In one of his latest books, Colombian writer Gabriel Vazquez quotes Napoleon Bonaparte, ‘To understand the man you have to know what was happening in the world when he was twenty’ (Vazquez, 2015). In my case, this period of my life turned out to be during the 1980s, the politically impassioned years when democracy was just returning to my country: Argentina. Discussions were wise but particularly highly emotional, and my interest in political economy was something innate but which suddenly blossomed during those years. In any case, politics was more about excitement than just reason. For the neoclassical school (the approach taken in most undergraduate courses), the market mechanism was the only mechanism which insured ultimate economic efficiency, and government intervention would bring about market failure and diminish economic efficiency. A more open economy and shock therapy would bring to an end all these vices. In view of that, I began to search for alternative explanations given Argentina's cyclical boom- and- bust behaviour. In other words, looking for alternative explanations, I became trapped in some sort of paranoia, like Carlos Carballo, one of the main characters in a Vazquez novel.

In the search for an answer, I was confronted with two contesting visions. On the one hand, there were those associated with the so- called mercantilist tradition attributed to Jean- Baptiste Colbert, for whom the state should play a decisive role in national development and international economic relations. Trade, investments and economic relations are always dealing with distributional issues and, hence, are subject to conflict. International negotiations (such as those involving the global financial architecture and related issues) might resemble a ‘zero- sum game’. The liberal interpretation associated with Adam Smith's ideas, on the other hand, highlights agents’ rationality and the importance of free markets. Certainly followers of Smith have been longer recognizing the relevance of market failures and why a proper regulatory framework is often needed. Consequently, harmonious relations make international economic relations a ‘positivesum game’: all we need are a free trade environment and proper regulation, and, henceforth, economic development will follow.