Chapter 1 Academic contours of IPE and GPE (from The Routledge Handbook to Global Political Economy). Ernesto Vivares GPE: a growing research field Global Political Economy (GPE) as a research field is expanding, although it is still limited in its scholarly outputs both in the North and South, East and West. Different research contributions in Western countries, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East make this evident (Seabrooke and Young 2017; Shaw 2019; Tussie 2019). The first point is that undeniably GPE and International Political Economy (IPE) have different ontological, epistemological and methodological status which is reflected in their teaching, research and publishing. By IPE, the primary referent is, by rule, mainstream and English-speaking IPE that defines itself either as an international North American paradigm or British approach (Cohen 2019; Lake 2011; Maliniak et al 2011). While GPE presents a broader range of pluralistic perspectives and research orientations, to examine development and conflict according to the history and latitude of the themes of study (Helleiner 2015; Hobden and Hobson 2002, Tussie 2018). Under this pluralist and eclectic categorization, Critical IPEs, Feminist, Critical Geopolitical Economy, Post Colonial and Post Development IPEs, among others, can be considered segments within GPE. Therefore, GPE includes IPE but no vice-versa, as they have different ontological and epistemological standing and research orientations defined by diverse historical, geographical and methodological elements that set in different ways very diverse approaches. That is from empirical positivist OPE to the most radical Post Developmental and Feminist GPEs. Accordingly, we assume that GPE is not a counter-hegemonic approach in contrast to Western thinking or a means to throw away all done in IPE. Instead, GPE emerges as an ongoing set of conversations and inquiries to the world order from diverse perspectives focused to a significant extent upon the wide conceptual umbrellas of development and conflict (e.g. Grosfoguel 2006). In that sense, GPE may include different strands of thinking, under the common factor of addressing development and conflict, within the coordinates between politics and economics, domestic and international, in the formal and informal pursuit of wealth and power in the world order (Cohen 2019; Frieden et al. 2017; Gilpin 1975; Oatley 2018; Shaw et al. 2019; Underhill and Stubbs 2000). In fact, there are boundaries that impede to set a unique and universal definition for the field and the essential limitation to consider it as a traditional discipline. Beyond that, the central concern of IPE and GPE assumed in this Handbook are related to the development of structures and orientations of their scholarship, and the vital task to update and reassess their missions today, as, in particular, IPE still bears the orientations set out four decades ago to explore the liberal world order (Ashworth 2002; de Carvalho 2011; Hobson 2012). Indeed, the predominant approaches of the English-speaking IPE were developed between the 1970s and 1980s (Cohen 2019). There IPE emerged as a subfield of International Relations (IR), bringing into IR the debate about the power of markets and financial globalization in the mid-1970s. IPE was, however, not an alternative to IR, but a door that broadened the scope of international power focused on the relationships among wealth, state and markets. The end of the Bretton Woods system, the Cold War and the rise of globalization consolidated the dominant idea that nothing was going to take back the liberal order and its universal standards. In other words, the paradigm anchored in the relationship among liberal democracy, the market economy and international conduct as standards of civilization (Bull and Watson 1984; Hobson 2013). English-speaking IPE was born within the optimistic limits of an unstoppable liberal order and for that was vulnerable to its decline or shock from non-formal politics. However, reality changes and, nearly four decades later, we realize that historical responses concerning development and conflict in the international order were already developed in the early eighteenth century in different parts of the world (Helleiner 2015; Hobson 2013). In the 2020s, the mission of IPE is already outdated, limited and rather insufficient for GPE, the former showing severe constraints in its scholarship when it comes to comprehending unforeseen changes forty years ago (Lake 2013). There is a long list of issues which mainstream IPE is not prepared to address, and that is due its ontological and epistemological orientations defined to produce knowledge between the formal economy and politics in their links with the international (e.g., trade, finance, institutions, regimes, economic integration and others). Issues such as power transitions and hard tensions between a declining neoliberal order and rising nationalisms remain outside the scope of mainstream IPE. Indeed, mainstream IPE has never claimed to be able to deal with themes such as media manipulating democracies, xenophobia, security conflicts, humanitarian crises, environmental disasters, informal worlds and regionalisms, let alone the uncontrollable technological revolution, and the increasing inequality between countries and within societies. IPE and GPE constitute two different perspectives whose tools and big questions have to converge open and plurally in teaching, learning and research. At some point, IPE lost its focus on the questions concerning development and conflict in world affairs and became more technological sets that function to explain and justify the liberal political–economic order. Thus, its main strength turned into its major weaknesses today, that is its lack of adaptability and dialogue with other epistemic groups and factions out of the West. Instead of undertaking a search for universal answers, GPE develops scholarship by exploiting the possibilities of pluralistic debates, problematizing realities and widening global inquiries drawing on an eclectic range of tools. Indeed, these dynamics are experienced by students and lecturers alike who have to deal with opposite and outdated interpretations about what IPE is, narrowing the development of the scholarly formation. While mainstream approaches can be selfreferential and lack dialogue with other perspectives, we can also find a loose sense of how IPE approaches in the Global South are applied and reproduced (Deciancio 2018). Beyond Western approaches, IPE features by epistemic segmentation and, in many cases, parochial orientations in terms of conversations and exchange with the dominant academic communities (Tussie 2018). The central problem behind dominant interpretations about IPE in the Global South is the tendency to have an insufficient dialogue with inadequate or lack of access to global, regional and developmental voices, for epistemic academic progress. Narrowing the scholarly research even more, in some cases mainstream IPE is still taught as a formal field of study laying in between two fields of studies, political science and economics (Cohen 2019). For graduates that is a necessary introduction but for postgraduates it is a poor learning path. Furthermore, it is taught as the study of power within the liberal order on the intersections between states and markets, and the domestic and international (Gilpin 1975:43). All the above mentioned have been the great tools of IPE up to now but are not enough for teaching and research GPE and the new world dynamics of development and conflict, wherein we still do not unlock the new transformations and role of power, wealth and conflict. The picture of mainstream IPE is useful, however, as considering the state of world affairs, plagued of unpredicted developments and crises, we need to offer more to students and scholars for teaching, learning and research in GPE. The idea that IPE owns a formal object of inquiry and shares standards to certify specialists and legitimize their research and academic publications is more a definition for specific epistemic communities than for the whole, and does not help (i.e., Cohen 2019). Even in the Anglo-Saxon IPE that is not present. According to Seabrooke and Young (2017), between five and seven organizational logics at work in IPE can be identified that defines how it is reproduced and how scholars are educated (Seabrooke and Young 2017:323). Traditional divides in IPE dominate in classrooms, while Western control over the generation of theories or their questioning prevails in the top publications (Ibid.). However, with the production of IPE in other latitudes other than that of the West, similar limitations appear. In the Global South, IPE generally resembles more a global imported and local-oriented, either orthodox or heterodox, field of research about development and conflict but with different tonalities of exchange (Leiteritz 2005; Madeiras et al. 2016). There the dialogues with the Anglo-Saxon IPE derivate either in mechanic importations, dependence, hybridizations or even resistances to the epistemic relationship (Tickner 2003; Tickner and Weaver 2009). The barrier in the South is its centrifuge parochialism and segmentation in small factions, generally defined by gatekeepers, their lack of conversations with other epistemic communities and the strong tendency, sometimes, to hydride concepts to explain current political tendencies. Box 1.1 Conceptual cages In his work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber warned how the successful ideas and projects of one era have been turned into the political iron cages of another (2001) . According to Weber (2001), the use of certain concepts for current research, removed from their original meaning and the political purposes given to them by their founders, usually justify the survival and expansion of existing powers rather than explaining social change. Weber calls such historical ideas, namely those with a strong political sense in their orientation of development, ‘long lasting iron cages’ of ideas, derived from rationalized forms of how reality functions in one historical context (2001). The Weberian metaphor might be a useful concept as a basis to identify and analyze the theoretical and methodological elements that are necessary to avoid the biases in teaching, learning and research. Despite limitations, GPE is growing in the Western world, into that beyond the old traditional and peripherical traditions of IPE. For instance, the research of Seabrooke and Young highlights how IPEs are moving towards the contributions of evermore junior scholars (2017:322). Hence, IPE is moving towards multiple IPEs and to the wide field research of GPE, and this Handbook is only part of that evidence. If we consider that the nature and orientation of social knowledge are tied to time, space and social structures, then, it follows that GPE is no different from other fields of social knowledge. It reflects regional and local historical orientations similar or different to dominant Western IPE and GPE perspectives, given their diverse international insertions, orientations and outcomes of developments. Today, we know that IPE and GPE did not start in the Anglo-Saxon world as different research shows, but still, we teach that around a core of academic myths (de Carvalho et al. 2011; Hobson 2013). Evidence demonstrates how international and global political–economic contributions have been raised as historical responses in different parts of the world throughout history (Helleiner and Rosales 2017a, 2017b). The existence of the Western core mainstream does not necessarily invalidate the presence of other political economic perspectives, as conversations with the world order, based on knowledge process of either import, dependence, hybridization or resistance (i.e., Grosfoguel 2009; Tickner and Waever 2009). On the contrary, Western IPEs would benefit from the opening of the horizon for a broader and inclusive range of different understandings of IPEs, and therefore the first section of the Handbook is devoted to different ontological and epistemic architectures, research scope and historical shifts of the multiple faces of IPE and GPE. We need to bear in mind something about GPE. Whatever the orientation of IPE, one concept remains common to all its varied strands and orientations: that is the promise to bring new insights to the comprehension of development and conflict. And in contemporary scenarios that is the result of the formal or informal pursuit of wealth and power in the connections between state and market, politics and economics, and international and domestic. All IPEs fall somehow within some part of these ontological coordinates, creating a multiplicity of alternatives for teaching, learning and research that we define here as GPEs. In this Handbook we are reframing the study and research of how the political power and wealth production and distribution, formal and informal, have been intertwined throughout world history, in different latitudes shaping international, regional and local orders in terms of development and conflict (Braudel 1979; Payne and Phillips 2010). Exploring one way to globalise the field, Helleiner, for instance, as well other scholars (de Carvalho et al. 2011; Hobson 2013) have evidenced that, in order to engage in a real global conversation, the teaching, learning and research of IPE must review the limited history of North American and European thinking, developing a more global intellectual history (Hobson 2012). Moreover, positively, different contributions identify the significance of the IPE approaches in diverse parts of the world (all quoted by Helleiner 2015: Chin et al. 2014; Özveren 2015; Sartori 2008). Variations about the teaching, learning and research in IPE and GPE populate the IPE, and usually, they are inundated with different divides such as Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, OPE, North American–British, positivist versus interpretivist methodologies and more. These divisions are reproduced in classrooms and are thus translated into research, which in many cases dominates epistemic communities, factions or clusters, claiming to educate the real discipline of IPE and GPE (Cohen 2019; Mignolo 2013; Seabrooke and Young 2017:324). Two main issues arise because of this bias. The first is related to how in several international and regional academic programmes, scholars are taught and trained in the field. What, in turn, frames the orientations and chances for the academic growth of the field. Second, these limited parameters of study produce a methodological bias, due to omissions, within the research that deals with issues and different approaches to political economy – this is the importance of pluralistic teaching, learning and research within GPE. The debate about what is GPE and what types of knowledge the field produces varies depending on the range of the diverse ontological and epistemological positions in the field (Ravenhill 2017). These include the contentions and controversies in the field, whether they are normative, scientific, interpretivist, or an alternative discipline or research enterprise. Seabrooke and Young (2017), present one of the last pictures of political economy today, mapping its varied communities and orientations concerning teaching, researching and publishing (291) but their research remains focused on the English-speaking academy. Still language is a serious barrier in the field. Paradoxically, most of the academic communities try to produce or translate their scholarship to English, something that does not happen the other way. That raises the question as to where the rest of the world falls on the map when academic communities do not speak English. The problem related to this is an academic cage of self-reference and selflegitimacy, commonly an unchecked in the diverse analyses about the academic field of IPE (see Figure 1.1). FIGURE 1.1 Source: Author Teaching GPE The dominant formats of teaching political economy are generally tied to the ahistorical and essentialist ideological division among liberalism, economic nationalism and Marxism, the Transatlantic divide, or related to the (North) American Open Economic Politics style (OEP), actor-oriented and neoliberal institutionalist approaches (Cohen 2019; Frieden et al. 2017; Gilpin 1987; Oatley 2018). This Handbook begins with the part “Historical waves and ontological axes” discussing the contribution of Professor Robert Gilpin “Three Ideologies of Political Economy (1987)”. We consider that this historical academic piece continues to be extensively used as it provides a central conceptualization to grasp the liberal retreat and the return of nationalism and mercantilism with all their perils. Gilpin points out: “Economic liberalism, Marxism, and economic nationalism are all very much alive at the end of the twentieth century; they define the conflicting perspectives that individuals have concerning the implications of the market system for domestic and international society”. (1987:23) While some scholars may have preferred to start by questioning the traditional or mainstream frameworks in IR (e.g., Strange 1986); we considered it necessary to begin with the dominant different conceptual apparatus in the field to broaden the discussion of foundational academic tools. Each format taught, we need to bear in mind, brings approaches to address some of the concepts within the coordinates identified above, although a central lesson is that each of those are defined specific methodological architectures for research, in terms of the varied combinations between ontology, epistemology and methodologies. Furthermore, they define how research in GPE is analytically related to history, geography, development and conflict. There is a consensus among the scholars that the North American school is the dominant format of teaching IPE and GPE. Increasingly the so-called (North) American Open Economic Policy style (OEP), actor-oriented and neoliberal institutionalist approaches converge due to their emphasis on formal political economy (Frieden and Martin 2002; Krugman and Obstfeld 2006; Lake 2009; Leiteritz 2005; Oatley 2013). For them, the North American and the trinity formats (Realism, Liberalism and Marxism) are the central academic assets, while contributions from other regions are usually peripheral, except the Latin American IPE, from several decades ago. Professor Cohen (2007, 2008), however, taking an internalist approach, managed to break the mould of the Holy Ideological Trinity and the North American School, by explaining the (North) American and British school divide. As in the case of Gilpin’s work, Professor Cohen’s contribution thus provides another critical tool for the academic formation in our field: “The American School” and “America’s “Left-Out” (2019) are also discussed in the first part of the Handbook. This contribution remains, for many, a fundamental conceptualization and discussion in the Anglo-Saxon Political Economy that has highlighted several essential debates (Ravenhill 2017; Seabrooke and Young 2017:324).1 The controversy around the teaching of IPE, however, softened somewhat, due to the surge of another conceptual innovation within IPE. In 2005, John Ravenhill shifted the ontological orientation of the debate by arguing that rather than a disciplinary discussion, IPE should be considered as a ‘field of inquiry’ and therefore as a Global Political Economy, a field with many missing middles of research inbetween different dual conceptions (2005). Thus, IPE can be distinguished by its ontological and epistemological varied formats to inquiry realities, focusing on the interrelations between public and private power, and in the allocation of scarce sources, to see who gets what, when and how. Briefly, Ravenhill opened a sort of middle space in the divide, although still aligning the notion of IPE research to formal IPEs, that is, the relations between formal politics and economics, domestic and international (2005). Moderating the debates, Blyth thus introduced the open and pluralist concept of ‘global conversations,’ opening up possibilities for teaching within an umbrella that included the holy troika: (North) American, British and the quantitative–qualitative divides in the first Routledge Handbook (2009). His contribution was defining IPE as multiple versions of teaching and research, but this work continued entrenched in the self-referenced side of the Anglo-Saxon Political Economy. That is because of the focus on the scholarly formation of the North American perspectives, and some past contributions from the South, such as Dependency Theory and Developmentalism. Indeed, many scholars still find it unscientific and of little use to teach without universal definitions, issues, concepts and methodologies. The argument put forward here is that, within GPE, and we need to view this as a productive pedagogical challenge, the classroom is the best laboratory for testing and refining knowledge. The classroom is a unique collective of sharp young scholars with whom to explore, discuss and reflect on IPE and GPE from a plurality of perspectives in order to avoid reproducing bias or factions within the academy. Unfortunately, still, some scholars remain tied to the idea that scientific IPE and GPE often remain set on searching for unique and universal definitions, which can be misleading and lead to the reproduction of partisans and factions rather than scholars and academic communities. The reality is that different strands of thought make up GPE, and those are based on different ontologies and epistemologies. For example, Diana Tussie from FLACSO Argentina argues that the structural difference between international and regional IPEs, despite their limitations, is that their contributions lay in the strength of their different ontologies (2018). Latin American IPE departs from the regional global insertion thesis to explain the international–domestic link rather than wars, institutions or casino capitalisms, as it is discussed within mainstream IPEs (Krasner 1994; Strange 1994; Tussie 2018:5). She contends that Developmentalism and Dependency Theory departed from how domestic–international interactions and dynamics framed regional development in the liberal world order of the Cold War. She shows that the central contributions of Latin American IPE, by then, were rooted in the political–economic history of global insertions concerning development models and type conflicts in the region, ontologies that even today mark regional IPEs (Tussie 2018). Box 1.2 Ontology, epistemology and methodology “Ontology,” Norman Blaikie suggests, “refers to the claims or assumptions that a particular approach to social [or, by extension, political] inquiry makes about the nature of social [or political] reality— claims about what exists, what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with one another” (1993:6). Ontology relates to being, to what is, to what exists, to the constituent units of reality; political ontology, by extension, relates to political being, to what is politically, to what exists politically, and to the units that comprise political reality”. (Extracted from Political Ontology. Colin Hay. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Edited by Robert Goodin 2011. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb9780199604456-e-023 ). Ontology in GPE always takes us to different assumptions that we keep clear concerning the theoretical perspective followed: 1 Nature of the dynamic of power in the historical and geographical context. 2 Nature of the dynamic of conflict and development. 3 Nature of the dynamic and relations between state and markets. 4 Nature of the dynamic and relations between the international and domestic. 5 Nature of the dynamic and relations between agency and structure. 6 Nature of the dynamic and relations between ideas and power. 7 Nature of the dynamic and relations between the world order and regions. 8 Nature of the dynamic and relations between international institutions and world economies. 9 Nature of the dynamic of conflict and development. “Epistemology is the ‘science’ or ‘philosophy’ of knowledge. In Blaikie’s terms, it refers ‘to the claims or assumptions made about how it is possible to gain knowledge of reality’ (1993, 6–7). In short, if the ontologist asks, ‘what exists to be known?’, then the epistemologist asks ‘what are the conditions of acquiring knowledge of that which exists?’ Epistemology concerns … the extent to which specific knowledge claims might be generalized beyond the immediate context in which our observations were made, and, … how we might adjudicate and defend a preference between contending political explanations … Epistemological assumptions are invariably ontologically loaded—whether knowledge is transferable between different settings for political analysis and hence whether we can legitimately generalize between ‘cases’ (an epistemological consideration) depends on (prior) assumptions about the ontological specificity of such settings” (Hay 2002). One way to be inclusive of the varied orientations within the field is to conceptualize GPE as heterogeneous, plural and eclectic, whereby each student, scholar or practitioner can choose their options concerning their academic aims and aspirations. We thus understand GPE as a heterogeneous field of inquiries, methodologically eclectic and oriented to the study of power, development and conflict in the dynamics and intersections between ideas and power, politics and economics, the international and the domestic, agencies and structures in a socio-historical and geographical context. GPE is unique today as a field of inquiry as teaching and learning within the field demands the sorting out of fundamental multidisciplinary tensions between the fields of philosophy, social history and geography, which are intertwined with each other in order to grasp how the realities of development and conflict come about (see Figure 1.2). FIGURE 1.2 Source: Author Furthermore, the full range of possibilities for the combination and connection of different ontologies, diverse epistemologies and methodologies are in themselves essential lessons for scholars, helping to bridge socio-historical and geographical contexts to guarantee the consistency and coherence of research. A survey about how IPE and GPE are taught and used in research paradoxically shows that the application of unique methodologies in the fields represents only a small fraction of the whole, even in the Anglo-Saxon world (Madeiras et al. 2016). Scholars, according to several studies, tend to apply mixed methodologies and complex combinations of the methodologies (Madeiras et al. 2016; Seabrooke and Young 2017). Moreover, the key to GPE’s teaching and learning are the indissoluble links between ontology, epistemology and methodology but also must consider the bridges between them and socio-historical and geographical contexts. This will help to take us out from conceptual cages and universal affirmations based on assumptions that erase different knowledges of the specificities of context and time. These are the cases with Eurocentrism, hegemony, complex interdependence and other similar notions that impose their conceptual, political meanings into different scenarios. Undeniably, GPE lacks the infrastructure and power of the organized mainstream IPE, especially its self-referencing and self-legitimization capabilities of their research institutions and leadership in research and publishing. Nevertheless, the North American and European academies are in a unique and unsurpassable position to unpack the crucial task of opening the doors to new conversations and inquiries. Unfortunately, the images and frameworks of the North in the Political Economy in the Global South are so entrenched, and, in some cases, although scholars may use its conceptual apparatus, they adopt of the term IPE because of its focus upon pro-Western formal political economy. Indeed, orientations from the North and South today take scholars to different academic paths in IPE and GPE, and that does not necessarily have to be like this. In the same regard, these opposite views can, however, become, complementary under specific methodological strategies based on more complex ontological and epistemological frameworks. Besides, as we can see in the Handbook, that kind of research can count for missing dimensions of the global political realities of development and conflict today in different contexts, concerning critical issues. While there is no one, universal definition and methodology for IPE or GPE, it is possible to see the common ontological grounds and potential, connections and dialogues among their different practices, and the opportunities for teaching are vast. The intellectual history of IPE in the world is a substantive source to start and set different interpretations at the same level to teach and research the dialogue, something that shows how non-Western thinkers, well before 1945, developed similar ideas to those of liberalism, mercantilism, and Marxism (Helleiner 2017a; Hobson 2012). These types of contributions are focused on how locating a broader global intellectual history of IPE allows us to avoid Eurocentric and Anglo-Saxon worldviews of IPE. In a significant contribution, Cox defines the purpose of IPE (2009:324): “Different approaches to IPE have to be understood historically. The EnglishSpeaking world, long hegemonic in the dissemination of thought about Global affairs, will need to listen more carefully to the other voices in a global dialogue. It is when scholars are confronted with the full variety of perspectives that the work of intellectual bridge building can seriously begin”. (2009:324) In summary, the institutionality, extension and power of the English-speaking IPE community are central to the development of the field, but the field needs to develop beyond this. GPE thus demands that we account for a broader range of perspectives to become global (i.e. Acharya 2011). The key to understanding requires seeing GPE as a research field to overcome the limitations in the teaching and research about world political economy orientations, affairs, agencies and structures (Ravenhill 2017). Research in GPE Research is not a linear process, but a series of different stages and processes, continuously overlapping and adjusting, which works on different levels, with diverse ends, means, analytical formats and protocols (Burgess 1982; Sautú et al. 2005). Popular textbooks have extended the distorted idea that research is a linear process, which may initially help students to identify stages throughout the process of a research project but ends as a conceptual limitation deforming the real tasks of knowledge production at postgraduate level (Jackson 2011; Sautú et al. 2005). It is central to bear in mind the abovementioned at the time of designing programmes for teaching and learning research in GPE, since research is a critical skill in the education of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Bearing this in mind, we selected the chapters for Part V of this Handbook, “New research arenas,” independently to the different methodological formats and approaches of each scholar. What the chapters on research in the Handbook demonstrate is that only a few scholars, as Seabrooke and Young conclude (2017), pursue a pure lineal model of research. On the contrary, most of their approaches are marked by pluralism and eclecticism about some theoretical basis and ontological assumptions (Burgess 1982; Hay 2002). According to the literature, we can identify three types of circular patterns or stages, which overlap with one another during the research, where the researcher continuously goes back and forth adjusting the objective, research strategies and outcomes (Jackson 2011; Sautú et al. 2005). Different specialists in methodology have stressed, in different ways, the importance of this methodological concept, but this is still weak in the scholarly field (Hay 2002; Jackson 2011). Methodology for research is still a poorly developed tool in the field, vastly dependent on traditional Political Sciences, being a pending subject that limits the growth of GPE (Madeiras et al. 2016; Seabrooke and Young 2017). In 1982, Burgess argued that “research does not occur in separated ‘stages’ and does not follow a linear path but instead is a social process, whereby overlap occurs between all areas of the investigation” (211). The central issues thus become focused on understanding the role of theory in research (Creswell 2014; Lake 2013; Sautú et al. 2005) (see Figure 1.3 TAKE IN FIGURE 1.3 Source: Perceptions of research processes There are two main ways of teaching and learning how to explore in the field to produce research (White 2009). One is through studying the small group of great thinkers; the other by exploring what is taught, researched and published from the diverse IPEs. The first path is useful but limited, as great thinkers of our time are generally mainstream thinkers from the relatively homogeneous network of scholars, or what David Lake has defined as the “white man’s IR” (2016). Their opinions crowd the media and journals, which are predominantly made by and for Western academia. They commonly act as owners of interpretations, gatekeepers that typically appear with a similar mantra or are quoted in different top-ranked textbooks and journals. Another line of exploration takes us to a more substantial learning process and represents an excellent academic habit of being nourished by new and old scholars. That is to explore, concerning our area of interest, what is presented, taught, researched and published in the field from international to local conferences and classrooms in different places (White 2009). The assumption here is that knowledge is always historical and situated. It is created for some reason and someone, and in that sense, different configurations and scholars produce distinctive orientations of not one, but several Global Political Economies. The consensus is that there are different definitions about what IPEs and GPEs are an academic asset. That allows us to address the presence of different ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions in the field, and second, to find the endless and possible alternatives of methodological combinations and research designs. These open different doors and raise new issues for research in IPE, representing the prime strength of the scholarship within the field. The critical point in the teaching and research of IPE and GPE is not the definition of what it is or what it is not (something impossible to delineate in simple terms) but to identify their significant strands of thought (like Weberian ideal types). Thus, how they, in particular, methodologically based on specific rationalities, can play complementary roles in diverse research designs. Indeed, any academic attempt to tie postgraduate teaching to universal and unique definitions of GPE would become an inoperable effort and another academic conceptual cage. Teaching how to use concepts for research must be focused on helping students to open doors to varied and nuanced comprehensions of the political economy. IPE and GPE research outputs, in most cases, can be complementary to each other. Several scholars have already identified some of these common elements, doors or bridges, for instance, Cox (2000), Underhill and Stubbs (2000) and Lake (2003) have demonstrated cases for sharing common assumptions about IPE. Figure 1.4 provides a simple and easy way to grasp different methodological strategies and combinations. It illustrates the most commonly used approaches in GPE in their closer or distant relations with the most-known ideal-type research designs on the basis of contributions of different scholars (Creswell 2014; Hay 2002; Jackson 2011; Lake 2013). The vertical dimensions range from the role of theories in GPE at the top, location of research approaches, the methodological lines to types of evidence construction that define them. That combines the ontological, epistemological and methodological levels of any investigation (Hay 2002). Seen from the horizontal axis, the diagram ranges from the more empirical positivist designs to the further interpretative views (Creswell 2014; Jackson 2011). For instance, the methodological possibilities of design research combining the two extremes of the horizontal axis are fewer than seeking merging between closer strands of thoughts, while all research must logically gather all the levels. The picture is limited but convenient for introducing types of research in the classroom. FIGURE 1.4 Roles of theories in GPE Source: Author, basic and simple logical connections GPE brings about a meaningful set of research lines that cut across major concepts such as development and conflict, domestic and international, technology and welfare, globalization and transition powers. Some of these lines are: Global Governances (Cooper and Alexandrof 2019); Transition Powers (T.V. 2018; Xing 2018); Development Finance (Ocampo and Griffith-Jones 2019); Trade Wars (Lau 2019); technological change, labour and welfare (Greve 2018); Organized Crime (Ponton and Guayasamin 2018); Armed Conflict (Goodhand 2008); Media Power (Freedman et al. 2016); Bid Data (Balsillie 2018; Saetnan et al. 2018); Productive and Commodity Value Changes (Scholvin 2015); Inequality (Boushey et al. 2017; Milanovic 2016) and Migration (Lindley 2014). Moreover, we can also mention other lines such as the decline of the liberal order (Luce 2017); globalization (Maswood 2013); the return of nationalism and xenophobia (Ruzza 2018); informal economies (Medina and Schneider 2018); regionalisms (Söderbaum and Shaw 2003); warfare (Gow et al. 2019); cities (Sassen 2018) among others. The demand for plurality and interdisciplinary conceptualizations is a condition sine qua non for the existence of GPE, what it means to understand GPE as a researchoriented and diverse field, whose common factor is a complex dynamic ontology that falls in the coordinates of state–market, international–domestic, formal–informal development and conflict. However, this focus demands a critical effort on the development of research methodologies as critical assets to bridge methodological, ontological and epistemological relations between the dimension of social life that are studied and the different disciplines and methodologies involved. Therefore, any attempt to expand the boundaries of mainstream IPE requires consideration that it is a research endeavour oriented to improve dialogues and epistemic exchange more than to replace formal IPE, and we can only consider this endeavour to be but a starting point. However, the magnitude and importance of this change are not minor for both IPE and GPE in terms of research. For instance, today more than 50 per cent of reallife in the Global South develops in informal worlds, shadow economies, malign regionalism and the covert world (Medina and Schneider 2018). These are distinct and growing areas of research that have a central impact upon development and conflict at a global and regional level. Given the academic reference in the historical Western and Anglo-Saxon experiences, it is undeniable that the formal mainstream of IPEs insufficiently addresses these kinds of realities that distinguish the Global South. In terms of research, both North and South, depending on the type of research, tend to demand different ontologies. The regions of the Global South are not only the most unequal in the world but also those with the highest levels of informal and shadow economies, which has been made evident thanks to GPE research in this area (Abdih and Medina 2013; Feld and Larsen 2009; Medina and Schneider 2018). The abovementioned research issues within GPE cannot be denied and deserve a more thorough research agenda within the field. These are just a few of the distinctive central issues that have not been on the radar or within the ontologies of formal IPEs. New research on organized crime, drugs trafficking, laundering money, solidarity urban and rural economies, guns trafficking, illegal mining and informal work as well as migration are all central issues that impact on the Global Political Economy, yet these have received very little attention in formal IPE and GPE research. One exception is the study of public policies or international regimes, although usually seen from the top of the agency without a clear comprehension of its formal and informal dynamics. Something that highlights the difference today between the concept of migration and the current tendencies of exodus as the result of national disasters and conflicts. The fast-technological growth of biotechnology and infotech are other research lines emerging in GPE. Scholars and students should consider in global and regional power the increasing rise of issues of big data, cyber politics and security, global cities and their governance. They are becoming more and more important for investigation in GPE given their rise in parallel to the decline of liberal order and impact on the capacity to control corporate, social media, finance and above all democracy (Balsillie 2018). The revolutions in biotech and infotech are giving states and big corporations the control to engineer and manufacture life on an unprecedented scale. Technological change, inequality and the disruption of the ecological system by humans are the quintessence of the liberal order decline today and are necessary to address with new research. Thus, the old promises of the liberal order such as liberty, work and equality are quickly vanishing with the rise of an unpredictable world (Harari 2018). It is also important to consider that today, geopolitics in a world order are in transition. The power of states to do damage is more significant than in the past centuries, and this is why the GPE must also take this into consideration as another research area in combination with geopolitics. IPE was born with a focus and ontology on inter-state wars and international anarchy. Wars and state security remain relevant research issues since they can trigger other occurrences such as nuclear war. However, since the 1980s until nowadays, global realities have changed to the point that the only foreseen future seems one marked by inequality, environmental depredation and technological manipulation of democratic societies. Whatever the definitions of GPE, this must start with an updated mission and research focus in order to put the inquiry in perspective. If IPE rose as the study of interstate wars in an anarchical world, GPE needs to start with a focus on new, complex and dynamic ontologies and move beyond state-centric models to look at state–market and international–domestic research concerning development and conflict today. There is a famous quote from Lao Tzu that exemplified that: “Why is the sea king of a hundred streams? Because it lies below them.” Some additional research lines should be based on the new tendencies of development. For instance, according to Our World in Data, a non-profit organization integrated to SDG-Tracker.org, today the majority of people die from cardiovascular diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases, diabetes, blood pressure, neonatal diseases, road incidents, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. That means, in simple terms, that today we die mostly for our way of manufactured life and the inequality between and within societies, produced by a specific format of development, poor welfare and environmental issues, all themes generally absent in formal IPE, but on the radar of GPE. Cities constitute another new research line in GPE, since these are the locus of the outcomes of different kinds of development and conflict at the global, regional and national scale. The GPE of cities constitutes another growing line of research of significant importance in the field, being the central anchor where time and geography of development and conflict meet in intertwined dynamics (Weber 2017); although the concept has been central in social sciences it has not been relevant for IPE. Perhaps, with the primary focus of IPE on institutions, agencies and nation-state, mainstream perspectives have not seen one of the central geographical stacks in the dynamics of the GPE. Cities are urban geographical anchors and metropolitan centres where development and conflict become tangible in daily lives, from inequalities, shadow economies, violence, gender and migration, up to environmental issues. Contributions in these areas are growing in the region and are already considered as significant research focuses on GPE (Macdonald 2017; Muggah 2015). This Handbook map out new lines of inquiry rather than promoting divides by bolstering universal definitions of IPE or GPE. However, this raises challenges such as: To what extent should the field be opened? So the answer is that this is something currently ongoing as the result of innovative research beyond the essentialists, ahistorical and divides of international and regional IPE. The Routledge Handbook to Global Political Economy aims to contribute to broadening and updating notions concerning political economy and the shift from IPE to GPE, making it important for scholars to decide how far and at what pace to go in this transition. Note 1 Nonetheless, later Cohen would improve with the inclusion of other AngloSaxon contributions such as the (North) America ‘Left Out’, the Canadian and Australian ‘Far Outs’ (2014). Something again extended by Coen lately in his book Advanced Introduction to International Political Economy (2019a). Bibliography Abdih, Y. and Medina, L. 2013. “Measuring the Informal Economy in the Caucasus and Central Asia”. International Monetary Fund, WP/13/137. Acharya, A. 2011. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relational relations Theories and Beyond the West”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(3): 619–637. Ashworth, L. 2002. “Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations”. International Relations 16(1): 33–51. Balsillie, J. 2018. “Data is Not the New Oil – it’s the New Plutonium’. Financial Post. Available https://business.financialpost.com/technology/jim-balsillie-data-is-not-thenew-oil-its-the-newplutonium?utm_source=cigi_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=whatyou-need-know-about-grand-committee-big-data-privacy-and-democracy. Blyth, M. ed. 2009. Routledge Handbook of IPE: IPE as a Global Conversation. New York: Routledge. Boushey, H., De Long, B. and Steinbaum, M. 2017. After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and Inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Braudel, F. 1979. Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bull, H. and Watson, A. 1984. Introduction. In Bull, H. and Watson A., eds. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, R. 1982. The Role of Theory in Field Research. In Burgess, R., ed. Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: Routledge. 209–212. Cohen. B. 2007. “The Transatlantic Divide: Why are American and British IPE So Different?” Review of International Political Economy 14:2, 197–219. Cohen. B. 2008. “The Transatlantic Divide: A Rejoinder”. Review of International Political Economy 15(I): 30–34. Cohen, B. 2019a. Advanced Introduction to International Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Cohen, B. 2019b. The Multiple Traditions of the American IPE. In Blyth, M. ed. Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy. London: Routledge. 23–35. Cox R. 2000. Political Economy and World Order: Problems of Power, Knowledge. In Stubbs, R. and Underhill, G. eds. 2000. Political Economy and the Changing World Order. New York: Oxford University Press. Cox, R. 2009. “The ‘British school’ in the Global Context”. New Political Economy 14(3): 315–328. Creswell, J. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mix. London: Sage. de Carvalho, B., Halvard, L. and Hobson, J. 2011. “The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919”. Millennium. Journal of International Studies 39(3): 735–758. Deciancio, M. 2018. “La economía política internacional en el campo de las relaciones internacionales argentinas”. Desafíos, 30(2): 15–42. Edwards, S. 2012. Left Behind: Latin America and the False Promise of Populism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Feld, L. and Larsen, C. 2009. Undeclared Work in Germany 2001–2007 – Impact of Deterrence, Tax Policy, and Social Norms: An Analysis Based on Survey Data. Berlin: Springer. Freedman, D., Obar, J., Martens, Ch. and McChesney, R. eds. Strategies for Media Reform: International Perspectives. New York: Fordham University Press. Frieden, J., Lake, D. and Broz, L. 2017. International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth. Manhattan: W. W. Norton & Company. Frieden, J. and Martin, L. 2002. International Political Economy: Global and Domestic Interactions. In Katznelson, I. and Milner, H. eds. Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: W.W. Norton. 118–146. Gilpin, R. 1975. U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Gilpin, R. 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Goodhand, J. 2008. War, Peace and the Place in Between. Why Borderlands are Central. In M. Pugh, N. Cooper and M. Turner, eds. Whose Peace? Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gow, J., Dijxhoorn, E., Kerr, R. and Verdirame, G. 2019. Routledge Handbook of War Law and Technology. London: Routledge. Greve, 2018. Routledge Handbook of the Welfare State. London: Routledge. Grosfoguel, R. 2006. “From Postcolonial Studies to Decolonial Studies: Decolonizing Postcolonial Studies: A Preface”. Review 24(2), 17-48. Grosfoguel, R. 2009. “A Decolonial Approach to Political-Economy: Transmodernity, Border Thinking and Global Coloniality”. In Kult 6 – Special Issue Epistemologies of Transformation: Roskilde. Hay, C. 2002. Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. New York: Palgrave. Hay, C. and Payne, A. 2017. The Great Uncertainty. SPERI paper No 5. Available at http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SPERI-Paper-No. 5-TheGreat-Uncertainty-389KB.pdf. Helleiner, E. 2015. “Globalising the Classical Foundations of IPE Thought.” Contexto International 37(3): 975–1010. Helleiner, E. and Rosales, A. 2017a. “Peripheral Thoughts for Global IPE”. International Studies Quarterly 61: 924–934. Helleiner, E. and Rosales, A. 2017b. “Towards Global IPE”. International Studies Review 19(4): 667–691. Helleiner, E. and Wang, H. 2018. “Beyond the Tributary Tradition of Chinese IPE”. Chinese Journal of International Politics 11(4): 451–483. Hobden, S. and Hobson, J., eds. 2002. Historical Sociology of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hobson, J. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobson, J. 2013. “Part 1 – Revealing the Eurocentric Foundations of IPE”. Review of International Political Economy 20(5): 1024–1054. Jackson, T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge. King, G., Keohane, R. and Verba, S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Krasner, S. 1994. “International Political Economy: Abiding Discord”. Review of International Political Economy 1(1), 13’19. Krugman, P. and Obstfeld, M. 2005. International Economics: Theory and Policy. United States: Pearson International Edition. Lake, D. 2009. “Open Economy Politics: A Critical Review”. Review of International Organizations 4(3): 219–244. Lake, D. 2011. TRIPs across the Atlantic: Theory and Epistemology in IPE. In Nicola, P. and Weaver, C. eds. International Political Economy. Debating Past, Present and Future. London: Routledge. Lake, D. 2013. “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 567–587. Lake, D. 2016. “White Man’s IR: An Intellectual Confession”. Perspectives on Politics 14(4): 1112–1122. Lau, L. 2019. The China-US Trade War and Future Economic Relations. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Leiteritz, R. 2005. “International Political Economy: The State of the Art”. Colombia International 62: 50–63. Lindley, A. ed. 2014. Crisis and Migration. London: Routledge. Luce, E. 2017. The Retreat of Western Liberalism. London: Little and Brown. Macdonald, L. 2017. The Politics of Violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. New York: Cambridge University Press. Madeiras, M., Barnabe, I., Albuquerque, R. and Lima, R., 2016. “What Does the Field of International Relations Look Like in South America?”. Revista Brasileira de Political Internacional 59(1). Maliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S. and Tierney, M. 2011. “International Relations in the US Academy”. International Studies Quarterly 55:437–64. Maliniak, D., Powers, R. and Walter, B. F. 2013. ‘The gender citation gap in international relations’. International Organization 67(4): 889–922. Maliniak, D. and Tierney, M. 2009. “The American School of IPE”. Review of International Political Economy 16(1): 6–33. Maswood, S. 2013. Trade, Development and Globalization. London: Routledge. Medina, L. and Schneider, F. 2018. “Shadows Economies Around the World: What Did We Learn over the Last 20 Years?” IMF: Working Paper 18/17. Available at: www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/01/25/Shadow-Economies-Aroundthe-World-What-Did-We-Learn-Over-the-Last-20-Years-45583. Mignolo, W. 2016. “Global Coloniality and the World Disorder. Decoloniality After Decolonization and Dewesternization After the Cold War”. World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilizations. Available at http://wpfdc.org/images/2016_blog/W.Mignolo_Decoloniality_after_ Decolonization_Dewesternization_after_the_Cold_War.pdf. Milanovic. B. 2016. Global Inequality. A New Approach for the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Muggah, R. 2015. “A Manifesto for the Fragile City”. Journal of International Affairs 68(2): 19–36. Oatley, T. 2012. International Political Economy. New York: Routledge. O’Brien, R. and Williams, M. eds. 2016. Global Political Economy. New York: Palgrave. Palma, J. 2009. “Why Did the Latin American Critical Tradition in the Social Sciences Become Practically Extinct?”. Blyth, M. ed. In Routledge Handbook of IPE: IPE as a Global Conversation. New York: London: Routledge. 243–65. Payne, A. and Phillips, N. 2010. Development. Cambridge: Polity. Petras, J. and Veltmeyer, H. 2012. The Rise and Demise of Extractive Capitalism. Available at: http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1895. Polanyi, K. 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press. Ponton, D. and Guayasamin, T. 2018. Organized Crime, Security and Regionalism: The Governance of TOC in LA. In Vivares, E., ed. Regionalism, Development and the PostCommodities Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 270–290. Quiliconi, C. 2014. “Competitive Diffusion of Trade Agreements in Latin America”. International Studies Review 16 (2): 240–251. Quiliconi, C. and Salgado, R. 2018. “The South American Regionalisms: A shift or the Return of Economic Integration”. Vivares, E. (ed.), Regionalism, Development and the Post-Commodities Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.: 291– 307. Ravenhill, J. 2005. Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ravenhill, J. 2017. Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rivera, F. and Daniel, P. 2016. Microtráfico en Quito, rutas, mercados y actores 2000– 2012, IDRC, Flacso, Relasedor, Quito. Available at: www.flacsoandes.edu.ec/libros?avanzado=0&query=microtrafico. Ruzza, C. 2018. Populism, Migration and Xenophobia in Europe. London: Routledge. Saetnan, A., Schneider, I. and Green, N. 2018. The Politics and Policies of Bid Data: Big Data, Big Brother? London: Routledge. Sassen, S. 2005. “The Global City: Introducing a Concept.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 11 (2): 27–44. Sassen. S. 2018. Cities in the World Economy. London: SAGE. Sautú, R., Boniolo, P., Dalle, P. and Elbert, R., 2005. Manual de metodología. Construcción del marco teórico, formulación de los objetivos y elección de la metodología. Buenos Aires: CLACSO. Scholvin, S. 2015. A New Scramble for Africa: The Rush for Energy Resources in SubSaharan Africa. London: Routledge. Seabrook, L. and Ellias, J. 2010. “From Multilateralism and microcosm in the world economy: the sociological turn in Australian international political economy scholarship”. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 64(1), 1–12. Seabrooke, L. and Young, K. 2017. “The Networks and Niches of International Political Economy”. Review of International Political Economy 24(2): 288–331. Shaw, T., Mahrenbach, L., Modi, R. and Yi-chong, X., 2019. The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary International Political Economy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Söderbaum, F. and Shaw, T. 2003. Theories of New Regionalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Strange, S., 1976. “The Study of Transnational Relations”. International Affairs 52:3, 333–334 Strange, S. 1986. Casino Capitalism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Strange, S. 1994. “Wake up, Krasner! The World Has Changed”. Review of International Political Economy 1(2): 209–219. Stubbs, R. and Underhill, G. 2000. Political Economy and the Changing World Order. New York: Oxford University Press. Tickner, A. 2003. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies”. International Studies Perspectives 4:4, 325–350. Tickner, A. and Waever, O. 2009. International Relations Scholarship around the World. New York: Routledge. Tussie, D. 2018. La Genealogía de la Economía Política Internacional: Rutas, Debates, y Desafíos en América Latina, in Urrego Sandoval, C., Leiteritz, R., Jiménez Peña, G. and Fuentes Sosa, N., eds. Economía Política Internacional en America Latina: Teoría y Práctica. México: CIDE. T.V., P. 2018. Restraining Great Powers: Soft Balancing from Empires to the Global Era. US: Yale University Press. Underhill, G. and Stubbs, R. eds. 2000. Political Economy and The Changing Global Order. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. 2017. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Vigeo Press. White, P. 2009. Developing Research Questions. A Guide for Social Sciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Xing, L. 2018. Mapping China’s “One Belt One Road Initiative”. London: Palgrave Macmillan.