View article

The debate concerning the political and economic nature of regionalism is extensive. Supporters and detractors of both progressive and neoliberal approaches to regionalism have long based their arguments on underlying assumptions about the outcomes of the reciprocal and dynamic interactions between world order, regionalisms, and development. For some, this is a matter of which theoretical perspectives are right or wrong. For others, it is a problem of methodology. Indeed, the academic discussion crosses disciplinary boundaries and theoretical perspectives, reframing, from different angles, the form in which the research is done, in what Burgess resumes as the role of the theory in research (1982). Few scholars would deny that social knowledge production in the International Political Economy research interconnects with existent power relations. Several authors argue that differences and struggles are inherent to the field of International Political Economy (IPE), and that diversity for the basis of its growth (Cox and Schechter 2002; Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013: 406). Hence, while some theorists emphasize hypothesis testing, covariation and causality as key to academic knowledge in the fields of IPE and regionalism, others argue that it is only via critical reflection and developing better interpretations of reality that we can have a better understanding of the political economy of regionalism. These contrasting epistemological approaches, however, share similar historical roots regarding the production of knowledge, beyond the variety of parameters that make up their conceptual frameworks, based on the British/Pluralist, and mainstream