English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although IPE has become more reflexive over the last decade, Latin America’s IPE thought has not been seen as part of the disciplinary canon. In this article we investigate why and how mainstream IPE misrecognised, labelled as a misfit, and misperceived Latin American contributions to the discipline. We also examine and define the ontological and epistemological characteristics, and the evolving boundaries of IPE studied in Latin America. We argue that differently from the relative homogeneity that defines and has nurtured the ‘Transatlantic divide’, the diversity of expertise, backgrounds, and analytical approaches has founded and moulded the Latin American school of IPE. While treating Latin America’s intellectual endeavours as an applicable ontology within IPE, we contribute to reframing narrow disciplinary approaches to knowledge coming from non-Western regions of the world. The notion of a Latin American school of IPE dispels the idea that regional contributions to the discipline may have been significant but remain in the past. To advance these global conversations, we must explore other IPE foundational myths and disciplinary origins beyond the disciplinary mainstream.

Misrecognised, misfit and misperceived: why not a Latin American school of IPE?