Decolonizing the IPE syllabus: Eurocentrism and the coloniality of knowledge in International Political Economy
Abstract
This pedagogical intervention examines the manifestations of Eurocentrism and the coloniality of knowledge in the teaching of IPE by analyzing an IPE Master’s program of a UK university. Advancing a decolonial reading of this program, I draw on the growing body of decolonial theories critiquing political economy scholarship and teaching. Three points of critique are centered throughout this analysis: (1) economism, (2) the absence of race and (3) the conceptualization of ‘The International’. In addition to identifying how these issues manifest in the IPE course, I suggest ways to address them, illustrating how decolonial pedagogical transformations and epistemic pluriversality can lead to better analytical frameworks, as well as contribute to epistemic and global justice. This intervention begins by outlining the IPE program in question before introducing a decolonial analytical framework that centers the coloniality of knowledge and Eurocentrism. This framework is then mobilized throughout the analysis which is divided into the three points of critique mentioned above. Afterwards, I propose some alternative bodies of knowledge as decolonial options for IPE syllabi and conclude with suggesting further research avenues. This intervention seeks to engage IPE professors and researchers who are interested in or committed to decolonizing IPE syllabi, programs and departments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The bulk of recent critique of IPE's colonial roots comes from two conceptual perspectives: the "blind spots" approach and the Eurocentric theories approach.
“Thus far, the bulk of the critique has come from roughly two conceptual perspectives. The first is concerned with IPE leaving out issues that are crucial for understanding colonialism, racism, and other topics associated with decolonization (Mantz, 2019; Baumann, 2021). We call this the “blind spots” approach, following Best et al. (Citation2021) and LeBaron et al. (Citation2021).”
From Back to Dakar: Decolonizing international political economy through dependency theory (2023) · cites this paper as Mantz, 2019
IPE accounts of the modern global economic order tend to divorce analyses of economic relations from processes of colonialism, imperialism, and slavery.
“critics in the blind spots camp also argue that IPE accounts of the modern global economic order tend to divorce analyses of economic relations from processes of colonialism, imperialism, and slavery (Mantz, 2019; Bhambra, Citation2021).”
From Back to Dakar: Decolonizing international political economy through dependency theory (2023) · cites this paper as Mantz, 2019
Cites
Wynter, S. (2003) · CR: The New Centennial Review · doi:10.1353/ncr.2004.0015 · Cited by 5,753 · see citing works
Césaire, A. (2022) · Postcolonlsm · doi:10.4324/9781003101406-19 · Cited by 3,705 · see citing works
Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene
Whyte, K. (2017) · English Language Notes · doi:10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153 · Cited by 1,081 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Back to Dakar: Decolonizing international political economy through dependency theory
Antunes de Oliveira, F., & Kvangraven, I. H. (2023) · Review of International Political Economy · doi:10.1080/09692290.2023.2169322 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
“These limitations are only now being overcome by a new generation of dependency scholars (Antunes de Oliveira, 2021b, 2022; F (cid:1) eliz, 2019; Kvangraven, 2021, Chilcote & Vasconcelos, 2022; Madariaga & Palestini, 2021), who are generally more sensitive to intersec-tional forms of exploitation.”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Mantz, F.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mantz, Felix
- ORCID
- Mantz, Felix
- Venue
- Review of International Political Economy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-08-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1361-1378
- ISSN
- 0969-2290 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4526
- OpenAlex
- W2965519524
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 21.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Review of International Political Economy (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Decolonial Thought and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › African cultural and philosophical studies
- Keywords
- international political economy, Eurocentrism, coloniality of knowledge, decolonial pedagogy, syllabus design, economism, the international, global justice, decolonial theory, master's degree curriculum
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review