The gift of skepticism and the future of IPE

Abstract

One fine morning in the fall of 1988, the telephone rang on my desk at the International Monetary Fund. ‘Strange here. I’m calling from the lobby.’ Recognizing her distinctive voice, I replied, ‘Susan Strange?’ ‘Yes, of course. Listen, I understand that you studied at the LSE a few years ago.’ ‘Yes, indeed. In the mid-1970s. I even attended your oversubscribed lectures on “The politics of international business” when you were a part-time instructor.’ ‘Can we meet?’ came the response from the now-distinguished professor. ‘When?’ ‘How about now?’ A few minutes later, my new mentor in international political economy (IPE) began her work by asking me question after question about what I was learning, whom I was meeting, and what we were all thinking. Between my first distant meeting with Susan Strange and this surprising second one, I had worked in the banking industry in Montreal, New York, and Toronto but then left to pursue doctoral studies in government at Cornell. It was there that I was re-introduced to Susan’s work and to that of the seven pioneers profiled in Benjamin J. Cohen’s (2008b) International Political Economy: An Intellectual History, all of whom I soon came to know personally. I also encountered the stimulating work of the other pioneer who would have earned an honored place in the pantheon of IPE if someone else had written the book, namely, Cohen himself. Many years later, my dissertation supervisor, Peter Katzenstein, distilled the summary lesson from all of these encounters in the term ‘analytical eclecticism’ – the pragmatic embrace of ontological and epistemological pluralism. Like others in this volume, with the exception of Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, Ian Bruff, and Magnus Ryner, I believe analytical eclecticism captures the essence of IPE and provides the key to the intellectual excitement that will attract the next generation of fine scholars to the field’s ‘Big Questions’, like the ones Robert Keohane highlights in this volume. In her own idiosyncratic way, Strange foreshadowed the idea of disciplined open-mindedness and modeled it in her own professional life. Borrowing Cohen’s organizing principle, one might discern the ‘magnificent seven’ tenets of Strange’s scholarly philosophy. First and foremost, focus on real-world problems and puzzles. Second, seek useful theories that are as elegant and parsimonious as possible. Third, use whatever methods seem appropriate to examine them – including time-tested techniques of good economists, sociologists, historians, and (although only Susan would say it outloud) good journalists. Fourth, subject theoretical hunches to ruthless skeptical scrutiny. Fifth, consider plausible alternatives. Sixth, draw out implications for future theory and, in order to stay grounded, for future policy. Seventh, write and speak about this entire process of discernment clearly and accessibly. The controversies spurred by Cohen’s book well exemplify the notion that analytical eclecticism of the kind Strange championed is far more prevalent in our field than many might believe. Unlike others in this volume, this leaves me quite optimistic about the future. The IPE tent is a large one, and most of us inside want to keep it that way.