Abstract
ABSTRACT In this essay, I draw attention to what I see as a slow death of theoretical, methodological and empirical pluralism in American-school international political economy (IPE). In the first instance, I identify its roots in practices of editorial gatekeeping among the leading journals and the self-selection of authors who publish in them, and on this basis put forward a set of sceptical reactions to Maliniak and Tierney's contention that we can adequately depict the ‘state of the field’ by analyzing the content of the ‘top’ journals. I go on to explore the implications of the close disciplinary association of IPE with the discipline of international relations in the United States, and argue that the marked contraction of pluralism in the American school of IPE is due in large part to its continued shackling to international relations as much as its emerging methodological monoculture.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
