INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 307 of roles among the actors in the system,the relative rise or fall of different states or the rearrangement of states in looser or closer groupings,or in new multipolar instead of bipolar patterns,and so forth.But it seems to me that the shape or structure of international society must be materially affected by a pronounced trend towards lopsided development. That is to say,when the economic system so favours the increasing wealth of a minority of developed national economies over the majority of less developed ones that it produces a list to port,so to speak,in the political system,then this can count as a political as well as an economic change. The label'populist',attached first,I think,by Robert Coxs to the states on the wrong side of the divide,is in this context an apt one,for it under- lines the point that the growing inequality has produced a new basis of political alignment in international society-not strategic,nor religious, nor cultural,nor ideological-the consequence of which for the operation of that system neither we nor the economists can yet foresee. THE STATE OF THE LITERATURE My next point is that the study of international relations,in most universities at the present time-and not only in this country,is not keeping up very successfully with the changes I have tried very briefly to outline.Instead of developing as a modern study of international political economy,it is allowing the gulf between international economics and international politics to grow yearly wider and deeper and more unbridgeable than ever.This dichotomy is well reflected in the current state of the literature dealing with this middle ground- or perhaps I should say middle void-between the two,whether you call it the economic aspects of international relations or that large part of international economics that is susceptible and sensitive to political considerations. From the international relations side of the void has come only a meagre contribution,except in certain specialised fields.Two such fields that come to mind are studies of international economic organisations, where a useful beginning has been made.I do not count in this context the company history'type of books written by international organisa- tion-men,but such critical,analytical works,for example,as William Diebold's study of the Schuman Plan or Michael Kaser's of Comecon.+ The other is what could loosely be described as area studies-where it is so immediately and evidently impossible,in any serious analysis of international relations between pairs or groups of countries,to divorce a Robert Cox,International Organisation:World Politics.(London:Macmillan.1969.) 4 William Diebold,Jr.,The Schuman Plan:A Study in Economic Cooperation 1950- 1959.(New York:Praeger for the Council on Foreign Relations;London:Oxford University Press.1959.)Michael Kaser,Comecon:Integration Problems of the Planned Economies,2nd rev.ed.(London:Oxford University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.1967.)INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 307 of roles among the actors in the system, the relative rise or fall of different states or the rearrangement of states in looser or closer groupings, or in new multipolar instead of bipolar patterns, and so forth. But it seems to me that the shape or structure of international society must be materially affected by a pronounced trend towards lopsided development. That is to say, when the economic system so favours the increasing wealth of a minority of developed national economies over the majority of less developed ones that it produces a list to port, so to speak, in the political system, then this can count as a political as well as an economic change. The label 'populist', attached first, I think, by Robert Cox 3 to the states on the wrong side of the divide, is in this context an apt one, for it under￾lines the point that the growing inequality has produced a new basis of political alignment in international society-not strategic, nor religious, nor cultural, nor ideological-the consequence of which for the operation of that system neither we nor the economists can yet foresee. THE STATE OF THE LITERATURE My next point is that the study of international relations, in most universities at the present time-and not only in this country, is not keeping up very successfully with the changes I have tried very briefly to outline. Instead of developing as a modern study of international political economy, it is allowing the gulf between international economics and international politics to grow yearly wider and deeper and more unbridgeable than ever. This dichotomy is well reflected in the current state of the literature dealing with this middle ground￾or perhaps I should say middle void-between the two, whether you call it the economic aspects of international relations or that large part of international economics that is susceptible and sensitive to political considerations. From the international relations side of the void has come only a meagre contribution, except in certain specialised fields. Two such fields that come to mind are studies of international economic organisations, where a useful beginning has been made. I do not count in this context the 'company history' type of books written by international organisa￾tion-men, but such critical, analytical works, for example, as William Diebold's study of the Schuman Plan or Michael Kaser's of Comecon.4 The other is what could loosely be described as area studies-where it is so imtmediately and evidently impossible, in any serious analysis of international relations between pairs or groups of countries, to divorce 3 Robert Cox, International Organisation: World Politics. (London: Macmillan. 1969.) 4 William Diebold, Jr., The Schuman Plan: A Study in Economic Cooperation 1950- 1959. (New York: Praeger for the Council on Foreign Relations; London: Oxford University Press. 1959.) Michael Kaser, Comecon: Integration Problems of the Planned Economies, 2nd rev. ed. (London: Oxford University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs. 1967.)