LAUSR

ABSTRACT The 2008 financial crisis exposed the fragility of advanced economies to financial caprice and the centrality of the United States in the global monetary order. Understanding the power structures behind global monetary orders, their distributional effects, as well as the systemic consequences associated with practices within domestic financial systems, particularly within financial centres, remains a priority. In a recent commentary, Cohen argues that the field is fragmented and that excessive attention to social scientific method is to blame. I agree with Cohen that the field of international political economy (IPE) of money is fragmented but I disagree that social scientific method is the cause. The fragmentation, and slow progress in the IPE of money, to which Cohen refers, is rather attributable to a lack of social scientific method, resulting in conceptual and empirical ambiguity, and unclear standards. Finally, I outline how social science methods could produce the kind of systemic analysis Cohen is calling for, ‘macro-money theories’, the flip side of the ‘micro-money theories’ embodied by open economy politics.