The publication in 2008 of Benjamin J. Cohen's International Political Economy: An Intellectual History caused quite a stir in international relations circles and beyond (Cohen 2008). The book is the first systematic attempt to tell the story of international political economy (IPE) from its origins in the 1970s until today. What provoked a lively and at times heated debate among IPE scholars was Cohen's assertion that the IPE community has been drifting apart into two increasingly incommensurate intellectual camps: an 'American school', pioneered by scholars such as Robert Keohane, Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner, which sees IPE as a sub-discipline of international relations, shares the latter's state-centric orientation, and is deeply committed to the positivist and empiricist roots of American political science; and a 'British school', exemplified by scholars such as Susan Strange and Robert Cox, which nurtures a stronger sense of pluralism in theoretical and methodological terms and is prepared to ask big normative questions. While the American school seeks to solidify IPE as a 'normal' social science in a Kuhnian sense, the British school is keen to preserve its multi-disciplinary tradition and theoretical diversity.
展开▼
机译：本杰明·科恩（Benjamin J. Cohen）于2008年出版的《国际政治经济学：知识史》在国际关系界及以后引起了轩然大波（Cohen 2008）。这本书是从1970年代起源到今天讲述国际政治经济学（IPE）故事的第一次系统性尝试。在科恩的主张下，科恩断言IPE社区已经逐渐分化为两个越来越不相称的知识分子阵营：一所“美国学校”，由诸如Robert Keohane，Robert Gilpin和Stephen Krasner，它把IPE视为国际关系的一个子学科，具有后者的以国家为中心的取向，并坚定地致力于美国政治学的实证主义和经验主义根源；还有一所“英国学派”，例如苏珊·斯特兰奇（Susan Strange）和罗伯特·考克斯（Robert Cox）等学者，从理论和方法上培养了更强的多元化意识，并准备提出重大的规范性问题。尽管美国学校试图将IPE固结为库恩主义意义上的“正常”社会科学，但英国学校却热衷于保留其多学科传统和理论多样性。
展开▼
