The increasingly influential neochartalist Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) comes with a nation-state-centric framing of politics. The neochartalists argue that many alleged globalisation-related constraints on national economic policy are illusory or seriously overstated. In their view, monetarily sovereign states enjoy substantial autonomy over their fiscal and monetary policy decisions. The neochartalist diagnosis thus seems to undermine cosmopolitan calls for supranational forms of macroeconomic governance. However, this paper argues that if we pay serious attention to a range of subtler obstacles and strategic incentives that apply especially to small currency-issuing states, cosmopolitan aspirations remain well-motivated. Accordingly, the political implications of MMT are reexamined and a case for supranational exercise of monetary sovereignty is made. The paper goes on to demonstrate how the standard state-centric approach to currency privileges can prove counterproductive from the perspective of democratic governance. It is concluded that neochartalism and cosmopolitanism can fruitfully both correct and enrich each other.

IPE is in need of critical self-reflection. A large proportion of scholars have rejected the Open Economy Politics framework, which has dominated American IPE since the late 1990s. While new, unconventional research, both in the US and especially elsewhere, often tackles crucial questions in imaginative ways, we argue that critical IPE is yet to address fully the two key deficiencies from which it has arguably suffered from its very beginning. These deficiencies are the paucity of economic theorisation and the lack of philosophical depth. In this paper, we seek to strengthen the case for the following four claims: (1) there is a limit to how far IPE can go without addressing explicitly the problems of economic theory; (2) mainstream economics remains largely insulated from the concerns of social scientific IPE, but there are several economic theoretical traditions from which such IPE can draw explanatory insights and hypotheses; (3) systematic engagement across research traditions requires an explicit metatheoretical framework such as critical social scientific realism or pragmatism; and (4) IPE should illuminate structures, mechanisms and processes that are not confined by state borders or limited to nation-state interactions. A well-known corollary of (4) is that the field should be called World or Global PE rather than IPE.

A dialectical conception of justification helps conciliationists about peer disagreement establish the symmetry considerations on which their account is premised. On this conception, appeals to personal or hidden forms of evidence fail to provide a symmetry breaker that would allow one to dismiss a conflicting peer opinion. Furthermore, the act of citing the same evidence repetitively tends to illegitimately beg the question against the peer, no matter how accurate one’s own overall assessment of this evidence. However, the dialectical conception of justification does not automatically vindicate conciliationism. In many of the most interesting cases of peer disagreement there are vast bodies of dialectically sharable evidence that can ultimately provide enough non-question-begging epistemic resources to settle the dispute, even if appealing to those resources violates the independence requirement—a further premise of conciliationism. Absent modifications to the independence requirement, it would therefore be premature to embrace conciliationism.

Kasvavaa suosiota nauttiva moderni rahateoria (Modern Monetary Theory, MMT) on eurooppalaisessa keskustelussa toistaiseksi herättänyt innostusta enimmäkseen yhteisvaluutta euron ja Euroopan unionin ”liittovaltiokehityksen” vastustajissa. MMT:n pohjalta esitetty talouskurikritiikki on ollut voittopuolisesti euroskeptistä laatua. Tämä puheenvuoro esittää, että MMT:n talousteoreettisten näkökohtien valossa tämä on itse asiassa hyvinkin nurinkurista – teoria tarjoaa erinomaisia perusteita nimenomaan eurooppalaisen elvytyksen ja syvän talouspoliittisen yhdentymisen puolesta. Yleisemminkin MMT:n opetukset soveltuvat kansallisvaltioita suoremmin valtioiden välisiin fiskaaliunioneihin, joissa kulutus- ja verotuspäätökset tehdään koordinoidusti. Puheenvuoro pohjautuu Konsta Kotilaisen Global Society -lehdessä maaliskuussa 2021 julkaistuun artikkeliin modernin rahateorian kosmopolitanistisesta tulkinnasta: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2021.1898343