Citation Metrics: Serious Drawbacks,Perverse Incentives,and Strategic Options for Heterodox Economics

This article reviews strategic suggestions for heterodox economic journals and heterodox economists relating to quantitative indexing. It contains a critique of Thomson Scientifics “Journal Impact Factor” as well as an integrated discussion of general strategic guidelines and specific strategic suggestions accounting for the special paradigmatic position of heterodox economics.     

Lineages of Embeddedness: On the Antecedents and Successors of a Polanyian Concept

Since the 1980s, much debate has revolved around Karl Polanyi's concept of the “dis/embedded economy,” generating some light and not a little heat. This paper looks at three reasons that account for part of the “heat.” It begins by tracing the sources upon which Polanyi drew. They include Karl Marx, Ferdinand Tönnies, and Max Weber, along with anthropology of the inter‐war period, and German and American Institutionalist economics. After exploring the differing ways in which these varying currents conceptualize the relationship between economy and society, I explore the different interpretations of what Polanyi means by embeddedness, and the different purposes to which contemporary economic sociologists have put the term. For some, he is held up as the originator of a line of sociological analysis that treats “the economy” as a subsystem “embedded in” a social system. In this reading the emphasis is upon the moral underpinnings of market behavior, in contrast to the naturalism of Ricardo, Malthus and their heirs. For others, his “disembedding” thesis contains a more radical tale: of the market economy coming to dominate “society,” bringing forth a sorcerer's apprentice world of untrammeled market forces that, although human creations, lie beyond conscious human control.     

Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?1

This paper attempts to engage with the established debate on the nature of heterodox economics. However, it starts from the position that previous attempts to classify and identify heterodox economics have been biased towards a priori definition. The paper aims to inform the discussion of the nature of heterodoxy with some empirical analysis. The paper examines survey data collected from a small/medium‐sized sample of AHE members on the core concepts in economics. The paper applies factor analysis to the data. It also applies principles of biological taxonomy, and thence cluster analysis to the problem. The paper finds that within the self‐identified community of self‐identified heterodox economists there is little agreement as to whether members are pluralist, or what their attitude is to the mainstream. Indeed, there is little agreement on any core concepts or principles. The paper argues that there is little structure to heterodox economics beyond that provided by pre‐existing (or constituent) schools of thought. Based on this study, heterodox economics appears a complex web of interacting individuals and as a group is a fuzzy set. These results would lead us to question further strict distinctions between heterodox, mainstream and pluralist economists.     

When Heterodoxy Becomes Orthodoxy: Ecological Economics in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

Modern ecological economics emerged in opposition to mainstream economics as a scientific approach with many key heterodox features. Among these are an open systems perspective, transdisciplinarity, and radical criticism of the conventional representation of economic process. The term “ecological economics” was included internationally in the second edition (2008) of The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, the most prestigious and widely used dictionary of economics. In our view, however, the entry does little to facilitate understanding of the heterodox features, and theoretical and methodological controversies that have developed in ecological economics over the last two decades.     

From Heterodoxy to Orthodoxy and Vice Versa: Economics and Social Sciences in the Division of Academic Work

The term “heterodox economics” has been in existence for several decades. Recent revival of heterodox economics can be regarded as a growing criticism of economists within the own profession of economics. Modern economics is designed as a one‐world‐capitalism without history and without regional specifications, without institutions, and without real human agents. Heterodox approaches have the aim to underline that different institutions matter, including religion, language, family structures and networks, systems of education, and industrial relations. Taking the discussion within a broader framework of the history of science acknowleges divergencies and convergencies between different approaches in economics that are also in permanent recomposition. The discussion comes up with the interpretation that recent academic developments provide chances for new modes of intellectual reintegration of formerly disparate areas.     

Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis

We explore the differences between mainstream and heterodox economists based on the responses to a questionnaire from a representative sample of Italian economists. Using different definitions for mainstream and heterodox economics, we compare the individual and academic characteristics of the economists belonging to these groups. We measure the within and between disagreement for each group and we test whether belonging to one or the other group predicts differences in economists' opinions on economic policy. Results show that: 1) mainstream and heterodox economists differ as to individual and academic characteristics and political views; 2) the disagreement within heterodox economics is lower than within mainstream economics; 3) some of commonly used ways of grouping heterodox and mainstream schools of thought have little explicative power in relation to individual opinions; 4) on critical economic policies, the opinions of heterodox and mainstream economists are significantly different even after controlling for a number of individual characteristics, including political opinions.     

From Economics to Political Economy: Contradictions,Challenge, and Change

The nature of the challenge to mainstream economics needs to be carefully considered. This article presents an overview of the challenge, emphasizing that it is not just a matter of heterodox economists developing non‐neoclassical economic theories. The embrace of a pluralist method and pedagogy is equally significant. The development of a transdisciplinary approach adds further to the breadth of the challenge. Weaving these elements together as political economy provides an alternative paradigm to mainstream economics. Extending its influence requires focus on adult education, the media, and public policy, as well as sustained efforts within universities.     

Against the New Economic Imperialism: Some Reflections

Classical political economy recognised that what needed analysing, explaining, and acting on was an economic system inextricably linked to the wider political and social systems. Smith and Ricardo, as well as Marx, saw class and the distribution of income as key. Neoclassical economics replaced these social and collective categories with the individual consumer and the marginal product of labour as the fundamental analytical categories—the "political" having been discarded. Yet even one of the founders of neoclassical economics, Alfred Marshall, would barely recognise nor accept what is today presented as economic analysis, ignoring as it does the key industrial and organisational detail underlying production. The "new political economy" claims to incorporate insights from other disciplines. But far from enriching economic analysis, these new strands of theory simply impose the assumptions and methods of neoclassical economics. We argue that this new economic imperialism needs to be replaced with a genuinely multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach to analysing economic issues.     

Research Quality Rankings of Heterodox Economic Journals in a Contested Discipline

This article argues that the discipline of economics consists of two subdisciplines: heterodox and mainstream economics. Being distinct bodies of knowledge, it is possible that the processes of building scientific knowledge are different enough so to generate distinctly different referencing and citation practices. Therefore, a specific impact contribution score is necessary for ranking heterodox journals in terms of their contribution to building heterodox economics. If properly developed such a metric could also be used to produce a single overall quality‐equality ranking of mainstream and heterodox journals. Utilizing citation data and peer evaluations of 62 heterodox economics journals, a research quality measure is developed and then used to rank the journals. The measure is then used in conjunction with the SSCI five‐year impact factor to produce a comparative research quality‐equality rankings of the 62 heterodox and the 192 mainstream journals in the SSCI.     

The Diffusion of Heterodox Economics

Heterodox economics is in part defined by exclusion from orthodox circles and there is an understandable tendency for heterodox economists to engage primarily with each other outside these circles. Yet the critique offered by heterodoxy speaks more widely. This study examines the diffusion of heterodox economic ideas beyond the immediate confines via an analysis of the citation of heterodox economic journals by other journals. The diffusion of heterodox economics across wider disciplines is traced utilizing data from Emerald, Wiley, and Sage bibliographic databases. Employing the techniques of social network analysis, key journals in the diffusion process are identified, with implications for heterodox economics publishing strategy and engagement in valuation processes.     

Social Provisioning Process and Socio‐Economic Modeling

The radical difference between orthodox and heterodox economics emanates from the different views of the capitalist socio‐economic system. Economics as the science of social provisioning felicitously describes the heterodox view that the economy is part of the evolving social order; social agency is embedded in the social and cultural context; a socio‐economic change is driven by technical and cultural changes; and the provisioning process is open‐ended. Such a perspective on the economy offers ample methodological and theoretical implications for modeling the capitalist economy in a realistic manner. It lends itself especially to the micro‐macro synthetic approach. Thus the objective of this article is twofold: 1) to examine how the concept of the social provisioning process can be clarified and expanded by virtue of recent development in heterodox methodology and 2) to discuss how methodological development would nourish the heterodox modeling and theorizing of the capitalist social provisioning process.     

The Reality and Diversity of Buddhist Economics

This essay develops three central points:

1. Buddhist economics (BE), like most religion‐based economics, is not only an extrapolation from the basic texts but is also how BE has recently been practiced. Examples of that practice include the application of the concept of “Gross National Happiness” in Bhutan, the implementation of a “sufficiency economy” in Thailand, and action based on the principle of the Unification of King and People in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
2. BE as a concept comes originally from an outside understanding of Buddhism that entails perspectives that text‐based BE might not have.
3. Buddhism, as such, is at odds with standard textbook economics (STE). BE thus potentially forms its own economic paradigm, but BE as practiced often coexists with STE.

Discussing these points will hopefully result in seeing that there is considerable diversity within BE and that there is such a thing as real, existing BE that truly does matter.     

'Classical' Roots of Input-Output Analysis: A Short Account of its Long Prehistory

This paper discusses the roots of input-output analysis in 'classical' economics. The authors considered include Petty and Cantillon; Quesnay, the physiocrats and their critic Isnard; Smith, Ricardo, Torrens and Dmitriev; Marx, von Bortkiewicz and von Charasoff; Leontief; and Remak. It is argued that, in terms of method and content, input-output analysis is akin to the classical approach to the theory of production, distribution and relative prices in that (i) it requires all magnitudes to be observable and (ii) starts essentially from the same set of data. It is shown that many important modern concepts have been anticipated by the earlier authors. The prehistory of input-output analysis is also meant to provide new perspectives on potential future developments of the field.     

DEIRDRE McCLOSKEY'S THE BOURGEOIS VIRTUES: ETHICS FOR AN AGE OF COMMERCE

In the Economic Viewpoints section we welcome extended reviews of important works on economics and political economy. Deirdre McCloskey's The Bourgeois Virtues is one of the most ambitious and important works published in classical liberal political economy for at least half a century.     

VARIETY OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH IN ECONOMICS

Abstract.  It has been argued by some that the distinction between orthodox economics and heterodox economics does not fit the growing variety in economic theory, unified by a common methodological approach. On the other hand, it remains a central characteristic of heterodox economics that it does not share this methodological approach, but rather represents a range of alternative methodological approaches. The paper explores the evidence, and arguments, for variety in economics at different levels, and a range of issues which arise. This requires in turn a discussion of the meaning of variety in economics at the different levels of reality, methodology, method and theory. It is concluded that there is scope for more, rather than less, variety in economic methodologies, as well as within methodologies. Further, if variety is not to take the form of 'anything goes', then critical discussion by economists of different approaches to economics, and of variety itself, is required.     

On the Centenary of Progress and Poverty

A bstract . Henry George was more fortunate than many authors of classics. His Progress and Poverty won understanding, appreciation and recognition from the start. The book presented a theory of the business cycle based on monopoly of which theorists must take account. It also represented the peak of the development of the classical school. George shared with the school's great figures, particularly Adam Smith and David Ricardo , a Utopian vision of a free economy. But George went beyond them in envisioning a free society in a new moral order; he was one of the great libertarian philosophers. Moreover, as Teilhac has shown, he projected into economics a social rationalism that opened the way for a reborn political economy based on scientific method. Though his is one of the enduring creations of the human mind which spur the species on to greater cultural achievements, it is, first and foremost, an economic classic. Insofar as George pointed to monopoly and privilege as socially disastrous institutions , his teaching has been adopted by economists everywhere. His doctrine that all men share a common right to the earth now rules space exploitation—that is, the universe —and the deep oceans and it is winning grudging recognition in the one-fourth of the earth humanity inhabits.     

Economic Religion and the Worship of Progress

In contemporary thought, the terms “secular” and “religious” are polar opposites. They are held to occupy separate domains. But that view is mistaken. Religious belief organizes society around fundamental ideas about ethics and existence. This article examines the way economic belief systems function as religions. Economic thought in various forms (Marxist, Keynesian, neoclassical) is brimming with implicit religious meaning. Instead of belief in an afterlife and heaven, modern economics promises heaven on earth in the form of continuous material progress. Adherents of competing economic ideologies often promote them with the energy of religious zealots. Thus, modern societies are still organized around religious principles, but they are now hidden from sight. This article shows how the religious dimension of the modern worship of economic progress is rooted in Christian theology: Calvinism in the United States and Lutheranism in the Nordic countries, which are famous for their own brand of social democracy. In recent decades, secular faith in the religion of economic progress has begun to falter. The failures of mainstream economics to warn of impending crisis has reduced its credibility, even among economists. More importantly, the rise of environmentalism as a religion has vastly increased the number of citizens who question the goal of material progress. The attack on economic religion may have also undermined the credibility of mainstream political parties, partially explaining Brexit in England and the election of Donald Trump in the United States.     

Social Ecological Economics: Understanding the Past to See the Future

The attempt to provide insight into the interactions between the economy and the environment has been an on‐going struggle for many decades. The rise of Ecological Economics can be seen as a positive step towards integrating social and natural science understanding by a movement that aims to go beyond the confines of mainstream economics towards a progressive political economy of the environment. However, this vision has not been shared by all those who have associated themselves with Ecological Economics and there has been conflict. An historical analysis is presented that shows the role of mainstream theory in delimiting the field of environmental research. The argument is put forward that rather than employing a purely mechanistic objective empirical methodology there is a need for an integrating interdisciplinarity heterodox economic approach. In order to distinguish this approach—from the more mainstream multidisciplinary linking of unreconstituted ecological and economic models—the name Social Ecological Economics is put forward as expressing the essential socio‐economic character of the needed work ahead.     

Max Weber

A bstract .   This paper argues that Weber's outline and research program is only of limited relevance for present-day economic sociology and heterodox economics because Weber had a rather narrow and static understanding of rationality and the economy. Uncertainty, both as a basic fact of economic life and in the interpretation of what rational action means in specific contexts, is missing in his approach. After a short discussion of the secondary literature on Weber's methodology, the paper focuses on the most important writings of Weber on methods and economics (e.g., his outline and some parts of Economy and Society ). The result of our investigation is that Weber shared a rather narrow, neoclassical understanding of the Austrian variant of economics. His important construction of goal-oriented behavior as the major methodological advice to analyze human action presupposes the idealized assumptions of perfect knowledge. His understanding of the market exchange process, price setting, and the functioning of full competition are rather conventional and elementary. Weber's genius did not materialize in the field of economics, but in his sociology of religion and law and in his sociology of domination.     

THE FAILURE OF THE POLL TAX AND CLASSICAL LIBERAL POLITICAL ECONOMY: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

The failure of the Poll Tax has been claimed to be an indictment of the principles of classical liberal political economy that it was intended to apply to local government finance. This article argues that, on the contrary, the failure of the Poll Tax was entirely predictable from the perspective of classical liberal political economy, and, in particular, public choice economics, because it involved a politically impossible reassignment of the local tax burden, presented local electors with an insurmountable collective action problem and ignored the 'vote motive' underlying the actions of national politicians held accountable for the new tax. Finally, the article proposes some lessons for the future of local government reform from the experience of the Poll Tax.