Robert Cox graduated in history from McGill University. From 1946 to 1971, he worked with the International Labour Organization in Geneva, but then returned to academia. His time in the ILO had convinced him of the restricted thought process in bureaucracy and had given him a pessimism about obtaining change from large international organizations. It was in this transition period between the ILO and University life that Cox began to formulate his ideas around the thinking of radical left-wing writers. From 1977 to his retirement, he was professor of political science at York University, Toronto. In 1981, Cox published his seminal article, Social Forces, States, and World Orders, in which he pleaded for a realignment of political economy. He rejected the purely state centric approach by arguing that states were themselves part of the greater world order of productive forces. But there were also social and cultural constructions. Indeed, there were hegemonic social and cultural constructions by the leading elites. In this respect, Cox distanced himself from Marxist ideology by emphasizing both structure and agency. Structure, the socioeconomic condition of society, and agency, individual human action either separately or in groups. He then turned to call for a more critical approach to political economy as opposed to what he saw as a predominant problem solving approach. Now let's see how he contrasts the two approaches. Problem solvers take the world as they find it, and work within its frameworks, whereas critical theorists stand outside the order, and ask how it came about. Problem solvers try to use he available institutions to solve problems, whereas critical theories questions the power relations represented by them and analyse around the line change. Problem solvers deal with problems individually and therefore have a fragmented approach while critical theorists look at the system as a whole. Problems solvers are ahistorical. They regard the system as immutable, at least in the short term, whereas critical theorist see the past as part of the dynamism of change extending to the present. And in so far as problem solvers use theories, they only use those that fit comfortably within the existing order, whereas critical theorists posit alternative and more desirable scenarios. Finally, the problem solvers are conservative to the extent that they actually help serve and perpetuate the existing order, whereas critical theorists provide a guide to an alternative world order. Now the problem is not that these two brooches do not exist, but that they are portrayed as incompatible opposites. It's unhelpful to suggest that problem solvers, or practical policy makers are unaware of, or necessarily uncritical of the power balances underlying the system. And it's also rather extreme to portray those who restrict themselves to system level criticism as by implication, the only forces for change. Let me give just one example. Jan Pronk was one of the most left-wing politicians who ever held the development aid portfolio in the Netherlands, or, indeed, anywhere else. In the 1970s, he was a fervent advocate for a New World Order, which would restructure the prestructions and price relationships between the first and the third world. Yet he also engaged in issues for the best distribution of dust development aid and how best to use it as leverage for things like family planning and human right's issues. So, while waiting for the world to change, you can still actually try to do something useful.
