Heterodox Economics and its Critics

Heterodox economics has its critics. Most of the criticisms are friendly comments and analysis directed towards improving heterodox economic theory. However, the critics and their criticisms that are the concern of this article are the ones that challenge the existence of heterodox economic theory and the community of heterodox economists as manifested through their graduate programs, conferences, journals and identity. These critics observe that the academic status quo in economics, as manifested in its department and journal rankings, rules of academic engagement, and its institutions and organizations, favor mainstream economics and that it is unlikely to change in the future. Consequently, they argue that heterodox economists can survive only if they become more like mainstream economists. With focus on assimilation, the critics direct their criticisms towards the social characteristics of the heterodox community and to the personal characteristics of heterodox economists. This article is a response to the critics.     

Social Surplus Approach and Heterodox Economics

Given the emphasis on social provisioning in heterodox economics, two of its central theoretical organizing principles are the concepts of the total social product and the social surplus. This appears to link heterodox economics to the social surplus approach associated with the classical economists and currently with Sraffian economists. However, heterodox economics connects agency with the social surplus and the social product, which the Sraffians reject as they take the level and composition of the social product as given. Therefore the different theoretical approach regarding the social surplus taken in heterodox economics may generate a different but similar way of theorizing about a capitalist economy. To explore this difference is the aim of the article.     

A Guide to Paradigmatic Self-Marginalization: Lessons for Post-Keynesian Economists

While many heterodox economists hope that the recent financial crisis will lead to paradigmatic change in economics, we argue that path-dependent processes and institutional factors within the economic community hinder such a change. Focusing on the citation behavior of economists in heterodox journals in general and in Post-Keynesian journals in particular, we discuss structural reasons—connected to positive feedback mechanisms within the institutional framework of the economics discipline—for the marginalization of heterodox economic thought.     

Brands of Economics and the Trojan Horse of Pluralism

This paper examines the current status and prospects of heterodox approaches to economics in relation to the problem of marketing ideas to groups of potential users who see the world in very different ways. It draws lessons from the changing status of behavioural economics and highlights the marketing problems that arise between heterodox economists whose perspectives overlap only partially. Its principal message is that the best hope for heterodox economics may lie in taking a less openly combative approach than hitherto when trying to win over mainstream economists and instead using strategies of stealth based on the empirical advantages of pluralistic applied research methods.     

Teaching Heterodox Economics: Introduction to the Special Issue

This introduction to the special issue of the Forum for Social Economics on teaching heterodox economics provides an overview of the papers in this volume. The papers demonstrate that heterodox economists are particularly gifted at explaining the dynamics of the real world economy; therefore, heterodox economics instruction often specializes in, and benefits from, immersing students into real world situations. Heterodox economists push pedagogic boundaries by directly confronting students with real-world data and situations. In the process, students achieve a rich understanding of the world as it is and not as a hypothetical myth. The overview of papers is followed by suggestions for future work on teaching heterodox economics, and acknowledgments of those who made this special issue possible.     

The Wrong Type of Pluralism: Toward a Transdisciplinary Social Science

When heterodox economists talk of pluralism they are generally talking about pluralism within the economics profession—they are asking: how can we have a more pluralistic economics profession? This paper argues that another, perhaps more useful, way to think of pluralism and economics is from the perspective of all the social sciences. When considered in reference to the social science profession rather than in reference to the economics profession, the amount of pluralism increases significantly, since different social sciences follow quite different methodologies. But looking at pluralism from the social science perspective reveals a different type of pluralism problem in social science. While there may be plenty of pluralism within social science as a whole, there is a serious question about whether it is appropriately distributed. This paper argues that heterodox economists' agenda should be a greater blending of all the social science departments. It summarizes proposals to do so on both the undergraduate level and graduate level, and explains why supporting variations of these proposals would be a strategy that would further the objectives of most heterodox economists more than would their current strategy of pushing for more pluralism in economics.     

What If There Are No Conventional Price Mechanisms?

Inspired by Frederic (“Fred”) S. Lee’s theoretical contribution to institutional-heterodox economics, I make the case that the neoclassical price mechanism is not only flawed, but also irrelevant for the study of actual coordination mechanisms, hence the price mechanism — as a theory as well as a way of thinking — should be discarded. While this position was addressed by early institutionalists, starting with Thorstein Veblen, later institutionalists have not completely rejected the price mechanism. The sympathy for the price mechanism has prevented institutionalists (and other heterodox economists) from fully developing an alternative theoretical framework concerning how actual economic activities are organized. I, therefore, provide an institutionalist-heterodox framework of the provisioning process focusing on business enterprise activities. This framework shows how institutional economics becomes more refined and useful when it is married to other traditions in heterodox economics, in particular, Marxian, social, and post-Keynesian economics. Such an integrative approach is what Fred Lee showed through his work toward producing a better theory and policy for the underlying population.     

The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities

In previous research on the impact of the Research AssessmentExercise on heterodox economics and heterodox economists inthe UK, the author concluded that reliance on Diamond List journalsto rank departments would drive economic departments to discriminatepositively in terms of their hiring, promotion and researchstrategies in favour of mainstream economists and their research,in order to maintain or improve their ranking. As a consequence,the author predicted there would be no or only a token presenceof heterodox economists in an increasing number of departments.Whether the conclusions still hold and the predictions materialiseis the subject of the paper.     

Comment on “What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought”

The Comment on Wrenn’s article “What is Heterodox Economics?” suggests that the inability of heterodox economists to define their field arises from an as yet unrecognized and different metaphysical foundation than that of orthodox economics.     

Tyranny of kindness: Dismantling the welfare system to end poverty in America Theresa Funiciello

The Comment on Wrenn’s article “What is Heterodox Economics?” suggests that the inability of heterodox economists to define their field arises from an as yet unrecognized and different metaphysical foundation than that of orthodox economics.     

THE CITATION IMPACT OF FEMINIST ECONOMICS

Abstract

Feminist economics is a transformative project. However, transformation generates resistance. Feminist economics can be deliberately excluded, co-opted through an uncritical application of rational choice theory, or ignored. And feminist economics can be listened to: when the United Nations consults feminist economists; when feminist economists publish in widely read journals; when a student finds inspiration in a Feminist Economics article. All of these are ways feminist economics can, and has, influenced the profession. After ten years of discourse, it is possible to take stock and assess the impact of feminist economics. This article provides a partial assessment through a consideration of citations of the journal Feminist Economics, describing its impact on mainstream economics, heterodox economics, and other disciplines. While the overall project of feminist economics encompasses much more than just one journal, studying the citations for Feminist Economics is a first step toward assessing the influence of the entire corpus.     

What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought

Since its intellectual inception, the development of the economics discipline has been accompanied by divergence of thought. Through the years, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, a fissure has emerged within the discipline, sociologically dividing conventional, mainstream economics from the dissention of heterodox economics. The nature of that division, however, as well as the nature of heterodox thought is unclear. Historians of economic thought would seem to be uniquely suited to specify the nature of heterodox economics and the mechanism of its marginalization. Although anecdotal, personal interviews with historians of economic thought provide a breadth and depth of study not available through surveys with an immediacy not allowed by doctrinal examination. The purpose of this study and intent of this paper is to reveal the ways that orthodox and heterodox economics differ, whether heterodox economics has any clear research program other than criticizing the limits of the more orthodox view, and what aspects of heterodox economics remain underdeveloped, all through the lens of the historian of economic thought.     

Austrian economics at the cutting edge

Austrian economists today have a valuable opportunity to rejoin the mainstream of the economics profession. As Colander, Holt, and Rosser have argued, neoclassical orthodoxy is no long mainstream. What I call the “heterodox mainstream” is an emerging new orthodoxy. The five leading characteristics of the emerging new orthodoxy are bounded rationality, rule following, institutions, cognition, and evolution. When listed in this order, they suggest the acronym BRICE. The Austrian school is also an example of BRICE economics. The shared themes of BRICE economics create an opportunity for intellectual exchange between Austrians and other elements of the heterodox mainstream. Although Austrians should engage the heterodox mainstream energetically, they should also defend the essential elements of an early version of neoclassical economics, elements at risk of becoming half-forgotten themes of an earlier era. These elements are supply and demand, marginalist logic, opportunity-cost reasoning, and the elementary theory of markets. JEL Codes A14, B50, B53 This text is an edited version of a talk given in Washington, D.C. on 19 November 2005 at the SDAE annual dinner. I thank persons present at that time for a helpful discussion. I also thank William Butos, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, and Peter Lewin for useful comments on an earlier draft.     

Do Professors’ Opinions Affect Students?

This paper estimates the effect that professors’ opinions have on changes in student opinions during introductory economics classes. The paper shows that students are more likely to change their opinion during the course of the semester if their initial response differs from that of the professor, and this result emerges even after controlling for students’ tendency to move toward the consensus opinion held by all the economics professors. Students are also more likely to change their opinions if they differ from the opinions of their classmates, and the estimates show that in the aggregate, classmate opinions matter more than professor opinions do. The data also show that students choose which section to attend at least partly based on how closely their pre-class opinions match those of the professor. These results have important implications for both heterodox and orthodox economists.     

The Committee on Economic Education: Its Effect on the Introductory Course and Women in Economics

The percentage of women economics majors has stagnated for decades. This is creating a bottleneck in the pipeline of female economists. The Committee on Economic Education (CEE) of the American Economic Association (AEA) is charged with fostering economic understanding and effective teaching. An examination of its structure, membership and activities over the past 35 years, however, suggests that it has narrowed the scope of economic ideas presented in introductory economics and has not convinced instructors of the benefits of a more active learning environment. The task of engaging students in the search for greater knowledge has largely been left to heterodox “visionaries,” members of the profession who have tried to find ways to make economics courses more interesting and inviting to all students, and especially to under-represented groups. We conclude that the CEE’s membership and structure contribute to the small percentage of the increasingly female undergraduate population who major in economics.     

Is Economics Responding to Critique? What do the UK 2015 QAA Subject Benchmarks Indicate?

Abstract

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education provides subject benchmarks which inform but do not determine the content of university and college academic programmes in the United Kingdom. These are revised every few years and have recently been completed in economics for the first time since the global financial crisis. Given the extensive criticism of mainstream economics since the crisis, one might anticipate the benchmark revisions to be extensive. However, this has not been the case. This article explores why this is so. The analysis may also be considered of broader significance because the conditions under which the review has occurred involve general processes that will be familiar, albeit with local variation, to heterodox economists elsewhere. In the conclusion, a more fundamental reconstruction of the benchmarks is provided. These will also be of interest as general orienting statements for a different kind of economics.     

Kapitalizm: Russia’s Struggle to Free Its Economy

Contrary to the situation prevailing in most of Europe and North America, Brazilian economics can be justly described as pluralist, an outcome frequently ascribed to the role played by the Brazilian economics association (ANPEC) as conflict mediator. A crucial episode took place in the early 1970s, when ANPEC chose to welcome the filiation of the heterodox program at the University of Campinas (Unicamp) against threats of withdrawal from one of its most prestigious members, the Getúlio Vargas Foundation. After characterizing the nature of pluralism in current Brazilian economics, the article uncovers the process that led ANPEC to adopt a “pluralist” attitude, and how this related to the Brazilian political context from the 1970s. The outcome was significantly influenced by the actions of other institutions involved in Brazilian economics at the time, notably the Ford Foundation and the team of Vanderbilt University economists working in Brazil under a USAID contract. Choices made within a delicate political context opened the door to the institutionalization of theoretical plurality as a stable feature of the scholarly community of Brazilian economists.     

Is ‘new’ behavioral economics ‘mainstream’?

When comparing ‘new’ and ‘old’ behavioral economics (BE), many argue that ‘new’ BE has close ties with what is often called ‘mainstream’ economics. The aim of this paper is to reframe the ‘old’ vs. ‘new’ BE debate and investigate the nature of the relationship between psychologists, behavioral economists, and ‘mainstream’ economists. This will lead us to develop the concept of ‘space of interaction’, building on Galison’s metaphor of ‘trading zones’, to emphasize the role of outsiders, strategic thinking, and negotiation in ‘new’ BE. By discussing some often implicit arguments in an otherwise disconnected literature, we seek to bring new arguments to the discussions through a careful study of those relationships in the history of ‘new’ BE and its more recent developments. Leaving aside the orthodox/heterodox contrast and comparative approaches, we hope to provide a different account of the changes in ‘new’ BE and its relationship with the ‘mainstream’.     

Post Keynesians and Others

I begin by considering four alternative positions on the correct relationship between Post Keynesians and mainstream economics: opposition, cooperation, neglect and stealth; I argue that sustained opposition is the only viable strategy. Next I discuss the appropriate relationship between Post Keynesians and mainstream dissenters, concluding that relatively little can be expected to come from it. I then assess the link between Post Keynesians and other schools of heterodox economics, which I consider to be one of friendly pluralism rather than fundamental unity. I conclude that Post Keynesians should remain open to ideas from other heterodox traditions, and might also benefit from becoming more inter-disciplinary.     

Orthodox Core–Heterodox Periphery? Contrasting Citation Networks of Economics Departments in Vienna

ABSTRACT

The notion of an ‘orthodox core–heterodox periphery’ structure and the extent of interdisciplinary links have been widely discussed, and partially investigated bibliometrically, within economic discourse. We extend this research by applying tools from social network analysis to citation data of three economics departments located in Vienna, two mainstream and one non-mainstream, to assess their relative citation patterns. We show that both mainstream economics departments follow the asserted core–periphery pattern and have a mono-disciplinary research focus, while the citation network of the non-mainstream department has a polycentric structure and is both more heterodox and interdisciplinary. These findings suggest that discussions about the future of heterodox economics should pay more attention to the organizational level and seek allies from other disciplines.