Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy: IPE as a Global Conversation (review)

While the discipline of International Political Economy (IPE) has been in existence for almost forty years, it is characterized by considerable diversity with regard to approaches, methodology, and focus. IPE is, often in the United States, portrayed as a sub-discipline of international relations that has a specific methodological approach and way of framing questions. In other parts of the world, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, IPE is characterized by significantly greater diversity as regards methods and disciplinary boundaries. In Asia, Europe, and Latin America, IPE is approached in yet other ways.

To date, most overviews of IPE have approached the discipline from a specific standpoint, usually determined by the author’s training and membership of a particular intellectual “lineage”. The approach taken by this book is rather different. Its starting point is that IPE, as a discipline, has multiple traditions. These traditions vary across countries, but also within them, as a given country may house several approaches. Through inviting a range of scholars from around the world to put forward their views on how they perceive IPE, this book aims to celebrate its diversity through mapping the discipline’s different approaches and intellectual traditions.

The introduction by Mark Blyth sets out the rationale behind the book, provides an overview of each of its sections, and draws out key themes and differences. The following eighteen chapters are grouped into four sections, each dedicated to exploring how IPE is approached in a given region and what implications this has for the discipline as a whole.

The first section deals with IPE as it is practised in North America. The first chapter by Cohen looks at the historical context within which IPE emerged in the United States, and explores how different schools of thought have influenced the discipline’s methodological and thematic focus. Subsequent chapters by Kirshner, Cooley, and Abdelal look at different U.S.-based IPE traditions such as realist political economy, rationalist theories of institutions, and constructivism. The final chapter by Germain looks at IPE as it is practised in Canada, which has been particularly influenced by the work of Robert Cox.

The second section analyses IPE in Britain. The first chapter by Clift and Rosamund traces the intellectual lineage of IPE in the country, putting forward an explanation of how and why it differs from its U.S. counterpart. In the following chapters: Cameron and Palan look at the role of reflexive theory in IPE; Langley explores the influence of Susan Strange and particularly her exploration of power; and Cerny looks at the structurational approach and how it could be used to bring the British and U.S. schools closer together.

The third section looks at IPE in Asia. The first chapter by Arrighi is an analysis of China, its development model, and the implications of its rise for the world order. The second chapter by Bello is a discussion of the East Asian developmental state framework and its utility in exploring domestic political issues often missed by Western IPE. The chapter by Cheung looks at the international and subnational dimensions of economic development in East Asia and its theoretical ramifications for state-centric IPE. The last chapter by Sharman looks at how IPE has developed as a discipline in Australia and how it relates to its U.S., British, and Asian counterparts.

The final section brings together essays on IPE in other countries and regions as well as by experts in cognate fields. The first chapter by Jabko looks at why, despite a long tradition of political economy, IPE did not really develop in France. The subsequent chapter by Palma explores why, notwithstanding Latin America’s contribution to structuralism and dependency theory, the region undertakes little IPE research today. Campbell analyses what contribution the discipline of sociology makes to IPE, and Oliver explores the relationship between economic history and IPE. Hobson and Seabrooke round out this section with a discussion of what they term “everyday” international political...