, scientific and patient advocacy groups, which have helped to shape attitudes, regulation and funding for research in human biotechnology.
18
See, for example, Christopher May, A global political economy of intellectual property rights: the new enclosures?
(London: Routledge, 2000) and Christopher May and Susan Sell,
Intellectual property rights: a critical history , (Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner, 2005).
19
There is evidence of blood transfusions and the transplantation of teeth taking place as far back as the seventeenth century, as well as the notorious trade in corpses for the anatomy schools.
6

perspective have lead the way, uncovering the processes by which property rights are created in human tissue and the potential exploitation of vulnerable donor populations.
20
Another useful perspective offered by Querimonia is the concept of the 'competition state', the state restructured and refocused as a strategic response to the pressures of global or transnational forces in an open international economy. It is worth noting that the concept draws on a combination of insights from comparative and international political economy, reinforcing the argument that these fields should be (re)integrated.
21
This restructured competition state uses supply side policies designed to enhance the competitiveness of the national economy, in part by keeping it at the forefront of innovation, hoping to reap the rewards as a high-skilled 'knowledge economy'.
22
The bioeconomy provides vivid examples of the competition state in action, with governments using regulatory and investment policies to create or maintain an innovative lead in the field.
23
Governments can deploy regulation to boost their prospects of developing a commercial presence in human biotechnology (the controversial nature of the industry makes the development of a stable regulatory framework particularly difficult, but also particularly valuable). Strategies include deregulation and reregulation, as well as the development of new regulatory frameworks to support new areas of economic activity. On the investment side, governments support capital accumulation with policies including finance-friendly measures designed to boost private investment as well as the use of public funds to support biotechnology directly and indirectly, through spending on basic science and science infrastructure. New health technologies are risky investments and, since the collapse of technology stocks in 2000, there has been little private capital invested in the field. Instead, venture capitalists have joined the campaign for increased public investment,
24
a phenomenon highlighted by critical scholars, ever vigilant regarding the role played by capitalism and by global capital in driving the development of the bioeconomy.
25
20
See, for example, Waldby and Mitchell's discussion of the use of ‘waste’ as a category to separate donors from their flesh and free it to circulate in the global tissue economy.
Catherine Waldby and Robert Mitchell, Tissue economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism , (Durham NC: Duke University Press, 2006).
21
See Susanne Soederberg, Georg Menz and Philip Cerny, eds, Internalizing globalization: the rise of neoliberalism and the decline of national varieties of capitalism , (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
22
See Philip Cerny, 'Structuring the political Arena: public goods, states and governance in a globalizing world', in Palan, (ed.) Global political economy . See also Ronen Palan and Jason
Abbott, State strategies in the global political economy , (London: Cassel, 1999).
23
Cf. Hans Lofgren and Mats Benner, ‘The political economy of the "new biology": biotechnology and the competition state’ paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference,
2005, available on-line at http://www.druid.dk.
24
For example, venture capitalists played a prominent role in the campaign for Proposition
71, the voter initiative that established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
25
Critical scholars have also suggested that policymakers are hoping that the new health technologies could avert the pensions crisis by cutting healthcare costs and maintaining the health of the working population. See Waldby and Mitchell, Tissue economies . Melinda
Cooper argues that regenerative medicine needs to be understood in the context of the transition from Fordist to post-Fordist modes of production, where it is presented as a biomedical solution to the limits of growth. Melinda Cooper, 'Resuscitations: stem cells and the crisis of old age', Body & Society 12: 1, 2006, pp. 1-23.
7

Ratiosaur
Ratiosaurs , perhaps less alert to the radically new, have been slower to recognise the development of the global bioeconomy and its significance for IPE.
26
Nonetheless, the bioeconomy presents plenty of toothsome meat for their problem-solving perspective: their rationalist approach is well adapted to trace the dynamics of competition and collaboration as states and international organisations create and regulate markets. Ratiosaurs have a formidable array of techniques to analyse the competitive tension generated by different states' trajectories in human biotechnology, whether they are competing for economic advantage along the lines of a competition state or trying to prevent others from gaining the edge in a technology they are unable or unwilling to pursue for themselves. Ratiosaurs are also well equipped to examine the incentive structures for international collaboration: There is pressure on states to collaborate to develop common standards and regulations (such as common bioethical standards) in order to support international scientific collaborations, even as they compete to capture the benefits of that collaboration. The developing global commerce in human tissue requires international collaboration to prevent exploitation and ensure reasonable safety standards: variations in national regulations (for example, regarding payment of donors or allocation organs for transplant) create strong incentives to trade in human tissue and international cooperation is necessary for effective regulation because the tissue economy is unusually vulnerable to smuggling.
27
The economics of investment, the impact of returns to scale, provide yet another motivation to collaborate to produce consistent regulatory frameworks that allow successful products to be sold across as many different markets as possible. Ratiosaurs are well equipped to analyse these incentive structures and the strategic interactions they induce, as well as contributing instrumental knowledge about to how to build better functioning regulatory frameworks and more stable international institutions.
So Ratiosaur perspectives offer insight into the politics of the global bioeconomy: in turn, the bioeconomy illuminates some of the core issues on the Ratiosaur research agenda. For reasons of space, I shall focus on one: the nature of power in the context of the bioeconomy.
In terms of resources, the United States has the biggest power base in the bioeconomy: it has tremendous intellectual resources in universities and other research institutions, US actors control key intellectual property, and a highly developed venture capital industry can provide greater resources to invest in translational research (developing biotechnology products for the market) than can the private sector in any other state. However, domestic divisions over reproductive politics have prevented the United States from developing a federal framework to regulate human embryonic stem cell science, a key area of research.
28
As a could-be
26
There is, however, recognition of the economic significance of human biotechnology among more policy-oriented scholars. See, for example, Robert Paarlberg, 'The great stem cell race', Foreign Policy 128, 2005, pp. 44-51.
27
Would-be donors can cross borders with relative ease and, in many cases, it is similarly straightforward for would-be patients to travel to jurisdictions where they can access controversial or cut-price treatments.
28
The popular misconception that the United States forbids this type of research stems from the restrictions placed on federal funding in this area: if a scientist has access to alternative funding there is far less restriction on what may be done than in, for example, the United
Kingdom where research can only be conducted under license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
8

hegemon that lacks internal cohesion and therefore direction, the US government has found it hard to shape the regulation of research at the international level, let alone influence domestic regulation in other countries.
29
Meanwhile the United Kingdom's regulatory regime has been highly influential, adopted in modified form in a number of other countries, a phenomenon that could be characterized as the exercise of soft power and one that should make it easier for the United Kingdom to benefit from international collaboration.
However, what happens in the United States still affects institutions in the rest of the world because of the size of its market: a large, wealthy, ageing population with a vast appetite for new health technologies. The desire to sell into this potentially lucrative market gives US law worldwide impact because, whatever regulatory regime they face at home, it is in the interests of producers to secure the rights and permissions necessary to sell their product without hindrance in the United States. The idea that market size is an important factor in economic leadership is not new, but the Ratiosaur debate has tended to focus on its role in motivating and facilitating government action. The bioeconomy, by contrast, demonstrates the impact of
US market size in the absence of government action, something that may not entirely surprise
Querimonia , but which merits serious treatment from Ratiosaurs . The opportunity to engage
Ratiosaurs in this type of analysis in the context of the bioeconomy arises because conflict over regulation is sharper than in older, more settled, fields of economic activity: this provides the traction necessary for the powerful but blunt tools of Ratiosaur , allowing them to tackle issues of structural power, the kind of critical question traditionally within the domain of Querimonia .
3.
Challenges to IPE theory
So far, I have tried to show that both Querimonia and Ratiosaur offer analytical insights into the global politics of the bioeconomy and that the dynamics of the bioeconomy, in turn, shed light on key concerns for both types of IPE. However, although they offer numerous insights on the bioeconomy, the bioeconomy also draws attention to some notable lacunae in their work. For reasons of space, I shall limit my discussion to a brief overview of gender and the role played by less developed countries.
30
It is an oft-heard lament that gender is neglected in mainstream or ‘malestream’ IPE.
31
Waylen argues that even the members of Querimonia , despite their promising critical orientation, have failed to engage with the full import of gender in IPE.
32
The bioeconomy highlights this lacuna, for gender is an inescapable and important aspect of the bioeconomy: this is, after all, where the productive economy collides with the reproductive economy,
29
Cf Francis Fukuyama, 'Gene Regime', Foreign Policy , 129, 2002, pp. 57-63.
30
Another lacuna, in this article as well as in IPE more generally, is the role of the European
Union. The EU has played an important role in the politics of the bioeconomy, not only through its efforts to regulate human biotechnology but also by providing a platform for the deliberation of bioethics. For discussion of these issues, see Brian Salter, 'Cultural biopolitics and bioethics' in Herbert Gottweis and Kathryn Braun, eds, Mapping biopolitics: medicalscientific transformations and the rise of new forms of governance , (London: Routledge, forthcoming).
31
Cf Contributions on feminist international relations in International Affairs 80: 1, 2004.
32
Georgina Waylen, 'You still don't understand: why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE', Review of International Studies 32: 1, 2006, pp. 145-64.
9

where the formalised processes of exchange characteristic of the former penetrate the latter's largely informal realm. The most vivid example of this is the growing international trade in human eggs: egg harvesting is an unpleasant and hazardous business and national regulations regarding egg donation vary widely, creating incentives for an international trade that exploits this variation and raising serious concerns about the potential impact on vulnerable donors.
33
However, there are also subtler gender challenges that arising from the development of human biotechnology. The manipulation of human eggs exposes the intimate relationship between the productive economy and the reproductive economy because, for example, the potential for women to delay reproduction by freezing their eggs (or ovarian tissue) raises broader issues about gender and the way in which societies accommodate, or fail to accommodate, the reproductive labour of women. Advances in human biotechnology are drawing attention to the central role played by gender in structuring the political economy, a phenomenon to which both Querimonia and Ratiosaur need to pay greater attention.
The development of the bioeconomy also highlights the importance and diversity of roles played by less developed countries (LDCs) and the need for both types of IPE scholarship to adapt to encompass these diverse and changing roles. In the past, both Ratiosaur and
Querimonia have tended to frame LDCs in terms of their alterity, as exceptions to the developed order of the international economy to be disregarded or, alternatively, subsumed under the simplifying but geographically inaccurate rubric of a 'North–South' clash.
However,
LDC governments and populations are far from the uniformly helpless or passive or corrupt recipients of global capital and development aid implied by such framing.
34
In the post-Cold
War period, those outside the charmed circle of the advanced industrialized economies have had little choice but to participate in an international economy whose rules were made for benefit of others. They are, however, learning how to operate within (or circumvent) those rules: IPE needs to take cognisance of the rise of these countries as 'normal' state actors in the global political economy with diverse strategies and interests.
35
The global bioeconomy underscores this need by upsetting established hierarchies and illustrating the similarities between the issues and strategies of developed countries and
LDCs. The bioeconomy upsets established hierarchies because the entry costs are relatively low: one can participate at the cutting edge of research in human biotechnology without investing a colossal sum. This has obvious appeal for LDC governments hoping to boost
33
For example, concerns have been raised about Romanian clinics exporting human eggs for
IVF treatment elsewhere in the European Union, particularly the United Kingdom. Egg donors risk developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, a dangerous and potentially lifethreatening condition.
34
I have chosen to emphasise the powers and strategies of LDC states, as these are the areas of relative neglect in IPE. However, this is not intended to deny the particular vulnerabilities of specific LDCs: in the context of the bioeconomy the potential for the exploitation of vulnerable donor populations is a significant concern, especially for countries where advanced technological capabilities exist side by side with mass poverty, such as South
Africa and India.
35
See Amrita Narlikar and Andrew Hurrell, 'The new politics of confrontation: developing countries at cancun and beyond', presented at conference 'Endgame at the WTO? Reflections on the Doha development agenda', University of Birmingham, 2005. Also Amrita Narlikar,
International trade and developing countries: coalitions in the GATT and WTO , (London:
Routledge, 2003).
10

growth by capturing the economic benefits of innovation, a point that highlights the similarities between their strategies and those of governments in developed states, for it is not only the governments of advanced industrialized states who aspire to develop the 'knowledge economy': China, South Korea and Singapore have all made significant investments in human biotechnology and with some success (despite regulatory issues in China and South Korea).
In order to unpack the complex political economy of these investments, the strategic calculations and regulatory issues, one would need to draw on insights from development theory, such as work on the developmental state, the role it plays and the problems it causes by the blurring of the distinction between state and market actors.
36
The role of LDCs is, therefore, an aspect of the bioeconomy that underscores the need for IPE to draw on interdisciplinary knowledge, integrating the political economy of development within the broader framework of (re)integrated international and comparative political economy.
37
Conclusions
It is time to renew the extensive invisible college of IPE, to encourage exchange between
Ratiosaur and Querimonia . Exchange does not imply the erasure of theoretical differences.
Quite the opposite: it necessitates the participation of distinct parties. Initial exchange might be limited to a cold commerce in tools and insights, but it is worth striving for a richer form of exchange, for an on-going conversation. Conversation is most fruitful when there is mutual respect and understanding, which can be hard to achieve if force of habit has hardened the features of familiar debates. Fortunately, recent developments in IPE have created fresh spaces and secure places that should make it easier for scholars to converse with others from different schools. An increasing awareness of normative questions should make rationalist scholars more receptive to critical work, while critical scholars are discovering an independent identity.
Conversation requires investment from participants: they need to be prepared to translate their work into a common vernacular and to reduce technical language of all sorts, both mathematical and philosophical, to a bare minimum. There will be many who are not prepared to make this effort and no doubt some who will oppose engagement between
Ratiosaur and Querimonia : however the uncompromising will help to maintain distinct identities among the conversing, maintaining the reservoirs of difference that fuel conversation. I hope, however, that members of Querimonia will work to share their perspectives on the institutions and structures of the international economy by communicating their constructive criticism in a vernacular that speaks to Ratiosaur . Not as supplements to plug gaps, such as the social construction of identity, in the Ratiosaur research agenda, but as equal and self-directing members of the invisible college, free to choose the questions they pursue and free to work with whichever analytical techniques or collaborators suit their questions. After all, if Querimonia leans towards problem posing, might it not make sense to work, on occasion, with problem solving Ratiosaurs ? Querimonia will expose new areas of study and critical issues, such as the politics of the global bioeconomy: many of which will benefit from the application of Ratiosaurs .
36
See Cheol-Sung Lee and Andrew Schrank, 'Incubating innovation or cultivating corruption? The developmental state and the life sciences in South Korea', unpublished ms.
37
Nicola Phillips, 'Globalizing' and 'International political economy, comparative political economy and the study of contemporary development', IPEG Papers in Global Political
Economy 8, 2004.
11