ABSTRACT
Constructivism provides an alternative to the material–rationalist approach to the study of International Political Economy. I highlight three main differences between these approaches: (1) whether actors’ decisions are assumed to be primarily made under conditions or quantifiable risk or whether, instead, their choices are assumed to be primarily made in the face of radical uncertainty; (2) whether knowing the material conditions facing economic actors is sufficient to determine their interests and preferences or not; and (3) whether the behavior of a collective group can be reduced to the interests of its members. Reviewing well-established and more recent findings from studies spanning three central issue areas of concern to IPE scholars – the politics of international trade, money, and finance – shows that there are payoffs to broadening the scope of theorizing in IPE to bring in the concepts and empirical referents associated with the constructivist analytical style.
