Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

From Latin American International Political

Economy to Latin American Global Political

Economy

Da Economia Política Internacional Latino-americana à

Economia Política Global Latino-americana

De Economía Política Internacional Latinoamericana a

Economía Política Global Latinoamericana

Ernesto Vivares¹

1. Ernesto Vivares is Professor in Inter-

national Political Economy at FLACSO

Raúl Salgado²

Ecuador, Master from Birmingham

University and PhD from Sheffield

University in UK. His research focus on

Global and Regional Political Economy,

DOI: 10.5752/P.2317-773X.2021v9.n2.p7

South America, Development and Con-

flict. ORCID 0000 0002 2136 1089.

Received in February 18, 2020

2. Raul Salgado Espinoza is a full-term

Accepted in August 02, 2020

professor and researcher of foreign

policy, political thought and qualitative

methods at the Department of Inter-

national Studies and Communication,

FLACSO Ecuador. He holds a Ph.D. in Po-

Abstract

litical Science and International Studies

This paper focuses on the differences between International Political Economy

from the University of Birmingham, UK.

(IPE) versus Global Political Economy (GPE) in Latin America. It explores how

ORCID: 0000-0002-1540-5583

IPE tends to be taught and researched beyond mainstream IPE but in dialogue

with it. It engages with the main literature of this field to discuss the contours

and extension of a transition in teaching and research. It rests upon a historical

sociological approach and employs a qualitative analysis of syllabi and curricula

of various masters and doctoral programs on International Relations/Studies

and underlying disciplines, and is complemented with semi-structured inter-

views with leading scholars of IPE from across the region. The paper argues

that there is a shift from mainstream IPE to a new Latin American GPE as the

result of a revitalization of the field and as a response to the new regional and

global challenges. New dynamics of development, conflict and a changing

world order coexist with old problems, pushing our field to find new respon-

ses, demonstrating the limits of the traditional knowledge, and requiring the

development of new contributions. While the shift may be minor, it is constant

and steady, and is neither homogenous nor dominated by a unique vision of the

field, but it is defined by heterogeneity and plurality.

Keywords: Latin American IPE, GPE, Teaching and Research

Resumo

Este artigo aborda as diferenças entre Economia Política Internacional (EPI) e

Economia Política Global (EPG) na América Latina. Explora-se o modo pelo

qual a EPI é ensinada e pesquisada, transcendendo a EPI convencional, mas

em debate com ela. Dialoga-se com literatura mais importante desta área para

discutir os contornos e a extensão de uma transição no ensino e na pesquisa.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

Baseia-se em uma abordagem sociológica histórica e emprega uma análise

qualitativa dos currículos de vários programas de mestrado e doutorado em

Relações Internacionais/Estudos Internacionais e disciplinas subjacentes; é com-

plementado com entrevistas semiestruturadas com estudiosos de EPI da região.

O artigo argumenta que há uma mudança da EPI convencional para uma nova

EPG latino-americana, como resultado de uma revitalização do campo e como

uma resposta aos novos desafios regionais e globais. Novas dinâmicas de de-

senvolvimento, conflitos e mudanças da ordem mundial coexistem com velhos

problemas, levando o nosso campo a elaborar novas respostas, demonstrando

os limites do conhecimento tradicional e exigindo o desenvolvimento de novas

contribuições. Embora a mudança possa ser menor, é constante e estável, e não

é homogênea, nem é dominada por uma visão única do campo, mas é definida

pela heterogeneidade e pluralidade.

Palavras-chave: EPI latino-americana; EPG; Ensino e pesquisa

Resumen

Este artículo se enfoca en las diferencias entre Economía Política Internacional

(EPI) versus Economía Política Global (EPG) en América Latina. Explora las

tendencias en la enseñanza e investigación más allá de la EPI del mainstream,

pero en conversación con ésta. Dialoga con la literatura más relevante de esta

disciplina para discutir los entornos y extensión de una transición en la enseñan-

za e investigación. Se apoya en un enfoque histórico social y emplea un análisis

cualitativo de sílabos y mallas curriculares de programas de maestría y docto-

rado en Relaciones/Estudios Internacionales y disciplinas subyacentes que es

complementado con entrevistas semi-estructuradas a académicos especialistas

en EPI de la región. El paper propone que se evidencia un cambio desde la EPI

del mainstream hacia una nueva EPG latinoamericana que ha surgido como

resultado de una revitalización de esta disciplina y como respuesta a los nuevos

retos regionales y globales. Nuevas dinámicas del desarrollo, conflicto y de un

orden global cambiante coexisten con viejos problemas y han empujado a nues-

tra disciplina a encontrar nuevas respuestas, demostrando los límites del cono-

cimiento tradicional, y demandando el desarrollo de nuevas contribuciones. Si

bien, el cambio puede ser menor, es constante y estable, y no es ni homogéneo

ni está dominado por una única visión de la disciplina, pero está definida por la

heterogeneidad y pluralidad.

Palabras claves: EPI latinoamericana, EPG, enseñanza y aprendizaje

Introduction

This paper critically analyses key research contributions concer-

ning how teaching and research is done the field of International Political

Economy (IPE) in Latin America and tackles elements of scholarly inte-

rest for recent developments of the field in the region. It encompasses the

diverse ontological and epistemological approaches that show the reci-

procal and dynamic power interactions between politics and economics,

development and conflict, and the domestic and international spheres.

The main assumption explored here is that the field is experiencing a

revitalization mainly towards a global orientation of the regional field as

some scholars have shown (HELLEINER, 2015; HOBSON, 2013; TUSSIE,

2018; 2020). The work highlights the scope and limitations within the

field, in terms of bringing new insights to the comprehension of Latin

American International Political Economy (LAIPE) beyond the Anglo-

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

-Saxon IPE approaches, and refers to the means of engaging in a con-

versation with other IPEs as well as the mainstream (ACHARYA, 2011;

COHEN, 2019). This analysis argues that there is an increasing shift from

mainstream LAIPE to a Latin American Global Political Economy (LA-

GPE), which are clearly defined by recent contributions (TUSSIE, 2020).

All the empirical evidence of the paper is based on the research done by

Salgado and Vivares (2019).

Several studies have identified the different ontological and epis-

temological orientations, dialogues, and gaps within the field of IPE, al-

though most of them have focused on how IPE is produced and repro-

duced in the Anglo-Saxon and Western world (LAKE, 2013; MALINIAK

et al., 2011; MALINIAK; TIERNEY, 2009; SEABROOK; YOUNG, 2017).

This focus has changed in the last decade also in Latin America. IPE, both

in the North and the South, has witnessed an insightful revival beyond

mainstream IPE (HELLEINER, 2015; KEOHANE, 2011; RAVENHILL,

2017; TUSSIE, 2018). This paper suggests that two central elements un-

derlie this change. On the one hand, new dialogues and inquiries about

unforeseen economic global and regional phenomena like global political

economic issues such as the global pandemic, crises of the welfare natio-

nal systems, massive informal migration, international trafficking, illegal

commerce across borders, among others surpass the old mission and tools

of mainstream IPE, which have turned to be central in the discussion and

investigations of IPE in the region. These include the vulnerability of so-

cieties to the current global pandemic, drug trafficking, forced displace-

ment, rise of nationalism and populism, the fragmentation of the Europe

Union, the technological revolution, the expansion of national treats, and

the decline of the liberal order. On the other hand, global factors such as

the decline of the liberal order, the rise of inequality, social and environ-

mental crises, and the return of nationalism and xenophobia have beco-

me the centre of analysis of the new wave of research contributions. As

a result, the revitalisation of the field has brought about differentiation,

and there, IPE has become a heterogeneous field of perspectives and in-

quiries that range from the English-speaking IPE discipline to the varied

GPE interdisciplinary. However, the two extremes of the same debates

have something in common: the quest for exploring how the struggle for

power and wealth bring about development and conflict, in the context of

the intersections of international-domestic, state-market, regional-global,

and formal-informal realities of unequal development.

This argument stems from different contributions and a mayor stu-

dy of how RRII is currently taught and researched in Latin America, whi-

ch is where the study of IPE derived. It focusses on the diverse and varied

practices of teaching and research in the field, highlighting weaknesses,

limitations, and the different approaches to interpret the LAGPE. There-

fore, this research, methodologically draws upon a qualitative research

concerning the state of teaching methodology for research in IR and IPE

within Latin America. It is based on the interpretation of semi-structured

interviews with scholars of IPE in Latin American universities and the

analysis of academic bibliography of Latin American IPE have contribu-

ted to strengthen this argument. Moreover, it reports on a survey of 540

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

scholars in the different IR-subfields, 40 of whom are lecturers in me-

thodology at postgraduate degree level (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019). In

addition, it draws on an analysis of 70 curricula and syllabi from masters

and doctoral programmes from universities in 15 Latin American sta-

tes, including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Ecuador,

among others, and the editorial boards of the main academic journals

IPE globally (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019). In this sense, this research

has a qualitative and descriptive orientation and is driven by analytical

and theoretical insights provided by our and other similar investigations

both in the field of IR in the region and abroad. This investigation aims

to complement other contributions such as Tussie (2018), Trownsell et al.

(2019), and Madeiras et al. (2016), which have also been central in framing

and deepening the analysis of a change in the approaches to IR and its

sub-fields. Therefore, this paper seeks to help to identify the different

perspectives that make up LAIPE in the region by taking into account the

use of diverse theoretical approaches in the field, as well as the emerging

contradictions and limitations around the debates in this fast-growing re-

gional academic arena. The paper is organised into three parts. It begins

by outlining the major IPE perspectives. Secondly, it explores the central

components of the concept of Latin American IPE, to evidence that today

scholars are producing research that support the idea of a LAGPE. Finally,

the conclusion highlights the importance of plurality, transdisciplinarity,

and Global South issues as part of the research agenda of a LAGPE.

Mainstream IPE tends to be pluralist but still dominated by Anglo-Saxon

approaches

Beyond the diverse orientations of IPE, there is one central idea

common between them: the promise of new insights as a result of resear-

ch, seeking to understand the role of power in the interactions between

politics and economics, the international and domestic, and development

and conflict in different locations within a historical global order. In other

words, about the development and conflict in their most general expres-

sion, outcomes.

In the main, IPE research is done from different perspectives, but is

still dominated by the trichotomous (Realism, Liberalism and Marxism),

the Open Economic Policy (OEP), and the North American-British. The-

se views are supplemented by the concept of global conversations, GPE,

post-development and poststructuralism to mention but a few. All these

represent the general global map of epistemic communities, factions, or

clusters where diverse IPEs are developed, contested, or adapted. The-

se new tendencies clearly go beyond mainstream focus (COHEN, 2019;

HELLEINER, 2015; MIGNOLO, 2016; SEABROOK; YOUNG, 2017).

From these conversations and debates, we can identify three main

academic issues regarding mainstream views. The first suggests that clas-

srooms are the source of reproduction of these divisions and partisanship

in the field, both in the South as well as in the North (SEABROOK; YOU-

NG, 2017). Many academic programmes from the Latin American region

and beyond, teach and train young scholars in one of those divisions.

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

These divisions are generally perspectives developed within the Anglo-

-Saxon, mainly the North American-British, and European academic

world. This focus on one view frames and generates a partisan orienta-

tion of their academic performance and limits the development of the

field (HOBSON, 2013). Secondly, the design of academic training tends

to yield methodological biases at the time research is done, as the domi-

nating views are based on formal realities of the Western development

(CARVALHO; GIL-PEREZ, 2011). Hence, it limits the economic realities,

research perspectives and methodological developments of other regions.

Thirdly, the two factors highlighted above represent real obstacles to mo-

ving mainstream IPEs towards a GPE in order to deal with and respond

to the new global scenarios of power and developments, which thirty

years ago, when mainstream IPE was designed, were unforeseeable.

Mainstream IPE was developed for an expanding liberal world or-

der and civilization, not for a declining liberal system. It did not take

into account either for the rise of South East Asia, nor was it equipped to

explain new events such as the shift within the United States (USA) and

Europe to xenophobia and nationalism, the social disillusionment with

democracy and free markets, social deprotection, migration and humani-

tarian crises, and environmental destruction without scale. These all are

interrelated facts that mirror global and fundamental transformations.

Indeed, the grounding principles of mainstream IPE in its response to

academic questions relate to the transformation of the old liberal order

and its issues such as complex interdependence, interstate relations, he-

gemony, free trade, regimes, liberal institutions, and others. However,

today these pillars of mainstream IPE continuously evaporate into the

air as new severe concepts appear, such as global power transitions,

exodus, racism, environmental catastrophes, development and conflict,

cyber wars, nationalism, parasitarian capitalism, and terrorism, amongst

others. Most of these have a global connotation with regional characte-

ristics. Therefore, a new and comprehensive GPE is compelled to enclose

old and new issues of the international political economy, as well as new

methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives of the discipline

of IPE.

What is considered GPE? The answer varies according to the on-

tological and epistemological position taken by colleagues and their con-

tributions. It takes various paths, depending on whether GPE is viewed

as a normative, scientific, reflectivist, alternative discipline or research

enterprise (RAVENHILL, 2017). Seabrook and Young (2017), for instance,

surveyed the field with a central focus in the Western World. Their work

maps its varied communities and orientations concerning teaching, re-

searching, and publishing in a respectful academic format although not

global. They found that beyond the (North) American-British schools

and debates, there are other divides in the Western field. They suggest

that there are between five and seven communities, epistemic networ-

ks, or clusters of IPE scholars. And as a matter of their evidence, the-

re are clear distinctions between how they teach, research, and publish

on IPE (SEABROOK; YOUNG, 2017). However, GPE encloses these new

phenomena within present international political economy in its research

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

agenda, as well as new methodological and theoretical approaches, which

make it more inclusive and pluralistic. IPE and GPE are connected, but

are not the same, and they even become more different with its regional

extensions as they are defined by more regional features. The orienta-

tions and differences between IPE and GPE are basically outlined here in

the chart below.

Table 1 - Contrasting features of IPE and GPE

International Political Economy

Global Political Economy

IPE

GPE

Ontological focu-

Western world.

Development and Conflict in Western and Non-Western World.

ses and sources

Focused on Global Liberal Order.

Focused on Global-Regional-National dynamics.

Formal Order, Institutions and Economic Dynamics.

Formal - Informal Order, Institutions, Economic, and Conflicts.

Epistemic

Varied foci mainly network-related and located in Wes-

Regional located.

networks

tern world.

Growing in dialogue with IPE.

Self-legitimated and referenced.

Legitimation subordinated to dependence of Western epistemic

Dominant Rational-Choice communities.

communities’ approval.

Interdisciplinary dynamic fields.

Aims

To comprehend the rise, expansion, and failures of the

To comprehend the Global Political Economy of Development and

Global Liberal Order to solve them.

Conflict in Times of Changes, Crises and Transition

Ontological axes

International-Domestic,

Complex Ontologies subordinated to Space-Time and research focus.

State-Market,

Development-Conflict.

Agency-Structure.

Regional-Global. Formal-Informal Development. Identity-Development.

Epistemology

Liberalism, Realism, Constructivism, Traditional Marxism.

IPE traditions, plus History, Geography, Technology, and others new

Dependent of Political Sciences.

research fields and approaches.

Methodology

From Positivist dominance but also up to Reflectivist. One

Theoretical Pluralism and Eclectic Methodology. Range from Positivist

Research Agenda, Homogenous Methodologies. Schools.

to Reflectivist, Post Structuralist nd Critical Conflict approaches.

Teaching and

Focus on Schools and Western History

Research oriented and Regionally differentiated

Learning

Sources: design by the authors

From Latin American International Political Economy to Latin American

Global Political Economy

In Latin America, the reality of the field is not so much different but

framed and oriented in relation to its academic history and today features

(DECIANCIO, 2018; TUSSIE, 2018). To start, if we compare the results bet-

ween the top international sales and the most recommended handbooks

in the syllabi most used at postgraduate level, based on a large sample of

departments in International Relations/International Political Economy,

it is possible to see how LAIPE (the traditional version) is taught. To advan-

ce the analysis, we look firstly at how LAIPE has been taught outside the

region, within the English-speaking world, and then, we analyse teaching

and research IPE within Latin America (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019).

The first formats of teaching LAIPE outside the region start with

the traditional ahistorical and essentialist ontological division among li-

beralism, nationalism, and marxism (or sometimes constructivism), fol-

lowing a format of the books of Gilpin (1987) and O’BRIEN and WIL-

LIAMS (2016). In line with the observations of Cohen (2014), the second

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

syllabi’s formats are focused on the so-called [North] American Open

Economic Policy (OEP), with its emphasis on rational choice, institu-

tionalist, and formal economics (FRIEDEN; LAKE, 1999; KRUGMAN;

OBSTFELD, 2005; LAKE, 2009; OATLEY, 2013). The third format of tea-

ching, which still guides some scholars, is related to the shift introduced

by Cohen (2014), with the situated ontology of the [North] American vs.

3. Nonetheless, later Cohen would

British schools (RAVENHILL, 2017; SEABROOK; YOUNG, 2017).³

deepen that with the inclusion of other

In 2009, John Ravenhill’s contribution gave way to another for-

Anglo-Saxon contributions such as the

mat by modifying the ontological and epistemological axis of the deba-

(North) America ‘Left Out’, the Canadian

and Australian ‘Far Outs’ (2014). Some-

te. Therefore, Ravenhill (2009) argued that rather than a discipline, IPE

thing again extended by Cohen lately

had better be considered as a field of inquiry. In this context, Ravenhill

in his book Advanced Introduction to

(2005)⁴ suggested that the field should move from the traditional IPE to

International Political Economy (2019).

a GPE, due to the missing junctures of research in-between dual concep-

tions and dividing perspectives. Developing further dialogue, later Mark

4. Thus, IPE distinguishes itself by onto-

Blyth (2009) introduced the constructivist mediator concept of the global

logical and epistemological diversities,

focusing on the interrelations between

conversation, opening teaching to an umbrella that might include the holy

public and private power, and in the

troika, the [North] American/British schools and the quantitative/quali-

allocation of scarce sources, to see

tative divides in the field. Despite the innovation, the field of IPE is still

who gets what, when and how. Briefly,

Ravenhill opened the middle space in

an Anglo-Saxon arena, and LAIPE there continued to be interpreted as

the divide, although still tightening the

only the past glories of the Dependency Theory and Developmentalism,

notion of IPE research to formal IPEs, in

other words the relationship between

referenced with the same repeated voices (i.e. PALMA, 2009).

formal politics and economics (2005).

In this general framework, it is possible to see how English-spea-

king and Western IPEs have framed and taught LAIPE: commonly as

packages of perspectives frozen in time, deploying a linear sequence of

thinkers’ ideas and concepts related to the golden age of contributions

made by regional IPE, during the time of regional responses to Develop-

mental Capitalism and the Cold War (COX, 2002). A mixture of economic

theory with static political images of the region has been taught, in which

realist appears at the top and is followed by institutionalist and formal

perspectives. Syllabi tend to present the old perspectives of Cepalian De-

velopmentalism, Dependency Theory, and in the best cases of the 90s, as

the unique contributions from the region (COHEN, 2019). The sequence

commonly starts with the names of Raul Prebisch (sometimes presen-

ted as one of the founding fathers of Dependency Theory), Albert Hirs-

chman, Gunder Frank, Enrique Cardoso, Enzo Faletto and others—the

thinkers of the unique age of the traditional LAIPE up to the beginning

of the neoliberal stage of the 90s.

In addition, in the English-speaking teaching of IPE today, the con-

tributions of LAIPE are the concepts and theoretical elements developed

during the 1960s, 1980s, and sometimes in the 1990s, which leave out the

tendencies and research of the last two decades (LEITERITZ; RIAÑO,

2018; TUSSIE, 2018;). In this way traditional IPE does not take into accou-

nt the regional contributions concerning how ideas and the region, in dif-

ferent historical periods and world orders, confront hegemonic approa-

ches, study power configurations, international and domestic links, re-

gions and multilateral crafts of development and conflict (HELLEINER,

2017; TUSSIE, 2018).

Similar biases and problems can be found in the development of

IPE at a global level. This could be because IPE history did not begin in

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

the Western world nor in Latin America. Indeed, there are many IPEs,

many of which can be traced back to a period in previous centuries

(HELLEINER, 2017; HOBSON, 2013). Certainly, in recent decades the

discipline has moved towards a significant self-reflection concerning

its Western, ahistorical, and universalist Anglo-Saxon ontologies and

epistemologies. This process opens up debates about its globalisation

and frontiers, and has created spaces for teaching and research in the

contexts of the global economic and political phenomena (AGNEW,

1994; AMIN, 1988; CAFRUNY, 2016; GROSFOGUEL 2009; GROSFO-

GUEL; CERVANTES-RODRIGUEZ, 2000; HELLEINER, 2017; HOB-

DEN; HOBSON, 2002; SHAW et al., 2019). Accordingly, fundamental

contributions to IPE come from alternative perspectives to IPE which

focus on the vacuums in the mainstream field such as the areas of his-

tory, sociology, gender, de-colonial theory, trade, and governance. For

instance, using an historical-sociological approach, John Hobson, and

other scholars, identify the Eurocentric and ahistorical ontologies and

epistemologies fostering the significant myths or conceptual cages as

a marking character of teaching and research in Western IPE (ASH-

WORTH, 2002; HOBSON, 2013).

Feminist studies have perhaps produced the most advanced con-

tributions to the field given their pluralist ontologies and research, whi-

ch have served to frame inequality and hierarchies within time and

space beyond universalisms and ahistoricisms. It encompasses a com-

prehension of women’s agency and of the structural conditions they

live in, as how they relate to power, inequality, and violence. These vie-

ws challenge IPE’s western liberal assumptions (MADHOK; SHIRIN,

2012; MAHMOOD, 2005; PARPART; PARASHAR, 2018). Paradoxically,

in Latin America, despite the vital presence of feminist scholars today,

its scholarly work is instead led mostly by sociological, anthropologi-

cal, postcolonial feminist studies (ELIAS, 2013; LUXTON, 2018). Con-

sequently, the most recent critiques to mainstream IPE came from de-

-colonial studies, focusing on the misleading framework of universalist

and essentialist epistemologies based on Western universal rationality

(GROSFOGUEL 2009, 2006; GROSFOGUEL and CERVANTES-RO-

DRIGUEZ, 2000; MALIK, 2014. Decolonialism argues for a pluriverse

or a variety of ways of knowing which adhere to diverse historical and

geographical experiences (MIGNOLO, 2018). Hence, de-colonial studies

in IPE have proved to be a growing field in the region, both in teaching

and research. Notwithstanding this, it still lacks fluid dialogue with

other approaches.

In Latin America, IPE tends to be taught mostly as a traditional

discipline, based on one of the divides mentioned above, focusing on

a mixture of old regional traditions with Anglo-Saxon approaches, al-

though in some cases with innovative formats particularly in Argen-

tina, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019). In-

troductions to IPE are presented either as bodies of theories or schools,

such as the most relevant traditional approaches (liberalism, realism

and marxism), economics versus politics— (North) American versus

British schools— or tied to the old traditions of the developmentalist

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

and dependency theory with a strong focus on political sciences such

as rational choice, formal economics, and institutions. New research-

-oriented syllabi instead, which have a small representation, are ge-

nerally concentrated in the field of constructivist, radical, critical and

feminist IPEs of globalisation, development, gender, race or class.

Some of the authors have joint the Union for Radical Political Eco-

nomics (URPE). In this context, various types of formats of teaching

and research IPE in the region can be identified. Each of these possess

a dominant image of what Latin American IPE is, how their global

dialogues are intertwined and how they are related to the top-ranked

handbooks in the field.

The way that each one of these IPE perspectives approaches Latin

American scholarship in Western world varies according to their on-

tological and epistemological orientations of them; however, visibility

of the regional contributions is generally absent. The English-speaking

approaches presented above, however, share a common factor: LAIPE

accounts for previous vigorous and significant contributions of econo-

mic structuralism and dependency theory, but exclude present approa-

ches (BLYTH, 2009; COHEN, 2019; O’BRIEN; WILLIAMS, 2016). For

the polar division between North American and British schools, LAIPE

is “a tale of lost vitality” where “like Canadians, Latin Americans seem

divided between an older intellectual tradition and the siren call of a ne-

wer [North] American style” (COHEN, 2019, p. 26). There, LA is presen-

ted ontologically as a type of unit or system that is uniform; analysed

as being detached from the international sphere, internally struggling

between inequality and political-economic instability, generally for po-

litical corruption. The region is approached through the formal lenses

of the mainstream IPE, focused on trade, finance, infrastructure, mul-

tilateralism, institutions, and cooperation, in other words, traditional

and top-down approaches (BLYTH, 2009). However, that only constitu-

tes half of the regional realities, many other issues, such as development

and conflict, global insertions, inequality, technological change, covert

world, informal economy, and others are not on the radar of mains-

tream analysis.

Still, it is remarkable to see that strands of alternative or critical

IPEs, including global, non-universalist, and non-historical approaches

are increasing and hold contributions that have not yet entered into dia-

logue with mainstream regional academy (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019).

Undeniably, this research has brought about substantial innovations in

teaching and research, as they are based on new ontologies and epistemo-

logies highlighting the current faces of development and conflict, formal

and informal realities, and social identities from the bottom, representing

a critical dialogue with western IPEs (GROSFOGUEL, 2006; GUDYNAS,

2012). However, despite these new contributions, Westernism, nationa-

lism, and language are still the primary structural barriers of the IPE

communities. Factions, networks, and clusters, present themselves in the

dominant ways of teaching, researching, and publishing in the field. The

features and differences between LA IPE and LA GPE are basically outli-

ned here in the chart below.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

Table 2 - Contrasting features of LA IPE and LA GPE

Latin American

Global Political Economy

International Political Economy

GPE

IPE

Ontological focu-

Generally, in conflict or subordination to Anglo-Saxon

Links among International Orders, Development and Conflict.

ses and sources

Schools.

Focused on Peripheral Regional relationship with International Order

Focused on Peripheral Regional relationship with Inter-

crises and transitions. Formal and Informal Configurations of Power.

national Liberal Order during Cold War.

New global issues such as Migrations, Environment, Organised

Links between International Insertion and Development.

Crime, Pandemics.

Epistemic ne-

Regional foci tied to regional developments in Social

Regional foci linking mainly Regional and Western networks.

tworks

Sciences (Sociology, History, Political Sciences, and

Growing in either dialogue or subordination to Western epistemic

Law).

communities’ approval.

Aims

To comprehend the peripheral political economy of

To comprehend the peripheral and regional political economy of

international insertions and development during the

development and conflict within a changing global order.

rise and consolidation of the International Liberal Order.

Inequality and economic backwardness.

Ontological axes

International-Domestic.,

Complex Ontologies subordinated to Space-Time and research focus.

State-Market.

Development-Conflict.

International Insertion-Economic Development.

Regional-Global. Formal-Informal Development.

Power-Underdevelopment.

Identity-Development-Crises.

Epistemology

Developmentalism.

Past IPE traditions.

Dependency Theory.

History, Geography, Technology, Security Studies.

Political Studies. Macro theoretical perspectives.

Theories derivate and used for research.

Hybridization and Contestation.

Methodology

From Critical Perspectives to Traditional ones.

Range and mixing from Positivist to Reflectivist, Post Structuralist

and Critical Security approaches.

Teaching and

Focus on Schools.

Research oriented and Regionally differentiated

Learning

Source: designed by the authors

Facing the impossibility of adopting one single definition of IPE at a

global level, it is necessary to make academic sense of the field at a regio-

nal level today. In this sense, Latin American GPE can be regarded as an

umbrella concept that covers a wide range of different orientations and

innovations that are anchored around a variety of ontological and epis-

temological orientations, manifested in its teaching and research. Despi-

te the fact that their different approaches share something in common,

a main quest is to comprehend how the struggle for power and wealth

bring about development and conflict (beyond any definition adopted for

them), in a field of intersections between international-domestic, state-

-market, regional-global, and formal-informal realities of development

(COHEN, 2019; HELLEINER; ROSALES, 2017; RAVENHILL, 2017). On

this basis, it is possible to group them as ideal types, according to the orien-

tations concerning development and conflict in the world order, perspec-

tives, ontologies, and methodologies to facilitate the analysis. This makes

it possible to cluster them in a range of typologies, for instance, from the

highly empirical positivist to the most interpretative/reflectivist in one

axis, and from their ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies, and types

of evidence on the other axis. That is a synthesis evident taking into con-

sideration the different debates and contributions in terms of methodolo-

gical issues. At the same time, this makes it possible to delineate a basic

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

map of where IPE and GPE can be found (CRESWELL, 2014; JACKSON,

2011; LAKE, 2013; SAUTÚ et al., 2005) in the context of present debates.

The diagram below is a simple pedagogical resource, which gives

students at the very beginning of their formation the different methodolo-

gical coordinates that cur across the field. It does not pretend to represent

any philosophical discussion, on the contrary, just a sociological portra-

yal of methodological coordinates, so it does not have analytical purposes

but logical alignments for basic teaching. The illustration therefore does

not have investigative ends but provides a simple way to grasp different

methodological strategies and theoretical positions from objectivist and

reflectivist ontologies and epistemologies, from general logical avenues

from mayor theoretical perspectives and the different components of re-

search. In summary, it illustrates the most commonly used approaches to

GPE in their closer or distant relations with the most known ideal-type

research designs on the basis of contributions from different scholars

(CRESWELL, 2014; HAY, 2002; JACKSON, 2011; LAKE, 2013). The verti-

cal dimensions range from the role of theories in GPE at the top, location

of research approaches, the methodological lines to the types of evidence

construction that define them. These bring together the ontological, epis-

temological, and methodological levels of any investigation (HAY, 2002).

From the horizontal axis, the diagram ranges from the more empirical

positivist designs to more interpretative views (CRESWELL, 2014; JACK-

SON, 2011). For instance, the methodological possibilities of research de-

sign, combining the two extremes of the horizontal axis, are fewer than

seeking to merge between closer strands of thoughts, while all research

must be logically gathered from all levels.

Figure 1 - Research designs: theoretical and methodological approaches in GPE

Source: designed by the authors

The advantage of this visualisation of the theories in GPE is that

provides us with a brief representation of where theories are situated, and

the scope of IPE and GPE in methodological terms, or in other words, con-

cerning the role of theory in research (BURGESS, 1982). In this context,

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

English-speaking mainstream IPE, covers widely the OEP and generally

located on the objectivist ontological left side as positivist perspectives

(COHEN, 2019). These perspectives can be centrally situated on the positi-

vist, quantitative and behaviourist axis, while GPE be lying on the critical,

interpretative, and qualitative axis within its diverse range of perspectives

(COHEN, 2019; LAKE, 2009; 2013; MALINIAK, 2009; TIERNEY, 2009).

The graphic exemplification permits us to identify which one of the dif-

ferent perspectives, ontologies, and epistemologies work more appropria-

tely for the research of different themes.

The point here, however, is to avoid universalism and ahistoricism

and facilitate multidisciplinariety and plurality. Hence, LAGPE does not

represent an epistemological homogeneous community, under the tradi-

tional definition, but a set of different academic networks or niches where

teaching and research seek to explain how the reality and conflict come

about given the different roles of power in development at the global,

regional and national level.

Rather than separate, all levels can be seen as interrelated but wi-

thin different levels and under specific logical links. Therefore, it is possib-

le to identify global dialogues that include various perspectives at various

levels. These global dialogues are interrelations of knowledge (TROWN-

SELL et al., 2019), which go beyond the inherited foci of Developmenta-

lism and Dependency Theory, open regionalism, Formal and Informal

Development and Conflict, Economic and Politics, Global Insertions and

Strategic Studies. Thus, LAGPE can be legitimately understood as the

continuity of work around decades of contributions of the Latin Ameri-

can schools and scholars concerning development, conflict and their rela-

tions with certain international insertions within different world orders,

but in dialogue with different global perspectives (DECIANCIO, 2018;

TUSSIE, 2020). The key to grasp that is to auscultate the development of

the field in the region (DECIANCIO, 2018; TUSSIE, 2018; 2020).

For some scholars, LAGPE is a global post-structural, post-develop-

ment, or post extractivist approach based on ontological fusions between

cultural studies, sociology, and heterodox economics (ACOSTA, 2011;

ACOSTA; GUDYNAS, 2018). Unsurprisingly, each academic orientation

tends to sustain that they are right and the others wrong, something

perhaps more common with older scholars than younger ones. Some-

thing which is certainly the result of a lack of dialogue between academic

groups, and above all, the result of teaching of young scholars (SALGA-

DO; VIVARES, 2019.

Indeed, given its diversity, no faction or niche can claim a unique

and universal ontology, epistemology, or research agenda for LAGPE. Ho-

wever, beyond these reasonable institutional limitations, the segmented

field is promoting the generation of research-driven advances and inno-

vations beyond English-speaking mainstream and past regional traditions

(TUSSIE, 2018). Unlike the golden age in the 50s and 60s of LAIPE, defined

by meta-theories, the remerging LAGPE is, in many cases, a derivation of

core research concerns from the past but having been expanded to diffe-

rent development and conflict issues, according to present time, in terms

of new lines of research and methodological orientations (TUSSIE, 2018).

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

All of that evidences a revival of the field, but there is also a signi-

ficant issue limiting the area at the postgraduate level, which is the poor

appraisement of methodology in teaching and training (both drivers of

academic development) (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019. On the other hand,

concerning teaching, regional scholars tend to claim to belong to or fol-

low one IPE theoretical orientation. However, when it comes to research

and publishing, they generally define themselves as pluralists and even

eclectic and pragmatic. As in the North, teaching in Latin America en-

courages divides in many cases, but the orientation of syllabi—weak in

teaching and training in methodologies— is becoming slowly more plu-

ralist(SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019. For example, a significant number

of scholars present themselves as critical and interested in this type of

theoretical approach but opt for positivist methodologies and hypothesis

testing at the time of both producing research and training new scholars.

One professor states: “Postgraduate students, as future scholars, must

learn to be critical researchers that produce new ideas finding the right

hypothesis to test” (Interview anonym).

Beyond these weaknesses in teaching, there are crucial elements

that define the identity of LAIPE/GPE, which must be central compo-

nents of teaching. The relationship between economics and politics is part

of this, but just the beginning of a more complex problem for teaching

and research. The central issue with LAIPE/GPE is that they are based on

complex and dynamics ontologies that cross different traditional discipli-

nes that explain domestic and international economics, and politics. Re-

gardless of the relevance of economics from the golden age to the present

LAGPE, politics remains the base of IPE, but with its variety of ontological

elements in the regional case. According to Diana Tussie (2018), the cen-

tral difference between international and regional IPEs is that the regional

contributions lie in the strength and historical succession of their ontolo-

gies. Thus, the common point between LAIPE and LAGPE is that their

explanations of international-domestic linkages are based on the regional

global insertions, development and regional types of conflicts rather than

wars, institutions or casino capitalisms, as is the case of mainstream IPEs

(KRASNER, 1994; STRANGE, 1994; TUSSIE, 2018). For instance, to ex-

plain regional development, Developmentalism and Dependency Theory

took as a starting point the ontology of domestic-international interactions

and dynamics with the liberal world order during the Cold War. In doing

so, the dialogue of LA and mainstream IPE was low, while today, the in-

terrelations of knowledge between both are significant (DECIANCIO,

2018; JIMENEZ-PEÑA et al., 2018). The contributions of traditional LAIPE

were rooted in the political-economic history of international insertions

according to development models and conflicts in the region (TUSSIE,

2018). In doing so, it thereby dissolved the separation between high formal

politics of diplomacy and foreign affairs versus low politics in the hands

of technicians (the craft of economic relations) (TUSSIE, 2018, p. 5). After

an extensive analysis of the field in the region, Tussie (2018) concludes that

LAGPE is being revitalised today via debate and research on global inser-

tions, regionalism, international trade institutions, shadow economies, se-

curity and new global-regional development issues (TUSSIE, 2018, p. 10).

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

New teaching and research themes that characterised the LAGPE

To identify what is new in the LAGPE or what is defining its shift

and new orientations in teaching and research we depart from the mayo

ontological orientations that roughly compose them, although with no

lineal limits. Taking the notion of ontology as a base for diverse regional-

-global dialogue (BLAIKIE, 2007; HAY, 2002), we can analytically identify

three significant spaces, niches or orientations of conversations between

the region and the global shaping the LAGPE. The first is the Institutio-

nalist Market-led, the Neodevelopmentalist/multilateral and Post-develo-

pment and Post-structuralist (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019. They differen-

tiate themselves from the historical traditions of Developmentalism and

Dependency Theory, although some include their categories in the tea-

ching as roots of LAGPE. In other words, these current orientations are

not re-editions or re-inventions of meta-theories based on the historical

achievements generated during the time of the Cold War. The incipient

and emerging LAGPE is defined by new academic inquiries, adaptations,

and conversations with the world order about development and conflict

in the last two decades (PEIXOTO, 2017). That is not a discipline, in terms

of macro meta-theories with their methodologies and research agendas,

but networks or groups, sometimes marked by different national orienta-

tions, as in Brazil. Others, instead, are more institutionalised, with their

functioning bounded to national hierarchies and strongly oriented to for-

mal IPEs, for example in Colombia and Chile. Finally, others represent

critical alternative GPEs, such as Poststructuralist, De-colonial, Feminist,

among others, with significant contributions but with poor or no dialo-

gue with formal and mainstream IPEs as a field of study of IR (SALGA-

DO; VIVARES, 2019.

These three distinct spaces in LAGPE make up regional GPE to-

day, and what they share is the researching and understanding power,

development and conflict, region-world order interactions and dynamics,

from different perspectives, in a time when formal IPEs appear limited

to giving responses. It is within these three different regional academic

orientations that we can trace what regional scholars are doing (resear-

ching, teaching, and publishing) in the LAGPE (DECIANCIO, 2018; MA-

DEIRAS et al., 2016; TUSSIE, 2018).

The three LAGPE, mentioned above, however, do not share the

same perspectives about the world. Instead, in some cases, they display

different ontological and methodological dialogues with North Ameri-

can IPE, other GPE, and Eurocentric GPE (JIMÉNEZ-PEÑA et al., 2018;

TUSSIE, 2018). Such conversations vary according to the political-eco-

nomic views of development and conflict underlying each GPE. Hence,

some of them focus their research on different issues both in and outside

of the mainstream, such as development, global insertions, regional mul-

tilateralism, development financing, formal/informal political economy,

social issues and policies, gender and identities, conflict, security, defense,

technologies and their governance, cities and environment.

For instance, Institutionalist Market-led perspectives bring toge-

ther different meta-theoretical views such as liberal-rational institutio-

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

nalism, neoclassical economics and is associated with the longest liberal

and conservative tradition in Latin American academy. These perspec-

tives are theoretically bound to North American Political Science and

Neoliberal Political Economy, known today as Open Economy Policy.

With strong roots in behaviourism, positivism, and empiricism (KING

et al., 1994), authors writing from these perspectives primarily focus on

formal domestic-regional or global links concerning their institutional

configurations, economic openness, trade integration, and anti-populism

(DORNBUSCH; EDWARDS, 1992;; RABELLO DE CASTRO et al., 1991).

Intuitionalist Market-led epistemology starts from the premise that the

economic history of Anglo-Saxon markets from Europe to the United

States is the central paradigm of Western capitalism: the only formula

for the region (NORTH, 2005). Market outcomes, trade agreements, na-

tional convergence, and national and supranational institutionality are

the essential variables to consider (LAKE, 2009;). Proponents assume that

the North American economy and the European Union (EU) are success-

ful historical, universal experiences of development and integration, and,

therefore, that they form the mandatory criteria to evaluate Latin Ame-

rican (LA) political economy (STURZENEGGER, 1992. In other words,

the central critiques can be summarised in what Acharya (2011, p. 631)

terms the North American, Western economic, and Eurocentric regiona-

lism with their false universalism.

The second set of perspectives focus on regional transformations

and multilateral reorientations of LA, following the temporal decline of

the Washington-sponsored regional multilateralism and its institutions,

at the peak of the pink tide, and in many cases close related to construc-

5. The term ‘pink tide’ comes from

tist approaches.⁵ The ontology of these viewpoints rest on the rise of

political science and it describes a shift

new post-hegemonic and post-neoliberal realities of development as li-

in the orientation of Latin American

nes of conversation between the regional and the global. Its view of IPE

governments from neoliberalism to

progressive, left-wing, and populist

is multilateralist in politics and neostructuralist in economics (LEIVA,

policies beginning with the administra-

2008). Through research, authors have focused on unpacking the agen-

tion of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, in the

cy of pluralities, complexities, and new regional issues of development

late 1990s.

(RIGGIROZZI; TUSSIE 2012; SANAHUJA, 2010). Although with mini-

mal consideration of economic integration, regionalism has been central

for it, marked by hyper-presidentialism and the inclusion of social and

security issues in the agenda of development (BONILLA; LONG, 2010;

QUILICONI; SALGADO, 2018). Research thus concentrates on the rise

and decline of different regional schemes, marrying epistemologically

neodevelopmentalist economics with political multilateralism. For pro-

ponent, the new LAGPE relies on the hegemonic differentiation offered

by the competition between North America, EU, and South East Asia

(ESTAY; SANCHEZ, 2005; SANAHUJA, 2010; RIGGIROZZI; TUSSIE

2012). Today, after the shift from progressivism to centre-right regiona-

lism, a central critique is the absence of a sound reflection on an auto-

nomous regionalism when the region shares the hemisphere with the

global hegemon (NOLTE; MIJARES, 2018).

Third and finally, exponents of the commodities consensus, pos-

t-extractivist, or postdevelopmental perspectives who argue that, the

new world system of development forces the region into new paths of

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

‘underdevelopment,’ especially with the rise and impact of South East

Asia (PETRAS; VELTMEYER, 2012). The scenario of development is

characterised by a return to economic reprimarization, complex ren-

tier states, and new asymmetries that have exacerbated inequalities,

destruction of the environment and shifted the region to conservative

politics (ACOSTA, 2011; DELGADO, 2016; CAJAS-GUIJARRO, 2018;

SVAMPA, 2013; ROJAS, 2013). For them, the system has been able to

finance poverty reduction programmes, rising wages, expand social ex-

penditure, but co-opting at the same time, trade unions, local commu-

nities, and social movements without creating a real transformation of

the neoliberal order (GUDYNAS, 2018).

In terms of publishing, the presence of these three niches is noti-

ceably weak, not only because of language barriers but also because of

the concentration of the top journals in the North American and Eu-

ropean production concerning Latin America. LAGPE scholars have

poor access—more so in terms of gender—to the core group of inter-

national journals, in both IR and LAIPE. Although recently there has

6. For instance,; BRICEÑO; MORALES,

2017; DECIANCIO, 2018; NEMIÑA,

been fast-growth and signals of strengthening,⁶ apart from a handful

2011; PONTÓN, 2018; PONTÓN;

of LA academics working, the publication presence has been scarce in

GUAYASAMIN, 2018; PRIETO, 2019;

QUILICONI et al., 2015; RETTBERG et

the last two decades. Numbers do not speak for themselves but can

al., 2018; RIGGIROZZI; TUSSIE, 2012;;

show who accesses them and the themes prioritised in the journals for

PEIXOTO, 2017.

academic discussion. The explorative analysis of the editorial boards in

a sample of core IPE journals⁷ and a central Latin American interna-

7. International Organization, New

Political Economy, Review of Internatio-

tional journal⁸ demonstrate a primary trend showing an approximate

nal Political Economy, and Third World

of how the IR and IPE of LA is produced and published today. In IPE

Quarterly.

journals, over 70% of the editorial board members are male, 30% are

female, 42% are from North America, including the U.S., Canada and

Mexico⁹,

29% are from Britain, 12% are from Europe, 10% are from

Asia, and only 7% are from South America. Professionally, 57% are po-

litical scientists, 21% are economists, 10% are internationalists, and 6%

are sociologists (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019. In the case of Latin Ame-

8. Latin American Perspectives,

rican international journals, something similar occurs: 64% are male,

Journal of Latin American Studies, Latin

36% are female in the editorial boards, 30% come from the U.S., 24%

America Politics and Society, and Latin

are from Britain, 12% are from Europe, and only a small quantity, 7%,

America Research Review.

are from South America, while the distribution of professions is 40%

political scientists, 21% historians, 20% sociologists, 9% economists,

9. Within Northern regional values,

and 6% philosophers (SALGADO; VIVARES, 2019). Males, U.S.-British

Mexico is not over 2%.

academics and universities, English speakers, and political scientists

seem to be the structural pattern in the composition of the filters of

IPE and orients both about how mainstream IPE is produced and how

LA is understood.

Beyond the reduced attention of the international journals to

new contributions of LAGPE the feature today is a growing, hetero-

geneous, pluralist, and transdisciplinary field of research bound to

the different conversations, and inquiries concerning development

and conflict, within the hemispheric and global order. It differs from

golden LAIPE because it represents a sprouting academic trend with

multiple responses and research on the current changing historical or-

der and regional reconfigurations of development. In contrast, the past

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

LAIPE was defined by the Developmentalist and Dependency Theory

during the Cold War, Keynesian economics, and the Monroe doctrine.

LAGPE today is entwined with different types of complex and regional

issues, which do not gravitate in the same way as mainstream IPEs.

Rather, past and present LAIPE tend to produce situated knowledge,

adopting key elements but also going beyond the limits of the field’s

mainstream approaches. LAGPE can therefore be considered interdis-

ciplinary or transdisciplinary depending on the orientations.

Thus, there are various new emerging lines that differentiate

LAIPE from LAGPE. One of these lines is how scholars adopt and use

their research with similar or different ontological and epistemolo-

gical foundations defines the precise contours and limitations of the

new LAGPE. Research in the LAGPE includes past traditions, new

concerns and ideas, and different conversations which brought about

new research orientations shaping the international and regional field

while taking it away from conventional theories. Themes that are the

central focus of this tendency include regional reconfigurations, glo-

bal insertions, formal/informal development, inequality, social emer-

gencies, transnational organised crime, security and defence, develo-

pment finance, technologies, and change, extractivism and natural re-

sources. Undeniably, the main focus the LAGPE has been the theme of

regionalism, whereby research has sought to conjugate mainstream

and alternative theories and concepts with new problematics, accor-

ding to the different perspectives adopted. The majority of research

and debate about regionalism has been carried from Neoliberal - Con-

servative, and Neodevelopmentalist -Multilateralist perspectives. The

focus in this case is on the official craft of either left or right govern-

ments, as top-down, institutional, and formal economic processes of

integration (MALAMUD; GARDINI, 2012; NOLTE; MIJARES, 2018;

QUILICONI; SALGADO, 2018; STURZENEGGER, 1992). However,

there are other academic contributions to regionalisms, in this case

focusing on non- state actors, informal regionalisms, driven by the

political left or the political right and the importance of their regional

reconfiguration. According to these perspectives, the pink tide and

the Alliance for the Progress are part of the same regional reconfigu-

ration of Latin America, something that cannot be grasped within the

analytical frame of the world order, American hemisphere, the rise of

China and U.S. hegemony (NOLTE; MIJARES, 2018;; VADELL, 2018,

VIVARES, 2017

Moreover, the hemispheric and regional reconfiguration prompted

new research issues that have reshaped the field from LAIPE to a sort of

a new LAGPE. In this context, scholars began to discover and develop a

vital issue, something that would bridge the past and present academic

IPE orientations, that is regionalism (TUSSIE, 2018). Therefore, despite

the wave of hemispheric, dictatorial, neoliberal and progressist perspecti-

ves, those transformations did not erase the historical political instability,

inequality, and commodity-oriented regional insertions of the past. Ac-

cording to new studies, research also continued unaltered and has even

increased despite both the neoliberal and neodevelopmentalist attempts

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

to change it during the two decades following the Cold War (ASTORGA,

2015; PONCE et al., 2018).

Finally, between the end of the 90s and the beginning of the new

century, LAGPE has gradually taken form, addressing specific issues

about development such as inequality, global insertions, and regional

political orientations. Examples of this are the studies about formal re-

gional reconfiguration, which can be traced to trade and finance (MO-

RALES, 2017; PÉREZ-OVIEDO et al., 2018; VADELL, 2018). However,

if we compare this with past LA IPE, the field also began to open ano-

ther set of research issues, such as what some scholars have termed in-

formal and malignant regional configurations across national bounda-

ries (PONTÓN; GUAYASAMÍN, 2018) (i.e. drug trafficking, organised

crime and informal economies, among others). That brought different

ontologies and epistemologies together, demanding different research

tools and approaches to grasp the so-called informal, shadow, covert

configurations or new identities in IPE. In doing so, the nature of the

inter- or transdisciplinarity field has begun to take shape (MACDON-

ALD, 2017; RIVERA; PÓNTON, 2016; TAYLOR, 2005).

Another key theme of research focus is the transformation of

the region. Now we have a different Latin America. The central re-

gional transformation was driven by the geopolitical economic and

hemispheric reorientation of Mexico, its detachment from Latin Ame-

rica, and its inclusion within the North American political economy

(BONILLA; LONG, 2010;). A historical change that recently became

crystallised in the signing of CUSMA (Canada-United States-Mexico

Agreement), the new North American trade agreement. Briefly, the

cycle of regional differentiation ended with the diversification of the

South’s regional insertion in the U.S., China, and Europe triggering

the revitalisation of the South American Political Economy research in

all its perspectives (ACOSTA, 2011; ESTAY, 2018; RIGGIROZZI; TUS-

SIE, 2012; SANAHUJA, 2010).

A third theme of research interest is the informal political economy,

focused on the informal, shadow economies and covert world. These dis-

tinct areas of investigation are connected to the insertion of the region

globally. As a matter of fact, given the academic anchor in Western and

Anglo-Saxon countries, formal mainstream IPEs tend to limit the focus

on these realities that distinguish the South. The region is not only the

most unequal in the world, but it is also a region with the most extensive

informal and shadow economies (ABDIH; MEDINA, 2013; FELD; LAR-

SEN, 2009; MEDINA; SCHNEIDER, 2018).

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

Figure 2 - Shadow Economies in South America 1990-2015_ IMF

Source: Leandro Medina and Friedrich Schneider, 2018.

Informal economies (and informal regional world), with all their

diverse dimensions and issues, deserve their own agenda in the field since

they are a distinctive and significant feature of the region. This is some-

thing that has not previously been in the content or in the ontologies

of mainstream IPEs. New research on these areas identifies central di-

mensions interrelated with the political economy: organised crime, drug

trafficking, money laundering, solidarity between urban and rural eco-

nomies, gun trafficking, illegal mining, informal work and informal mi-

gration and frontiers without states (BERGMAN, 2018; PONTÓN; GUA-

YASAMÍN, 2018; RIVERA; PONTÓN, 2016).

Other characteristics of LAGPE is the focus of research on a new

geography of businesses. This kind of research clearly goes beyond

mainstream IPEs and LAIPE. For instance, recent research by Saguier

and Ghiotto (2018) explores the regional PE of business and economic

governance in their interactions with development and environment,

highlighting its current geographical importance of food production

in LA. The focus on these research topics is entwined with new global

insertions of the international political economy in the region. Today’s

research in LAGPE examines also the changes coming from the rise of

China and its impact as a new source of development finance upon the

region (GALLAGHER, 2016; RODRIGUEZ, 2019; STANLEY; FERNAN-

DEZ, 2018; VADELL, 2018), whereas the old LAIPE centred in historical

regional dependence of external development finance, its relationship

with global insertions, inequality and the instability of political order

(BERTOLA; OCAMPO, 2012; DIAZ ALEJANDRO, 1988; GRIFFITH-JO-

NES, 1984). The focus on China is related to its new role as a new source

of finances for the region. Strikingly, according to Myers and Gallagher

(2018), even with a drop-in lending in 2017, Chinese state-to-state finance

lending to Latin America surpasses that of the World Bank, the Inter-A-

merican Development Bank, and the Andean Financial Corporation.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

Besides global insertion, the focus of research on inequality can be

considered as a constant of LAIPE that is reflected on LAGPE (TUSSIE,

2020). Inequality has historically been one of the common ontological

sides of the different perspectives of LAIPE and continues present in LA-

GPE (TUSSIE, 2018). Past and present research shows a strong histori-

cal correlation between changes and orientations of development finan-

ce and diverse orientations of regional development (ASTORGA, 2015;

FRANKEMA, 2010; GASPARINI; LUSTIG, 2011; THORP, 2012). The

contention from LAGPE is that if the mantra of IPE is the study of how

power shapes the distribution of wealth at global, regional, and national

levels, inequality should be at the centre of the research agenda, as it is

defined by power. Categorically, this disappears in mainstream IPE, since

it is concerned, in its dominant branches, mostly with the study of agency

and institutions, markets and politics within the liberal order.

Migration has become to be another important theme of study of

LAGPE. Neither mainstream or old LAIPE have considered migration to

be a significant issue, except in the sense of public policies or international

regimes, usually studied from the perspective of the agency. Immigra-

tion, however, has now become an important research topic within the

LAGPE. It centres the attention on the comprehension of its formal and

informal dynamics and on the difference between the concept of migra-

tion and conflicts (MATTIUZZI DE SOUZA 2020; MIERES, 2020;). For

decades, in Latin America, this has been a social factor accompanying

inequality, political instability, and international insertions, and becau-

se of this it is a critical regional dialogue among GPE and sociology—a

necessary and significant source of research— (CANALES, 2018), which

recently is a relevant topic of research within the field.

A final characteristic of LAGPE is its focus on the role of cities in the

international political economy. Although the concept has been present in

social sciences for ages and helped to explain the agency and development

of governance, the GPE of cities is a growing line of research in the region,

acting as a central anchor and a container for time, political-economic geo-

graphy, and social dynamics (MUGGAH, 2015; SASSEN, 2005). Perhaps,

given its primary focus on institutions and agencies, and formal politi-

cs mainstream, IPE has not, however, sufficiently opened its conceptual

frameworks to different realities and geographies. Cities are urban geo-

graphical anchors, and metropolitan centres where inequalities, shadow

economies, violence, gender, migration, and environmental issues are in-

terrelated with the formal political economies of development and conflict

(FUENTES; DURAN, 2018). Contributions in these areas are growing in

the region and are growing research areas in South America and IPE in

some places in the Global North (MACDONALD, 2017; MUGGAH, 2015).

Conclusions

In conclusion it is possible to say that globally the field is limited

when it comes to providing explanations regarding the decline of the li-

beral order, unprecedented violence, more so at the social and environ-

mental level. The politics of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Victor Orban,

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

Matteo Salvini, Giuseppe Conte, and Jair Bolsonaro and the following

regional shift in South America, viewed from the top, represent the mis-

fortunes of the liberal cosmopolitan order in decline that mainstream

IPE can barely explain. However, seen from below and diachronically,

they look more like a Polanyian circle where neoclassical economies and

unleashed market kill liberal orders and elites via inequality, which in

turn, calls Caesarean leaderships to avenge fragmented and denigrated

societies to establish new orders (POLANYI, 2001). In stable times, fixed

knowledge explains realities. In times of change, the research speaks, and

that is the trial of GPE today.

This paper´s aim was to get a picture of the transition of mains-

tream LAIPE to what we called LAGPE. We identified some contours or

themes of teaching and research that show a shift from the old LAIPE

towards an increasing and flourishing LAGPE, as a form of renewal of

the field.

LAGPE offers specific responses, adaptations, and interrelations of

knowledge in response to the contemporary challenges of regional and

global development and conflict. LAGPE focuses on various and diffe-

rent new areas such as formal and informal powers of the domestic and

international field, on subjectivities and material conditions, while also

maintained in the teaching, learning and research of the old LA IPE. It

takes into consideration the ontological setting that is defined by different

historical and geographical characteristics. Hence, we have witnessed a

revitalisation of the field marked by a wide range of contributions and a

pluralist and interdisciplinary academic perspective.

Another feature is that Latin American GPE is not defined by a uni-

que theoretical or methodological approach, by one school, a particular

ontological or epistemological position., or by a homogeneous regional

view. Teaching, research, and publishing in Latin America are remain on

a small scale compared to the Global North. However, it has taken the

directions of a LAGPE in line with a GPE. Therefore, LAGPE can be un-

derstood as a set of historical narratives and networks of different genera-

tions, like diverse historical layers overlapping and connecting with one

another, based on a range of different experiences, academic challenges,

and orientations.

The paper demonstrates in agreement with Lake (2016) that for the

last 40 years IR/IE and IPE have been dominantly derivate of the North

American political sciences, English-speaking, male, white, and centrally

located in western academic centres. Therefore, through the construc-

tion of the reality of IR, many geographies and epistemologies were left

out and overlooked in the determining of intellectual prizes within the

field of economics, where these should be given and where they should be

awarded. The LAGPE as a category, academically and geographically, can

be examined in the light of this, and constructed in relation to the past

contributions of Developmentalism, Dependency Theory and Regional

Multilateralism of the 90s.

Experience in the field shows that such issues can be addressed

via the production of possible and logical methodological unions bet-

ween different assumptions about the role of theory in research. It also

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

highlights methodological combinations, for example between the extre-

me empiricist-positivist to the critical, from agency focused perspectives

to more structural orientations. In this context, the field can best be un-

derstood as a multilevel map of different ontologies, epistemologies, me-

thodologies, and types of evidence produced by cutting across the wide

range of theories and the different roles they can assume in the research.

Pluralism and interdisciplinarity have long been asserted by emphasising

different philosophical positions and claim about or against mainstream

or Western International Relations/Studies (ACHARYA, 2011; JACKSON,

2011; TICKNER, 2003).

To conclude, the problem for the field of LAGPE continues to be

twofold. First, is the methodological task of how to assemble research

puzzles in GPE that can bridge, different levels: domestic-international

and agency-structure. The second concerns the demand for the concep-

tion of plurality and interdisciplinarity as a condition for the existence of

a GPE, and this research found that this implies an understanding of the

field more closely related to a space of research than a monolithic disci-

pline. Accordingly, any attempt to expand the boundaries of mainstream

IPE must be a research endeavour oriented to complement rather than to

replace formal IPEs, but the task does not end there since this must be the

starting point. Perhaps the primary outcome is more a question rather

than a premise: To what extent should a field of inquiry, such as GPE, be

open to combinations of the formal, informal and global insertion of po-

litical economies? This represents a different task, one that goes beyond

essentialism, ahistoricism, and which crosses the divides between inter-

national and regional IPEs, and it is also a methodological invitation to

more global and associated research.

A final remark is that LAGPE accounts for the stark absences in its

teaching and research concerning crucial issues of development and con-

flict: gender, aboriginal rights, defence and security, business, change in

value, cyber change and governance, and the environment are only some

of them. Gender is a paradox and the foremost weakness in LAGPE today.

Paradoxically, the presence of feminist GPE production is practically non-

-existent in the region, but almost half of the postgraduate programmes

are driven by leading female scholars in the field. Hence, the field faces

the challenge of remaining open to dialogue with gender studies and fe-

minist sociologists in the region who have been historically the source of

that line of research.

References

ABDIH, Y.; MEDINA, L. Measuring the Informal Economy in the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

International Monetary Fund, WP/13/137, 2013.

ACHARYA, A. Dialogue and discovery: in search of international relations theories beyond the

west. Millennium, v. 39, n. 3, p. 619-37, 2011.

ACOSTA, A.; GUDYNAS, E. Lecciones del caso Bolsonaro: Lecturas para una nueva izquierda.

2018. Disponible en: https//www.planv.com.ec

ACOSTA, A. Extractivismo y neo extractivismo: dos caras de la misma maldición. Varios au-

tores. Mas allá del desarrollo, Grupo Permanente de Trabajo sobre alternativas de Desarrollo,

Universidad Politécnica Salesiana/Fundación Rosa Luxemburgo, Quito, Ecuador, 2011.

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

AGNEW, J. The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations

Theory. Review of International Political Economy, v. 1, n. 1, p. 53 - 80, 1994.

AMIN, S. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1988.

ASHWORTH, L. A revisionist history of International Relations. International Relations, v.

16, n. 1, p. 33-51, 2002.

ASTORGA, P. Functional Inequality in Latin America: News from the Twentieth Century. Dis-

cussion Papers in Economic and Social History, n. 135, 2015.

BERGMAN, M. Illegal Drugs, Drug Trafficking and Violence in Latin America. New York:

Springer, 2018.

BERTOLA, L.; OCAMPO, J.A. El desarrollo económico de América Latina desde la indepen-

dencia. Oxford: Oxford University, 2012.

BLYTH, M. Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy. New York: Routledge,

2009.

BONILLA, A.; LONG, G. Un nuevo regionalismo sudamericano. Íconos: revista de Ciencias

Sociales, n. 38, p. 23-28, 2010.

BLAIKIE, N. Approaches to Social Enquiry. Cambridge: Polite. 2007.

BRICEÑO, J.; MORALES, I. (eds.) Regionalism in the Americas: Toward a Pacific-Atlantic Di-

vide? New York: Palgrave, 2017.

BURGESS, R. The Role of Theory in Field Research. In: BURGEES, R. (ed.) Field Research: A

Sourcebook and Field Manual. London: Routledge, 1982. p. 209-212.

CAFRUNY, A. Introduction. In: CAFRUNY, A.; TALANI, L.; POZO, G. (eds.). The Palgrave

Handbook of Critical International Political Economy. London: Palgrave Macmillan: 2016.

p. 1-8.

CAJA-GUIJARRO, J. Los capos del comercio: concentración, poder y acuerdos comerciales en

el Ecuador. Quito: Ecuador decide sin TLC, 2018.

CANALES, A. Global and Regional Political Economy of Migration. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.), Re-

gionalism, Development and the Post-Commodities Boom in South America. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. p. 243-270.

CARVALHO, A.; GIL-PEREZ, D. Formação de professores de ciências: tendências e inova-

ções. 10. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2011. 127 p. (Questões da nossa época, v. 28) ISBN: 9788524917257.

COHEN, B. Advanced Introduction to International Political Economy. Cheltenham, UK:

Edward Elgar, 2014.

COHEN, B. Advanced Introduction to International Political Economy. 2. ed. Cheltenham,

UK: Edward Elgar, 2019.

COX, R. The Political Economy of a Plural World. New York: Routledge, 2002.

CRESWELL, J. Research Designs: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approa-

ches. 4.ed. London: SAGE, 2014.

DECIANCIO, M. La Economía Política Internacional en el Campo de las Relaciones Internacio-

nales argentinas. Desafios, v. 30, n. 2, p. 15-42, 2018.

DELGADO, J. Sociedades post neoliberales en América Latina y persistencia del extractivismo.

Economía Informa, v. 396, n. 1, p. 84-95, 2016.

DIAZ ALEJANDRO, C. Open Economy, Closed Polity? In: VELASCO, A. Trade, Development

and the World Economy. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988. p. 283-309.

DORNBUSCH, R.; EDWARDS, S (Ed.). The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

ELIAS, J. The gendered political economy of control and resistance on the shop floor of the mul-

tinational firm: A case study from Malaysia. New Political Economy, v. 10, n. 2, p. 203-222, 2013.

ESTAY, J. Past and Present of Latin American Regionalisms, in the Face of Economic Reprima-

rization. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.). Regionalism, Development and the Post-Commodities Boom

in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. p. 47-76.

ESTAY, J.; SÁNCHEZ, G. (Coord.). El ALCA y sus peligros para América Latina. Buenos Ai-

res: CLACSO, 2005.

FELD, L.; LARSEN, C. Undeclared Work in Germany 2001-2007 - Impact of Deterrence, Tax

Policy, and Social Norms: An Analysis Based on Survey Data. Berlin: Springer, 2009.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

FRANKEMA, E. Reconstructing labor income shares in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico 1870-

2000. Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, v. 28, n. 2, p. 343-374, 2010.

FRIEDEN, J.; LAKE, D. International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and

Wealth. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999.

FUENTES, L.; DURÁN, G. Cities in the South American Development: Bogota, Lima, Quito,

and Santiago in Regional Frame. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.). Regionalism, Development and the

Post-Commodities Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. p. 217-242.

GALLAGHER, K. The China Triangle: Latin America’s China Boom and the Fate of the

Washington Consensus. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

GASPARINI, L.; LUSTIG, N. The Rise and Fall of Income Inequality in Latin America, 27.

Buenos Aires: Universidad de La Plata, ECINEQ WP/CEDLAS, 2011.

GILPIN, R. The Political Economy of International Relations. New York: Princeton Univer-

sity Press, 1987.

GRIFFITH-JONES, S. International Finance and Latin America. New York: St. Martin Press,

1984.

GROSFOGUEL, R. A Decolonial Approach to Political-Economy: Transmodernity, Border

Thinking and Global Coloniality. Kult 6 - Special Issue Epistemologies of Transformation: Ros-

kilde, 2009.

GROSFOGUEL, R. From Postcolonial Studies to Decolonial Studies: Decolonizing Postcolonial

Studies: A Preface. Review, v. 29, n. 2, 2006.

GROSFOGUEL, R.; CERVANTES-RODRIGUEZ, A. The Modern/Colonial/Capitalist World

System in the Twentieth Century: Global Processes, Antisystemic Movements, and the Geo-

politics of Knowledge. United States: Greenwood Press, 2000.

GUDYNAS, E. Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo. Contextos y demandas bajo el

progresismo actual. In: CENTRO ANDINO DE EDUCACIÓN POPULAR (ed.) Extractivismo,

política y sociedad. Quito: CAAP y CLAES, 2012. p. 187-225.

HAY, C. Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN,

2002.

HELLEINER, E. Peripheral Thoughts for International Political Economy: Latin America Idea-

tional Innovation and the Diffusion of the Nineteenth century Free Trade Doctrine. Internatio-

nal Studies Quarterly, v. 61, p. 924-934, 2017.

HELLEINER, E. Globalising the classical foundations of IPE thought. Contexto Internacional,

v. 37, n. 3, p. 975-1010, 2015.

HELLEINER, E.; ROSALES. Toward Global IPE: The Overlooked Significance of the Haya-Ma-

riategui Debate. International Studies Review, v. 19, p. 667-691, 2017.

HOBDEN, S.; HOBSON, J. (eds.). Historical Sociology of International Relations. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2002.

HOBSON, J. Part 1-revealing the Eurocentric foundations of IPE: a critical historiography of the

discipline from the classical to the modern era. Review of International Political Economy, v.

20, n. 25, p. 1024-54, 2013.

INTERVIEW. Marcelo Saguier. Enero 2019. Entrevistado online por Ernesto Vivares.

JACKSON, T. The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its

implications for the study of world politics. New York: Routledge, 2011.

JIMÉNEZ-PEÑA, G.; LEITERITZ, R.; URREGO-SANDOVAL, C. Dossier, Estado del Arte de

la Economia Politica Internacional en Latinoamerica. Revista Desafios, v. 30, n. 2, p. 9-11, 2018.

KEOHANE, R. The old IPE and the new. In: PHILLIPS, Nicola; WEAVER, Catherine (eds.).

International Political economy: Debating the Past, Present and Future. London: Routledge,

2011. p. 34-46.

KING, G.; KEOHANE, R.; VERBA, S. Designing Social Enquiry: Scientific Inference in Quali-

tative Research. New York: Princeton University Press, 1994.

KRASNER, S. International political economy: abiding discord. Review of International Poli-

tical Economy, v. 1, n. 1, p. 13-19, 1994.

KRUGMAN, P.; OBSTFELD, M. International Economics: Theory and Policy. United States:

Pearson International Edition, 2005.

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

LAKE, D. Open Economy Politics: A Critical Review. Review of International Organizations,

v. 4, n. 3, p. 219-244, 2009.

LAKE, D. White Man’s IR: An Intellectual Confession. Perspectives on Politics, v. 14, n. 4, p.

1112-1122, 2016.

LAKE, D. Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the Rise eclecticism

in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations v. 19, p. 57-587, 2013.

LEITERITZ, R.; RIAÑO, M. Tras el corazón verde: los vaivenes del conflicto en la región es-

meraldera de Colombia. In: RETTBERG, A.; LEITERITZ, R.; NASI, C. (comps.). Diferentes

recursos, conflictos diferentes: La economía política del conflicto armado y la criminalidad en

las regiones de Colombia. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes, 2018.

LUXTON, M. The production of life itself: gender, social reproduction and IPE. In: ELIAS, J.;

ROBERTS, A. (eds.). Handbook on the International Political Economy of Gender. London:

Edward Elgar, 2018. p. 37-49.

MACDONALD, L. The Politics of Violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2017.

MADEIRAS, M.; BARNABE, I.; ALBUQUERQUE, R.; LIMA, R. What does the field of Inter-

national Relations look like in South America? Revista Brasileira de Political Internacional,

v. 59, n. 1, 2016.

MADHOK, S.; SHIRIN, R. Agency, Injury, and Transgressive Politics in Neoliberal Times. Sig-

ns, v. 37, n. 3, p. 645-669, 2012.

MAHMOOD, S. The Politics of Piety. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Segato, 2005.

MALIK, K. The quest for a moral compass: a global history of ethics. London: Atlantic, 2014.

MALAMUD, A.; GARDINI G. Has Regionalism Peaked? The Latin American Quagmire and Its

Lessons. The International Spectator, v. 47, n. 1, p. 116-133, 2012.

MALINIAK, D.; OAKES, A.; PETERSON, S.; TIERNEY, M. International Relations in the US

Academy. International Studies Quarterly, v. 55, p. 437-64, 2011.

MALINIAK, D.; TIERNEY, M. The American School of IPE. Review of International Political

Economy, v. 16, n. 1, p. 6-33, 2009.

MATTIUZZI DE SOUZA, G. IPE of Borders: between Formal and Informal Regionalisms. In:

VIVARES, E. (ed.). Handbook of International Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2020.

MEDINA, L.; SCHNEIDER, F. Shadows Economies Around the World: What did we learn

over the last 20 years? IMF: Working Paper 18/17, 2018. Available at: https://www.imf.org/

en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/01/25/Shadow-Economies-Around-the-World-What-Did-We-

-Learn-Over-the-Last-20-Years-45583. Accessed: 21 apr. 2018

MIERES, F. Migration and International Political Economy. In: VIVARES, E. (ed.), Handbook

of International Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2020.

MIGNOLO, W. (2016). Global Coloniality and the World Disorder. Decoloniality After De-

colonization and Dewesternization After the Cold War. World Public Forum “Dialogue of

Civilizations,

2016. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/21395973/Global_Coloniality_

and_the_World_Disorder_Decoloniality_after_Decolonization_and_Dewesternization_af-

ter_the_Cold_War. Accessed: 2 feb. 2018.

MORALES, I. The renewal of U.S. Free Trade” diplomacy in the Americas: From Nafta to a deeper

agenda of competitive liberalization for the region. In: BRICENO, Jose; MORALES, Isidro (eds.)

Regionalism in the Americas: Toward a Pacific-Atlantic Divide? New York: Palgrave, 2017. p. 32-56.

MUGGAH, R. A Manifesto for the Fragile City. Journal of International Affairs, v. 68, n. 2, p.

19-36, 2015.

MYERS, M.; GALLAGHER, K. Chinese development finance “down but not out” in Latin Ame-

rica. Global Americans, 30 mar. 2018.

NEMIÑA, P. La relación entre el FMI y los Gobiernos tomadores de créditos. Los procesos

de negociación con la Argentina durante el estallido y la salida de la crisis de la convertibilidad

(1998-2006), 2011. Tesis doctoral, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales.

NOLTE, D. Costs and Benefits of Overlapping regional Organizations in Latin America: The

cases of OAS and UNASUR. Latin American Politics and Society, v. 60, n. 1, p. 128-153, 2018.

NOLTE, D.; MIJARES, V. Regionalismo Poshegemónico en crisis. ¿Por qué la Unasur se desinte-

gra? Foreign Affairs Latinoamérica, v. 18, n. 3, p. 105-112, 2018.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 9, n. 2, (jul. 2021), p. 7-33

NORTH, D. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1990.

NORTH, D. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. New York: Princeton Univer-

sity Press, 2005.

O’BRIEN, R.; WILLIAMS, M. Global Political Economy. New York: Palgrave, 2016.

OATLEY, T. International Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2013.

PALMA, J. Why Did the Latin American Critical Tradition in the Social Sciences Become Prac-

tically Extinct?. In: BLYTH, Mark (ed.). Routledge Handbook of IPE: IPE as a Global Conversa-

tion. London: Routledge, 2009. p. 243-265.

PARPART; PARASHAR (eds.). Rethinking Silence, Voice and Agency in Contested Gendered

Terrains. London: Routledge, 2018.

PEIXOTO BATISTA, J. La EPI y las Relaciones Internacionales, ¿Dónde está el Derecho?. Rela-

ciones Internacionales, v. 26, n. 52, p. 181-194, 2017.

PETRAS, J.; VELTMEYER, H. The Rise and Demise of Extractive Capitalism. The James Petras

Website, 04 jul. 2012. Available at: http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1895. Accessed: 14 mar. 2018

PÉREZ-OVIEDO, W.; CAJA-GUIJARRO, J.; VALLEJO, C. South America: Trade and Integration

in the New Global Trade Network. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.). Regionalism, Development and the

Post-Commodities Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. p. 121-146.

PONCE, J.; VOS, R.; ROSERO, J.; CASTILLO, R. Is Latin America’s Rise of the Middle Classes

Lasting or Temporary? Evidence from Ecuador. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.). Regionalism, Develop-

ment and the Post-Commodities Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,

2018. p. 25-46.

PONTÓN, D. Drogas, globalización y castigo: Una aproximación a la gobernanza policial con-

tra las drogas en Ecuador 2011-2016. Cuyo, 2018. Tesis doctoral. Facultad de Ciencias Politicas y

Sociales. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.

PONTÓN, D.; GUAYASAMIN, T. Organized Crime, Security and Regionalism: The Governan-

ce of TOC in LA. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.). Regionalism, Development and the Post-Commodi-

ties Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. p. 270-290.

POLANYI, K. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.

Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.

PRIETO, G. The Constructivist Political Economy of Regionalism in South America. In: VI-

VARES, E. (ed.). Handbook of International Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2020.

QUILICONI, C.; KINGAH, S.; SOKO, M. BRICS Leadership at the Regional and Global Level:

Disposition, Capacity and Legitimacy in a Multipolar Era. London/New York: Springer, 2015.

QUILICONI, C.; SALGADO, R. The South American Regionalisms: A shift or the Return of

Economic Integration. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.). Regionalism, Development and the Post-Com-

modities Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. p. 291-307.

RABELLO DE CASTRO, P.; RONCI, M.; DORNBUSCH, R.; EDWARDS, S. (eds.) The Macroe-

conomics of Populism in Latin America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. p. 1551-174.

RAVENHILL, J. Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

RAVENHILL, J. Global Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

RAVENHILL, J. International Political Economy. In: RHODES; R.A.W. (ed.). The Australian

Study of Politics. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009, p. 293-301.

RETTBERG, A.; LEITERITZ, R.; NASI, C. (comp.) Diferentes recursos, conflictos diferentes:

La economía política del conflicto armado y la criminalidad en las regiones de Colombia. Bogo-

tá: Ediciones Uniandes, 2018.

RIVERA, F.; PONTÓN, D. Microtráfico en Quito, rutas, mercados y actores 2000-2012. Qui-

to, Ecuador: Flacso Ecuador : IDR-CRDI : Relasedor, 2016. Disponível em: http://www.flac-

soandes.edu.ec/libros?avanzado=0&query=microtrafico. Accessed: 15 mar. 2018

RIGGIROZZI, P.; TUSSIE, D. The Rise of Post-hegemonic Regionalism: The Case of Latin

America. London/New York: Springer, 2012.

RODRIGUEZ, F. Chinese finance and its effects on unequal development in Latin America,

2019. (forthcoming).

ROJAS, C. Acts of Indigenship: Historical struggles for equality and colonial difference in Boli-

via. Citizenship Studies, v. 17, n. 5, p. 581-595, 2013.

Ernesto Vivares, Raúl Salgado From Latn American Internatonal Politcal Economy to Latn American Global Politcal Economy

SAGUIER, M.; GIOTTO, L. Las empresas transnacionales: un punto de encuentro para la Econo-

mía Política Internacional de América Latina. Revista Desafios, Bogotá, v. 30, n. 2, p. 159-190, 2018.

SALGADO, R.; VIVARES, E. The state of methodology in teaching, research and publishing in

Latin American International Studies. In: CONGRESO DE LA RED CIPRI, 4., 2019, Quito-E-

cuador. Working paper. Quito: CIPRI, 2019. https://www.flacsoandes.edu.ec/node/63099

SANAHUJA, A. La construcción de una región: Suramérica y el regionalismo posliberal. Una

región en construcción. UNASUR y la integración en América del Sur. Madrid: Fundación CI-

DOB, 2010. p. 87-136.

SASSEN, S. The Global City: Introducing a Concept. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, v.

11, n. 2, p. 27-44, 2005.

SAUTÚ, R.; BONIOLO, P.; DALLE, P.; ELBERT, R. Manual de metodología. Construcción del

marco teórico, formulación de los objetivos y elección de la metodología. Buenos Aires: CLA-

CSO, 2005.

SEABROOK, L.; YOUNG, K. The networks and niches of international political economy. Re-

view of International Political Economy, v. 24, n. 2, p. 288-331, 2017.

SHAW, T.; MAHRENBACH, L.; MODI, R.; YI-CHONG, X. The Palgrave Handbook of Con-

temporary International Political Economy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

STANLEY, L.; FERNÁNDEZ, A. The Changing Problem of Regional Development Finance in

Latin America. In: VIVARES, E.(ed.). Regionalism, Development and the Post-Commodities

Boom in South America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. p. 101-120.

STRANGE, S. Wake up, Krasner! The World Has Changed. Review of International Political

Economy, v. 1, n. 2, p. 209-219, 1994.

STURZENEGGER, F. Currency Substitution and the Regressivity of Inflationary Taxation. Re-

vista de Análisis Económico, v. 7, n. 1, p. 177-192, 1992.

SVAMPA, M. Consenso de los Commodities y lenguajes de valoración en Latín América. Revis-

ta Nueva Sociedad, n. 244, p. 30-46, 2013.

TAYLOR, I. The Logic of Disorder: ‘Malignant Regionalization’ in Central Africa. In: BØÅS, M.;

MARCHAND; M.H.; SHAW, T. (ed.). The Political Economy of Regions and Regionalisms.

Hampshire: Palgrave, 2005.

TICKNER, A. Hearing Latin American voices in International Relations Studies. International

Studies Perspectives, v. 4, n. 4, p. 325-350, 2003.

THORP, R. A Historical Perspective on the Political Economy of Inequality in Latin America.

In: SANTISO, J.; DAYTON-JOHNSON, J. (eds.). Latin American Political Economy. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 149-167.

TROWNSELL, T.; QUEREJAZU ESCOBARI, A.; SHANI, G.; CHADHA BEHERA, N.; RED-

DEKOP, J.; TICKNER, A. Recrafting International Relations through Relationality. E-Interna-

tional Relations, 2019.

TUSSIE, D. Rutas, Debates y Desafios de la Construcción del Campo de la Economía Política

Internacional en América Latina. Flacso - Argentina, 2018.

TUSSIE, D. The tailoring of IPE in Latin America: lost, misfit, or misperceived? In: VIVARES, E.

(ed.). Handbook of International Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2020.