Yet looking over the geopolitical developments of recent weeks, my usual approach to the world is falling short. The United States has embarked on a series of moves that are diplomatically costly and difficult to justify on strategic or economic grounds. Washington has mobilized adversaries, unsettled allies, and yielded little in the way of concrete gains. Not even the president—so often the answer to the question cui bono—appears to profit in any obvious sense.
Political economists are trained to ask a simple question when confronted with puzzling events: cui bono—who gains? More often than not, that is where the explanation lies. Someone, somewhere stands to gain—or just as often, is keen not to lose—and that someone is applying pressure to make sure their interests are protected. They might do so by blocking regulation, or accelerating it; by pushing for a treaty, or sabotaging its negotiations. But whatever they’re doing, it can usually be explained by material interests.
Political economists are trained to ask a simple question when confronted with puzzling events: cui bono—who gains? More often than not, that is where the explanation lies. Someone, somewhere stands to gain—or just as often, is keen not to lose—and that someone is applying pressure to make sure their interests are protected. They might do so by blocking regulation, or accelerating it; by pushing for a treaty, or sabotaging its negotiations. But whatever they’re doing, it can usually be explained by material interests.
Yet looking over the geopolitical developments of recent weeks, my usual approach to the world is falling short. The United States has embarked on a series of moves that are diplomatically costly and difficult to justify on strategic or economic grounds. Washington has mobilized adversaries, unsettled allies, and yielded little in the way of concrete gains. Not even the president—so often the answer to the question cui bono—appears to profit in any obvious sense.
So what is going on? One possibility is that political economy is the wrong approach.
Continue Reading on Foreign Policy
This preview shows approximately 15% of the article. Read the full story on the publisher's website to support quality journalism.