Abstract
In this article, I argue that invocations of Adam Smith in international political economy (IPE) often reveal the influence therein of a disciplinary ontological disaggregation of economic and non-economic rationality, which I claim is obscured by the tendency to map its complex intellectual contours in terms of competing schools. I trace the origins of the disciplinary characterisation of Smith as the founder of IPE's liberal tradition to invocations of his thought by centrally important figures in the perceived Austrian, Chicago and German historical schools of economics, and reflect upon the significance to IPE of the reiteration of this portrayal by apparent members of its so-called American and British schools. I additionally contrast these interpretations to those put forward by scholars who seek to interpret IPE and Smith's contribution to it in pre-disciplinary terms, which I claim reflects a distinct ontology to that attributed to the British school of IPE with which their work is often associated. I therefore contend that reflection upon invocations of Smith's thought in IPE problematises the longstanding tendency to map its intellectual terrain in terms of competing schools, reveals that the disciplinary ontological consensus that informs this tendency impacts upon articulations of its core concerns and suggests that a pre-disciplinary approach offers an alternative lens through which such concerns might be more effectively framed.
Acknowledgement
I am very grateful for the insightful comments and suggestions provided by the anonymous reviewers and by Matthew Watson and Chris Clarke. The usual disclaimers apply.
Funding
For financial assistance I am grateful to the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Reference: ES/I03615X/1).
Notes on contributors
Simon Glaze is a Teaching Fellow in International Political Economy in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick. His current research interests centre upon political and (inter-) disciplinary articulations of individual agency.
Notes
1. All references to TMS in this article refer to the sixth and final edition of the book, which was originally published in 1790 and reprinted by Oxford University Press in 1976.