Many thanks, Nat. This paper really grew out of the Strange conference in London last year.

Thanks for introducing me to both Susan Strange and everday research, Ben! Had to find my slightly warped copy of States and Markets, which I originally bought for the 2019 IPE specialization at UCPH, to write this!

The paper is published as open access and can be found here: doi.org/10.1017/S026...

While everyday grievances were filtered out by the selective context for decades (due to factors such as cheap credit), the perceptual selectivity of the US state has shifted and paved the way for those perceptions to inform the most powerful offices in DC.

I illustrate these mechanisms empirically using Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs. Zooming in on transformations of the American sphere of production, I conclude that the tariffs partly can be explained by shifting everyday perceptions in former US industrial powerhouses.

Drawing on state theory, I argue that a perceptual selectivity is key to understanding the relationship between the everyday and how the state projects its power internationally. While some everyday perceptions have access to (international) policymaking, others are blocked by the selective context.

To overcome this, I approach the state as an intermediary between the everyday on one hand and structural power in the international system on the other. A given state’s deployment of structural power, my argument goes, depends on everyday legitimacy to remain stable.

While more than 35 years have passed since Susan Strange published her four-faceted notion of structural power in States and Markets, the concept still offers much to analyses of contemporary international affairs. Yet, its everyday underpinnings remain vastly undertheorized.

Congrats, Chris! 🎉

Sejt! Tillykke, Rune. Det ser vildt spændende ud!!

The full piece has been published with Open Access and can be found here:

doi.org/10.1080/0969...

(8/8)

I hope this piece encourages IPE scholars to rediscover hegemony studies and makes current hegemony scholars aware of recent developments within IPE. Doing so, I argue, will allow the scholarship’s current period of progress and development to continue for even longer.
(7/8)

However, by highlighting recent developments within IPE as ways forward, I show how hegemony scholarship has parted ways with IPE over the past ~20 years. While hegemony studies were once an integrated part of IPE, they now seem more aligned with IR and/or Security Studies.
(6/8)