The Journal of GlobalFaultlines (ISSN: 2054-2089 for electronic copy and 2397-7825 for print copy) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, academic journal run out of Keele University. The journal will be managed by Pluto Journals from the beginning of 2017, and available in both electronic and print versions.
The Journal of GlobalFaultlines seeks to bring cutting-edge theoretical and critical reflection to bear on dominant and/or mainstream debates within international and global studies, and is committed to publish original theoretical debates, empirically-based investigations and policy discussions.
The Journal of GlobalFaultlines attempts to cover the evolving current world situation by looking at global problems from a variety of different and overlapping perspectives: economic, political, philosophical, cultural, educational, geographical, social, and historical, among many others. The journal aims to provide ongoing open forums to discuss and analyze global problems and developments from critical perspectives or viewpoints, and thus improve understanding of the underlying forces shaping the destiny of the world in the 21st century. To this end the journal also encourages contributions from writers and disciplines that are not commonly associated with the study of the aforementioned academic fields of study.
Contributions from scholars working around the globe are particularly welcome.
The journal endorses a full peer review process, consisting of editorial selection followed by at least two anonymous peer-reviewers.
We believe GlobalFaultlines is the appropriate way to approach multidimensional and highly interlinked characteristics of the global affairs of the 21st century. We use the term, GlobalFaultlines, in the sense of a unique approach to global affairs which uses the geological metaphor of ‘tectonic plates’. Inspired by Andre Gunder Frank, and specifically by his post-Marxist works, GlobalFaultlines is a holistic approach which aims to sketch out and analyze various fault-lines which mark the points at which the tectonic plates collide and crumble, not only the most obvious ones such as the historical failures of financial statecraft; the power shift to the Global East/ South; depletion and degradation of oil, water and food, and climate change and its associated problems, but also a multitude of cultural, social and educational issues arising from the shifting of the global tectonic plates. Within this wider historical context of global faultlines the interdependence and conflictual relationship of contending forces provide the social and political struggle and change. In this sense, the GlobalFaultlines provides a convenient framework within which it is possible to understand where agency is more likely to be successful, and where not.
By launching The Journal of GlobalFaultlines, we hope to provide a bridge between the academic community and practitioners, across continents and cultures and from different political and disciplinary traditions.
The Journal of GlobalFaultlines has a unique position in its approach and coverage on the basis of the following preliminary points which have been crucial in guiding our thinking:
1) GlobalFaultlines is, by definition, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. GlobalFaultlines is also thoroughly critical in the sense that it attempts to challenge the ways we understand the world around us and to rethink established epistemologies, theories, narratives and philosophies. We consider this significant as the set of problems of our times both require a complete revision in our approach and a multilevel analysis. We are faced with many significant local, regional and global issues and problems that cannot usefully be understood or analyzed as just Politics, International Relations, or just Economics or Political Economy, but require a truly interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspective. A single discipline-specific narrative cannot capture the multiplicity and diversity of local and global issues. Our approach does not priviledge the “system” at the expense of the “state” or the “empire” level. We simply see them as an integrated whole, the determining level being decided by the historical conjuncture, social struggles and the specific ordering of faultlines at the time.
2) GlobalFaultlines is the result of a non-Euro/ Western-centric way of thinking. For the last two decades, a number of societies previously described as being ‘under-developed’, or at best ‘developing’, are becoming hotbeds of high-tech production and innovation in the global marketplace and replacing the traditionally developed centers of European/ Western economies. They are modernizing systems of production and distribution, they are experimenting with entirely new and more efficient models, and now becoming leaders, not only in production but also in innovation and alternative social and economic forms of social organization(s). East Asia’s, and other emerging economies’ rise to world economic prominence makes it all the more urgent to develop a non-Western/ Euro-centric approach. GlobalFaultlines welcomes contributions which capture this process by challenging the Eurocentric approaches in conventional social sciences, which will hopefully provide some initial steps, a kind of partial remedy of this particular neglect.
3) GlobalFaultlines is about the Emerging World of the Global South/ East as well as the aspects/ topics of the Global North/ West. The GlobalFaultlines is about the new emerging patterns and perspectives of the 21st century as well as the still ongoing debates stemmed from the recent past, the Cold War and after. However, we in particular aim to capture the discussions and debates flowing from the current powerful transformation and set of related problems. The contemporary developments and future prospects demand new and better coverage of the previously neglected parts of the world to offer at least some modest counterbalancing in terms of social, historical and political analysis. More importantly, GlobalFaultlines will particularly welcome contributions looking at developments in Europe /North America as well as the Global South/ East from a wider perspective, taking a global point of departure.
4) GlobalFaultlines particularly welcomes contributions on alternatives to neo-liberal and conservative agendas. For a quarter of a century, it has been conventional wisdom among policy makers, academics, and journalists that the neo-liberal policies that have governed the global economy are a great success. The rise to dominance of the neo-liberal paradigm was propagated by political establishments in many developed countries through powerful multilateral economic institutions. Such hegemony was accompanied by mainstream efforts to dismiss, discredit and displace other theoretical and applied alternatives in political economy. We have been assured that the costs of global deregulation of capital, labour and commodity markets – including the dislocation of workers and communities – are “transitional” and more than compensated by the benefits in overall economic growth, rising standards of living and a narrowing of the income gap between rich and poor. Indeed, poor nations have been told that their only hope for prosperity lies in opening all national markets and pursuing an export-led growth strategy. Yet there is no convincing proof that the so-called “Washington Consensus” has delivered on its promises. Most of the claims are based on anecdotal evidence and typically count just the benefits and ignore the costs. The failure of the neo-liberal paradigm and financialisation/ globalisation, widely accepted with the eruption of the 2008 global crisis, and the growing imbalances of the leading economies of the Global North/West suggest that it is time for a rethinking of the politics of the global political economy. Even though we are currently being faced with the introduction of a range of attempts to create a post-Washington consensus, or “Washington Consensus Plus”, with the overall goal of saving a failed global project, the same neo-liberalist macroeconomic fundamentals of structural adjustment have remained the default mode. We believe that the key to critically engage with the historical geography of neoliberalism and the subsequent turn is the recognition of the alternative approaches to global politics. The task is to initiate dialogue and to deepen understandings of possibilities and feasible alternatives.
5) GlobalFaultlines aims to capture changing patterns of hegemony in the world-system. We are currently experiencing global transformations which may likely to constitute the beginning of a new historical phase of modern world system. The rise of East Asia to most dynamic region of the global economy and centre of accumulation and the economic decline of the US hegemonic bloc pose major challenges to our understanding of the modern world. At the basis of such transformations is the recent rise of new global and regional hegemonic powers, in particular China, India and Brazil. This transition entails not only a shift in the geographical location of the economic cores of the world economy, but also brings a major expansion in the level of participation and the density of interactions between many participating factors, all of which radically transforms the whole profile of the world system. All indications point out that the unipolar phase of US dominance is being replaced by a multipolar phase, in which the USA will continue to remain one of the most prominent powers, but has to negotiate this position with China and India as new rising global superpowers, which implies long-term changes in global governance structures, patterns of hegemony and the organisation of social/ political space and political economies.
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SERIAL NUMBER (ISSN): 2054-2089 and 2397-7825