Division and Dialogue in Anglo-American IPE: A Reluctant Canadian View

Helleiner, Eric

doi:10.1080/13563460903087524

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Political dynamics tend to disappear from view. As a rule, methodical questions have increasingly replaced theoretical considerations and historical perspectives (Helleiner, 2009: 379–380).…”

Section: Atomistic Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Aristotelian terms, holistic research approaches perceive the empirical field to be more than just the sum of its parts and, as a result, not completely comprehensible in separate analyses of its subsystems: ‘an interdisciplinary field united not by any single method but simply by certain core questions exploring the relationship between economic and politics in world affairs. Nothing more precise than that’ (Helleiner, 2009: 383).…”

Section: Holistic Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monism vs. pluralism, the global financial crisis, and the methodological struggle in the field of International Political Economy

Wullweber

2018

Competition & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, a comprehensive debate has been taking place over the ontological, epistemological and methodological roots underlying the discipline of International Political Economy. A fundamental and sometimes fierce discussion arose over the questions of which research strategies should prevail, which methods should be applied and what kind of knowledge counts as scientific. The debate has tended to reduce the different positions and International Political Economy approaches to American International Political Economy on the one side and British International Political Economy on the other. Framing the perspectives in this way, however, is misleading. This article argues that the issue at the core of the methodological debate is not the American versus the British school, but rather theoretical monism versus theoretical pluralism. Hence, the core of the debate addresses the question whether scientific work in International Political Economy should ultimately subscribe to one methodology or one fundamental principle or whether the field should make use of a wide variety of theories and methods so as to enable scholars to adapt their research strategy depending on the case under study. A short analysis of existing approaches to the global financial crisis shows the importance of the existence of multiple perspectives, concepts and theoretical approaches. The paper concludes that the 2008 financial crisis in particular has shown how dangerous it is to reduce intellectual endeavour to a narrow mindset. Only pluralism conveys the ability to respond in an adequate manner to the old and new challenges of our times.

show abstract

Section: Atomistic Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Holistic Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Monism vs. pluralism, the global financial crisis, and the methodological struggle in the field of International Political Economy

Wullweber

2018

Competition & Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IPE is a highly pluralistic field. Despite representations of binary divisions between 'orthodox/heterodox', 'positivist'/'critical' approaches to IPE (Cohen, 2008;Murphy & Nelson, 2001), such divisions have broken down under closer scrutiny (Blyth, 2009;Helleiner, 2009;Higgott & Watson, 2008;Leander, 2015;Wullweber, 2019). Sharman and Weaver's (2013) analysis of a 20-country TRIPS survey, a database of books in IPE and all RIPE articles from 2000 to 2010, also find significant evidence for diversityof methods used, of paradigms, of epistemology, and even of the geographic array of scholars.…”

Section: Pluralism and Its Unintended Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress, pluralism and science: moving from alienated to engaged pluralism

Young

2020

Review of International Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The encompassing scale and scope of International Political Economy (IPE) is rare in the social sciences. Our subject matter affects the way our field organizes and produces knowledge: we study complex overlapping systems where the challenges of adequate description and causal explanation are especially difficult, and as such IPE scholarship borrows from a vast range of social theory and methods. While holding enormous productive potential, this space for pluralism, as currently practiced, risks culminating in the fragmentation of knowledge: what I call 'alienated pluralism'. A different, 'engaged pluralism' as I propose would retain the diversity of IPE's many approaches and traditions, but would promise greater knowledge synthesis. I argue that stronger adherence to a scientific ethos can assist in building this 'engaged pluralism'.

show abstract

“…On the one hand, world systems' theorists (Grieco & Ikenberry ; Wallerstein ) and theorists of international political economy or at least its “Third Generation” economistic variant (Helleiner ) hold views consistent with an expectation that the delegations with the greatest likely influence on deliberative proceedings will be those that represent the most powerful trading and banking nations, such as the United States, Germany, Japan, and Britain; multilateral international financial institutions, such as regional development banks, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, that arguably act as agents for powerful states; and international private banking interests. For these actors, trade lawmaking offers yet another way to tip the global marketplace in a direction that favors their economic and financial interests.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Who governs? Delegations and delegates in global trade lawmaking

Halliday

Pacewicz

Block-Lieb

2013

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Who governs in the international organizations (IOs) that promulgate global norms on trade and commercial law? Using a new analytic approach, this paper focuses on previously invisible attributes of a global legislature – the state and non‐state delegations and delegates that create universal norms for international trade and commercial law through the most prominent trade law legislature, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Based on ten years of fieldwork, extensive interviews, and unique data on delegation and delegate attendance and participation in UNCITRAL's Working Group on Insolvency, we find that the inner core of global trade lawmakers at UNCITRAL represent a tiny and unrepresentative subset of state and non‐state actors. This disjunction between UNCITRAL's public face, which accords with a global norm of democratic governance, and its private face, where dominant states and private interests prevail, raises fundamental questions about legitimacy and efficacy of representation in global lawmaking.

show abstract

Division and Dialogue in Anglo-American IPE: A Reluctant Canadian View

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Monism vs. pluralism, the global financial crisis, and the methodological struggle in the field of International Political Economy

Monism vs. pluralism, the global financial crisis, and the methodological struggle in the field of International Political Economy

Progress, pluralism and science: moving from alienated to engaged pluralism

Who governs? Delegations and delegates in global trade lawmaking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About