This is an absolutely essential history of the field of international political economy (IPE). Cohen was present at the creation, best thought of as a nominee for best supporting actor who is telling the story of his friends and colleagues, all nominated for best actor. (I should note that he cites himself appropriately, in context, and with delicacy.) Cohen always keeps his eye on the big picture, laying out the questions that these scholars are trying to answer and the approaches they used to answer them.



The central organizing principle of the book is the division between the American school and the British school. The American school is largely positivist, seeking to develop mid-range theories increasingly supported by quantitative evidence. The British school is interpretivist and seeks grand theories with very different standards of empirical work. Cohen is sympathetic to both schools. His even-handedness makes this book a valuable source for members of either school who wish to understand the others.



This focus obviously means that other schools are left out. One might be curious about what the Japanese or Germans were saying about political economy in these days, but their marginality to the global academic community in IPE may make this exclusion justifiable. It's less hard to justify leaving out the Latin American school, or the wider community of world-system theory in which the Latin Americans have made the most important advances. It's true that this school is treated as marginal by both Americans and Brits, but Cohen documents full well that these Anglophone schools also treat one another as marginal.



His substantive coverage reflects Cohen's own interests but attempts to be inclusive. There's a bias toward money and finance over trade policy, but those two topics dominate the book. He neglects other policy areas, notably foreign aid, the politics of foreign investment, and international migration of peoples.



Impressively for a book of intellectual history, this is both a scholarly and a lively book. Cohen tells the story very well, and it's a pleasure to read. As the third generation of scholars has produced increasingly boring work, unfortunately Cohen's account of this work also begins to drag a bit. To my mind, that simply reinforced the lesson that both the American and British schools need to leave their boxes and look around more widely for new approaches to their shared field. This book can help them do that.