¹ See Cox, Robert W.: ‘Social forces, states, and world orders: Beyond International Relations theory’, Millennium, 10:2 (1981)Google Scholar; ‘Gramsci, hegemony and International Relations: an essay in method’, Millennium, 12:2 (1983); ‘Middlepowermanship, Japan and future world order’, International Order, 44:4 (1989); ‘Global Perestroika’, Socialist Register, 28 (1992); ‘Towards a post-hegemonic conceptualization of world order: Reflections on the relevancy of Ibn Khaldun’, in Robert W. Cox, with Timothy J. Sinclair, Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and Cox, Robert W., Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

² See Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1979)Google Scholar.

³ As a positivist ‘problem-solving theory’ it is: (i) implicitly conservative; (ii) prone to methodological dualism; (iii) liable to dubious ‘objective’ knowledge claims; (iv) often guilty of ahistoricism; and ultimately (v) unable to theorise change. Cox, ‘Social forces’, pp. 91–2.

⁴ ‘Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.’ Ibid., p. 87.

⁵ Ibid., pp. 87–90.

⁶ See, for example, Kindelberger, Charles, The World Depression 1929–1939 (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony, Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁷ Cox, Production, Power, p. 355.

⁸ Ibid., p. 105, p. 6.

⁹ Cox, ‘Social forces’, pp. 95–6.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 97.

¹¹ Cox, ‘Gramsci, hegemony’, pp. 135–7.

¹² Cox, Robert W., ‘Structural issues of global governance: Implications for Europe’, in Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 259–260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Cox, ‘Global Perestroika’, p. 298. Cox defines nébuleuse as ‘governance without government’. Ibid., p. 301.

¹⁴ Cox, ‘Social forces’, p. 111; Cox, Production, Power, p. 359.

¹⁵ For simplicity’s sake this article will differentiate between the ‘Coxians’ and the ‘Amsterdam School’. The former, the most commonly referred to here, consists of those neo-Gramscians that draw directly from Robert Cox, which include, among others, Stephen Gill, Mark Rupert, Adam D. Morton, Andreas Bieler, and William I. Robinson. The ‘Amsterdam School’, on the other hand, while applying many of Cox’s concepts, draws more directly from Gramsci and Marx. These include Henk Overbeek, Kees van der Pijl, Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Otto Holman, and Marianne Marchand.

¹⁶ Cox, ‘Social forces’, p. 95.

¹⁷ Cox, Production, Power, p. 4; Cox, ‘Social forces’, pp. 97–8.

¹⁸ Cox, ‘Social forces’, pp. 98–100.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 100–01.

²⁰ Considered as the principal collective actors ‘engendered by the production process’, which encapsulate certain configurations of social class forces and operated within and across all spheres of activity.

²¹ Drawing on Gramsci’s ‘integral State’, Cox understands FOS as historically contingent ‘state-society complexes’ whose particular nature is determined by the underlying configurations of social-class forces as expressed in its HB. Cox, ‘Social forces’, p. 86; Cox, Production, Power, p. 105.

²² Referring to ‘the particular configuration of forces which successively define the problematic of war and peace for the ensemble of states’, allowing critical theorists, such as Cox, to envision the possibility of other alternative forms of WO. ‘Order’ here refers to ‘the way things usually happen’ (for example, established practices), rather than the absence of ‘disorder’. Cox, ‘Social forces’, pp. 100, 117, fn. 2.

²³ Cox, ‘Social forces’, p. 137.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 131.

²⁵ Cox, ‘Towards a post-hegemonic’, p. 149.

²⁶ Cox, Production, Power, p. 395.

²⁷ Cox, ‘Towards a post-hegemonic’, p. 151.

²⁸ Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Policy Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

²⁹ For Archer’s critique of structuration, see Archer, Margaret S., ‘Human agency and social structures: a critique of Giddens’, in Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Modgil (eds), Anthony Giddens: Consensus and Controversy (London: Falmer Press, 1990), pp. 73–84 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, ed. and trans. Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1971), p. 460.

³¹ Ibid., p. 162.

³² For Gramsci’s ideas on the ‘relations of force’, see Ibid., pp. 175–85.

³³ Antonio Gramsci, Quaderni del Calcere: Quaderni di traduzioni (1929–1932), ed. Guiseppe Cospito and Gianna Francioni (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2007), Quaderni 11, p. 1422.

³⁴ This interpretation was borne out by Gramsci’s definition of a ‘determined market’: a ‘determined relation of social forces in a determined structure of the apparatus of production, this relationship being guaranteed (that is, rendered permanent) by a determined political, moral and juridical superstructure’. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 410.

³⁵ Ibid., pp. 137, 418.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 366.

³⁷ See Thomas, Peter D., The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011), pp. 136–142 Google Scholar.

³⁸ Bhaskar, Roy, The Possibility of Naturalism (3rd edn, London: Routledge, 1998 [orig. pub. 1979])Google Scholar. According to Bhaskar: ‘Society is both the ever-present condition (material cause) and the continually reproduced outcome of human agency. And praxis is both work, that is conscious production, and (normally unconscious) reproduction of the conditions of production, that is society.’ (pp. 43–4).

³⁹ Archer, Margaret S., Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. According to Archer’s three-stage morphogenetic cycle structural conditions, (T1) pre-condition social interaction, (T2) which leads to structural elaboration (morphogenesis), or reproduction (morphostasis) (T3), which in turn preconditions future interaction (T1) and the subsequent launching of a new morphogenetic cycle.

⁴⁰ See Bhaskar, Roy, A Realist Theory of Science (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2008 [orig. pub. 1975])Google Scholar; Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism; and Roy Bhaskar, Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation (London: Verso, 1986). The term ‘critical realism’ was not in fact originally used by Bhaskar – constituting an elision of his ideas ‘transcendental realism’ and ‘critical naturalism’ set out in his first two volumes – but which he later came to recognise.

⁴¹ Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism, p. 27.

⁴² For simplicity’s sake, the following text will refer to ‘positivism’ and ‘interpretism’, although Bhaskar himself tends to use ‘empirical realism’, and ‘neo-Kantian transcendental idealism’, respectively.

⁴³ Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science, p. 12.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 11.

⁴⁵ Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Brown, Chris, Sovereignty, Rights and Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), p. 18 Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science, pp. 2–3, 46–7.

⁴⁸ Sayer, Andrew, Realism and Social Science (London: Sage, 2000), p. 73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A ‘closed’ system involves isolating or screening off one or more generative mechanisms from external influences in order to ‘test’ a hypothesis. While technically possible in the ‘natural’ world under laboratory conditions, once outside the artificial enclosure of the experiment in the real world (‘open system), an array of factors derived from different causal mechanisms could interact in unforeseeable ways.

⁴⁹ Tony Lawson illustrates: ‘the world is composed not only of such “surface phenomena” as skin spots, puppies turning into dogs, and relatively slow growth productivity in the UK, but of underlying and governing structures and mechanisms such as … viruses, genetic codes and British system of industrial relations.’ Lawson, Tony, Economics and Reality (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Bhaskar, Roy, Reclaiming Reality (London: Verso, 1989), pp. 185–189 Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science, p. 46.

⁵² Ibid., pp. 26–7.

⁵³ Yalvaç, Faruk, ‘Critical realism, International Relations theory and Marxism’, in Jonathan Joseph and Colin Wight (eds), Scientific Realism and International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 170 Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Pawson, Ray and Tilley, Nick, Realistic Evaluation (London: Sage, 1997), p. 23 Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Outhwaite, William, New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1987), p. 76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ As Antony Giddens notes, ‘all abstract generalisations in the social sciences are, explicitly or implicitly, causal statements’. Giddens, The Constitution of Society, p. 346.

⁵⁷ Lawson, Economics and Reality, p. 23.

⁵⁸ Archer, Realist Social Theory, p. 16.

⁵⁹ Retroduction begins by first identifying an observable phenomenon or event at the ‘actual’ level before hypothesising on the necessary and internal properties of the underlying ‘hidden’ generative mechanism, located at the ‘real’ level expressed in its causal powers. The newly discovered generative mechanism (intransitive dimension) is then re-examined at the ‘actual’ level again before being brought back again to the abstract/theoretical level for refinement utilising the theories, concepts, models, and other cognitive resources at one’s disposal (transitive dimension). See Bhaskar, Roy, ‘On the possibility of social science knowledge and the limits of naturalism’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 8 (1978), 1–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Roy Bhaskar, ‘The logic of scientific discovery’; Tony Lawson, ‘Economic science without experiments’; and Margaret S. Archer, ‘Introduction: Realism in social sciences’, all in Margaret S. Archer, Roy Bhaskar, Andrew Collier, Tony Lawson, and Alan Norrie (eds), Critical Realism: Essential Readings (London: Routledge, 1998).

⁶⁰ Sayer, Andrew, Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (2nd edn, London: Routledge, 1994), p. 87 Google Scholar.

⁶¹ See Lawson, Economics and Reality, pp. 213, 243; Bhaskar, Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation, pp. 7, 53–4; and Bhaskar, ‘The possibility’, pp. 59–61.

⁶² According to Tony Lawson, ‘demi-regularities’ (or ‘demi-regs’) are partial event regularities, ‘the occasional, but less than universal, actualisation of a mechanism or tendency over a definite region of time-space’. Quoted in Archer et al., Critical Realism, p. 13.

⁶³ Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Philosophy in International Relations: a scientific Realist approach’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 35:2 (2007), p. 345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ ‘All science would be superfluous if the outward appearances and essences of things directly coincided’. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1966), p. 817 Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Yalvaç, ‘Critical realism’, pp. 179–81.

⁶⁶ Set out in Creaven, Sean, Marxism and Realism: A Materialistic Application of Realism in the Social Sciences (London: Routledge, 2000)Google Scholar and Creaven, Sean, Emergentist Marxism: Dialectical Philosophy and Social Theory (Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Creaven, Marxism and Realism, p. 280.

⁶⁸ Creaven, Emergentist Marxism, pp. 28, 56, 71–141.

⁶⁹ The following description of Joseph’s conceptualisation of hegemony is taken from: Joseph, Jonathan, Hegemony: A Realist Analysis (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 128–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 210–13; and Jonathan Joseph, ‘The international as emergent: Challenging old and new orthodoxies in International Relations theory’, in Joseph and Wight (eds), Scientific Realism and International Relations, pp. 61–4.

⁷⁰ Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 377.

⁷¹ Ibid., p. 376.

⁷² Antonio Gramsci, Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Derek Boothman (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1995), p. 395.

⁷³ See, for example, Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp. 184, 277–318, 410, 425–72. Gramsci claimed his ‘philosophy of praxis’ was essentially ‘Hegel plus David Ricardo’. Ibid., pp. 400–01.

⁷⁴ Ibid., pp. 171–3, 401. Indeed, none of Gramsci’s key concepts – hegemony, the integral State, historical bloc, philosophy of praxis, organic intellectuals, common sense, the Modern Prince, and passive revolution – make any sense outside a world historical capitalist system of uneven development, as revealed in his study of the effect of ‘Americanism and Fordism’ on Italy. Ibid., pp. 279–318.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 178.

⁷⁶ See, for example, Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam D., ‘The Gordian Knot of agency: Structure in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:1 (2001), pp. 5–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Morton, Adam D., Unravelling Gramsci, Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy (London: Pluto Press, 2007), pp. 129–131 Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Burnham, Peter, ‘Neo-Gramscian hegemony and the international order’, in Andreas Bieler, Werner Bonefeld, Peter Burnham, and Adam D. Morton, Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour: Contesting Neo-Gramscian Perspectives (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), p. 70 Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Cox, Production, Power, p. 396.

⁷⁹ Ibid.

⁸⁰ Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam D., ‘Globalisation, the state and class struggle: a “critical economy” engagement with open Marxism’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5:4 (2003), pp. 481, 491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸¹ Cox, Production, Power, pp. x, 4, 32–4.

⁸² Ibid., p. 11.

⁸³ Lacher, Hannes, ‘History, structures and world orders’, in Alison J. Ayers (ed.), Gramsci, Political Economy, and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors (rev. edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 88 Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Cox, Production, Power, p. 355.

⁸⁵ Lacher, ‘History, structure’, p. 91.

⁸⁶ Bieler and Morton, ‘The Gordian Knot’, p. 22.

⁸⁷ Albeit that state autonomy ‘is exercised within a structure created by the state’s own history’. Cox, Production, Power, p. 400.

⁸⁸ Ibid., p. 399.

⁸⁹ Ibid., pp. 219–30.

⁹⁰ Cox, ‘Social forces’, p. 105.

⁹¹ Cox, Production, Power, pp. 253–65.

⁹² Cox, ‘Structural issues’, p. 260. See also Robinson, William I., Transnational Conflicts: Central America, Social Change and Globalisation (London: Verso, 2003), pp. 45–46 Google Scholar, 62.

⁹³ Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, trans. David Fernbach (London: New Left Books, 1978), p. 132, emphasis in original.

⁹⁴ Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Re-stating hegemonic theory’, Journal of Critical Realism (November 2003), p. 133 Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ The capitalist state, Hannes Lacher explains, ‘is not capitalist because it responds to the demands of the bourgeoisie but because its very form of existence, as the locus of the abstractly political relations of domination, marks it out as part and parcel of a society in which exploitative powers have been separated from the political sphere. The capitalist state is thus the political form of existence of capitalist class relations.’ Lacher, Hannes, ‘Making sense of the international system: the promises and pitfalls of contemporary Marxist theories of International Relations’, in Mark Rupert and Hazel Smith (eds), Historical Materialism and Globalization: Essays on Continuity and Change (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 151 Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Poulantzas, State, Power, pp. 97, 127.

⁹⁷ Panitch, Leo, ‘Globalisation and the state’, in Leo Panitch, Colin Leys, Alan Zuege, and Martijn Konings (eds), The Globalisation Decade: A Critical Reader (London: Merlin Press, 2004), p. 17 Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ Cox, Robert W. with Michael G. Schechter, The Political Economy of a Plural World: Critical Reflections on Power, Morals and Civilization (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 33 Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ See Bieler et al. (eds), Global Restructuring, p. 170, emphasis in original.

¹⁰⁰ Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp. 116, 176.

¹⁰¹ See Morton, Unravelling Gramsci.

¹⁰² Cox, ‘Middlepowermanship’, p. 245.

¹⁰³ Ibid., p. 151.

¹⁰⁴ Cox, Production, Power, p. 285.

¹⁰⁵ See, for example, Gill, Stephen and Law, David, The Global Political Economy: Perspective, Problems and Policies (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Anderson, Perry, ‘The antinomies of Antonio Gramsci’, New Left Review, I:100 (November/December, 1976)Google Scholar. Anderson denounces what he considers as serious theoretical inconsistencies throughout the Prison Notebooks due to Gramsci’s particular reading of Machiavelli, Croce, and Lenin. Countering this critique Thomas explains the evolving nature of Gramsci’s conceptualisations and the methodological distinction but dialectical unity of the dichotomies, compatible with the emergent materialist position forwarded here. See Thomas, The Gramscian Moment, pp. 41–83.

¹⁰⁷ For a dismantling of Anderson’s critique, see Thomas, The Gramscian Moment, pp. 41–83.

¹⁰⁸ Panitch, ‘Globalisation and the state’, pp. 20, 89, 119.

¹⁰⁹ Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso, 1985), ch. 2 Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ See, for example, Rupert, Mark, Ideologies of Globalisation: Contending Visions of a New World Order (Florence, KY: Routledge, 2000)Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp. 181–2.

¹¹² Cox, ‘Social forces’, pp. 108–09.

¹¹³ Ruggie, John G., ‘International regimes, transactions and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order’, International Organisation, 36:2 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Gramsci, Quaderni del Calcere, Quaderni 12, p. 1519.

¹¹⁵ Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 80, fn. 49.

¹¹⁶ Ibid., p. 183.

¹¹⁷ Marx, Karl, Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I (New York: International Publishers Company, Inc. 1967), p. 737 Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Gramsci, Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp. 261, 243–4, 160; Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 160.

¹¹⁹ Gramsci, Quaderni del Calcere, Quaderni 19, p. 1962.

¹²⁰ The most significant contributions here come from Stephen Gill and Kees van der Pijl. For Gill, see: American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and Power and Resistance in the New World Order (2^nd edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). For van der Pijl see: From the Cold War to Iraq (London: Pluto Press, 2006); Nomads and Empires (London: Verso 2007); and ‘Is the East still Red? The contender state and class struggle in China’, Globalizations, 4:9 (2012).

¹²¹ Schleinger, Stephen C., Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations (Boulder: Midwest Book Review, 2003)Google Scholar.

¹²² Melman, Seymour, The Permanent War Economy: American Capitalism in Decline (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974)Google Scholar.

¹²³ Johnson, Chalmers, The Sorrows of Empire (New York: Owl Books 2004), pp. 151–185 Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ Spykman, Nicholas J., The Geography of the Peace (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1944)Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Organised around the Trilateral Commission, Mont Pelerin Society, Bilderberg Group, etc. Gill, American Hegemony.

¹²⁶ Cox, ‘Social forces’, p. 111; Cox, Production, Power, p. 359.

¹²⁷ Gill, Stephen, ‘Neo-liberalism and the shift towards a US-centred transnational hegemony’, in H. Overbeek (ed.), Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy: The Rise of Transnational Neoliberalism in the 1980s (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 261 Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ See Cox, ‘Social forces’, p. 111; Cox, Production, Power, p. 359; Gill, American Hegemony, p. 94; Robinson, William I., ‘Gramsci and globalization: From nation-state to transnational hegemony’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8:4 (December 2005), pp. 563–566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gill, Power and Resistance, p. 138.

¹²⁹ See Gill, ‘Neo-liberalism’, p. 261; Robinson, ‘Gramsci and globalization’, p. 565; Bieler, Andreas ‘The future of the global working class: an introduction’, in Andreas Bieler, Ingemar Lindberg, and Devan Pillay (eds), Labour and the Challenges of Globalization: What Prospects for Transnational Solidarity? (London: Pluto, 2008), p. 7 Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ Cox, ‘Social forces’, pp. 111–12.

¹³¹ Cox, ‘Global Perestroika’, pp. 305–-08.

¹³² Stephen Gill, ‘Epistemology, ontology and the Italian School’, in Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, pp. 10, 40.

¹³³ These include Henk Overbeek, Kees van der Pijl, Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Otto Holman, Marianne Marchand.

¹³⁴ See, for example, Henk Overbeek and Kees van der Pijl, ‘Restructuring capital and hegemony: Neo-liberalism and the unmaking of the post-war order’, in Overbeek (ed.), Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy; and van Apeldoorn, Bastiaan, ‘Theorizing the transnational: a historical materialist approach’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 7:2 (2004), p. 159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁵ See Overbeek, Henk ‘Transnational class formation and concepts of control: Towards a genealogy of the Amsterdam Project in international political economy’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 7:2 (2004), pp. 126–127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁶ van der Pijl, Kees, Transnational Classes and International Relations (London: Routledge, 1998)Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ van der Pijl, From the Cold War, p. 8.

¹³⁸ van der Pijl, Transnational Classes, p. 70.

¹³⁹ van der Pijl, From the Cold War, pp. xiv, 28.

¹⁴⁰ van der Pijl, Transnational Classes, pp. 80–4.

¹⁴¹ See Overbeek, Henk, ‘Global restructuring and neoliberal labour market regulation in Europe: the case of migration policy’, International Journal of Political Economy, 28:1 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴² van Apeldoorn, Bastiaan, ‘Transnationalization and the restructuring of Europe’s socioeconomic order: Social forces in the construction of “embedded neoliberalism”’, International Journal of Political Economy, 28:1 (1998), pp. 17–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴³ van Apeldoorn, Bastiaan, ‘The contradictions of “embedded neoliberalism” and Europe’s multi-level legitimacy crisis: the European Project and its limits’, in Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Jan Drahokoupil, and Lora Horn (eds), Contradictions and Limits of Neoliberal European Governance: From Lisbon to (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Bruff, Ian, ‘European varieties of capitalism and the international’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:4 (2010), p. 615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ van der Pijl, Kees, ‘Ruling classes, hegemony and the state system: Theoretical and historical considerations’, International Journal of Political Economy, 19:3 (1989), pp. 16–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁶ Budd, Adrian, Class, States and International Relations: A Critical Appraisal of Robert Cox and Neo-Gramscian Theory (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), p. 79 Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ van der Pijl, From the Cold War, p. 28.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid., p. xi.

¹⁴⁹ van der Pijl, ‘Ruling classes’, p. 19.

¹⁵⁰ van der Pij, Transnational Classes, p. 98.

¹⁵¹ See, for example, Mittelman, James H. and China, Christine B. N., ‘Conceptualising resistance to globalization’, in Louise Amoore (ed.), The Global Resistance Reader (London: Routledge, 2000)Google Scholar; Morton, Unravelling Gramsci, ch. 7; Ayers (ed.), Gramsci, Political Economy, and International Relations Theory, chs 7–11; and Stephen, Matthew, ‘Globalisation and resistance: Struggles over common sense in the global political economy’, Review of International Studies, 37 (2011), pp. 209–228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵² Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p. 181.

¹⁵³ See Thomas, The Gramscian Moment, pp. 224–8.

¹⁵⁴ Gramsci, Quaderni del Calcere, Quaderni 8, p. 37.

¹⁵⁵ Cox, Production, Power, p. 164; Cox, ‘Gramsci, hegemony’, p. 120.

¹⁵⁶ See Gill, Stephen, ‘The global panopiticon? The neoliberal state, economic life, and domestic surveillance’, Alternatives, 20:1 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gill, Power and Resistance.

¹⁵⁷ Robinson, ‘Gramsci and globalization’.

¹⁵⁸ See, for example, Panitch, ‘Globalisation and the state’.

¹⁵⁹ See Gowan, Peter, The Global Gamble: Washington’s Faustian Bid for World Dominance (London: Verso, 1999)Google Scholar; Harvey, David, The New Imperialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Arrighi, Giovanni, Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century (London: Verso, 2008)Google Scholar; Gowan, Peter, ‘Crisis in the heartland: Consequences of the new Wall Street system’, New Left Review, 55 (Jan–Feb 2009)Google Scholar; Panitch, Leo and Gindin, Sam, The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Hegemony (London: Verso, 2013)Google Scholar; and Budd, Class, States and International Relations. Gill and van der Pijl also emphasise the importance of Washington in underpinning the globalisation process, including launching foreign military interventions against ‘contender states’ (for example, Iraq). Unless this action is seen in hegemonic or imperial terms – which sits uneasily with the neo-Gramscian transnational HB thesis – it implies that actions taken by the American state are ipso facto, done in the interests of the Lockean heartland: a rather debatable assertion.

¹⁶⁰ Rubin, E. R. and Weisberg, J., In An Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington (New York: Random House), 2003, p. 215 Google Scholar.

¹⁶¹ Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp. 116, 176; Antonio Gramsci, ‘The revolution against “capital”’, Selections from Political Writings, 1910–1920 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1977), p. 69.

¹⁶² Gramsci, Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp. 222–3.

¹⁶³ Gramsci, Quaderni del Calcere, Quaderni 2, p. 166.

¹⁶⁴ van der Pijl, From the Cold War; van der Pijl, Nomads and Empires. See also van Apeldorn, Bastiaan, ‘Geopolitical strategy and class hegemony: Towards a historical materialist foreign policy’, Spectrum Journal of Global Studies, 6:1 (2014)Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁵ A dualist categorisation that divides the WO between Lockean state-society complexes (civil society-centred, transcendent comprehensive concept of control, bourgeoisie, self-regulating, and transnational) and their Hobbesian counterparts (state-centred, national interest, state class, centralised administration, and international). Van der Pijl, Transnational Classes, p. 84.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid., chs 3–5, 8.

¹⁶⁷ Callinicos, Alex, ‘Does capitalism need the state system?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20:4 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.