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

Abstract

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.