Mid-Atlantic: Sitting on the knife's sharp edge.

This paper responds to two issues raised in this special issue on the American school of international political economy (IPE). I react first to the assumed convergence towards an open economy politics (OEP) framework. While OEP clearly has merits, I find that its narrow conception of actors and interests neglects other approaches' insights into preference formation and institutions that would enable it to offer better explanations of political economy. Second, I respond to the perceived monoculture in American IPE, which many (wrongly) attribute to professional power over journals and (rightly) tie to graduate training in the United States. More to the point of deconstructing the perceived intellectual hegemony driving IPE's monoculture, I challenge Randall Germain's indictment of the Harvard school of IPE. I show that the early Harvard Mafia indeed played a critical role in shaping the field, but it did not determine the myopic paradigmatic and methodological trends we currently see in the discipline. Finally, I reflect on why we have, and indeed need, this transatlantic debate and make a plea for more pragmatism, pluralism and problem-driven research in IPE today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]