Why we need multiple stories about the global political economy

ABSTRACT

This comment suggests that Cohen's account of the history and present approaches to IPE as divided into an American and a British school is unduly narrow. It excludes not only Europe and the rest of the world but more centrally lines of lines of theorizing that have shaped and can continue to shape IPE (also within the Anglo-Saxon world). It proceeds to argue that embracing a broader view of IPE is important. It ensures for the quality, relevance and vitality of the field. The comment concludes that although a de-coupling of Cohen's version of IPE and the rest would seem tempting and logical it is unlikely to happen for reasons of politics, academic and international.

KEYWORDS:

• Interdisciplinarity
• International Political Economy
• paradigms
• scientific change
• sociology
• theory

Notes

1. The SGIR is the Standing Group on International Relations of the European Consortium on Political Research. The roundtable was organized by Morten Boås and the contributors were Helge Hveem, Anna Leander, Sandra MacLean and Ronen Palan.

2. I quote no sources for reasons of space. However, articles illustrating the arguments are found in recent issues of IPE journals such as Economy and Society, New Political Economy, International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of International Relations and Development, and the Review of International Political Economy.

3. ‘May’ because the call is still out. While some scholars persist that ‘there are always two stories to be told’, others claim that they can integrate them under one roof.