Perspectives for Post-Keynesian Economics

The paper reviews and assesses the negative and positive advice which has been offered by various fellow economists to heterodox economists in general, and Post-Keynesian economists in particular, in light of changes that have occurred within neoclassical economics and in light of the rising hegemony of mainstream economics in economics departments. Various strategies are considered, among which is more engagement with orthodox dissenters, but it is concluded that the majority of heterodox economists ought instead to engage more with other heterodox economists and possibly other social sciences, developing and expanding their own agenda around real-world problems.     

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.     

Mainstream economics, heterodoxy and academic exclusion: a review essay

Does the mainstream of economic thinking and analysis tend systematically to exclude ideas and approaches that could enrich the field, and, as a consequence, have important questions and issues been shunted aside for nonobjective reasons? Two recent volumes by heterodox economists that address these questions are Geoffrey Hodgson's How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science, and Steve Keen's Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences. I evaluate their claims of academic exclusion and assess the current state of (selective) pluralism within mainstream economics.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory

It is somewhat common for heterodox economists to come to the defense of neoclassical microeconomic theory. This is due to many reasons, but perhaps the commonest one is ignorance. It seems that most heterodox economists are not aware of the many critiques or that as a collective they completely undermine neoclassical theory. The objective of the article is to dispel ignorance by using the existing criticisms to delineate a systematic critique of the core components of neoclassical microeconomic theory: the supply and demand explanation of the price mechanism and its application to competitive markets. The critique starts by examining the choices, preferences, utility functions, and demand curves, followed by examining production, costs, factor input demand functions and partial equilibrium, and ending with perfect competition and the supply curve. In the conclusion, the implications of the results will be extended to the firm and imperfectly competitive markets, and then the question whether general equilibrium theory or game theory can save neoclassical microeconomic theory.     

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.     

Institutions in the economy and some institutions of mainstream economics: From the late 1970s to the 2008 financial and economic crisis

This article proposes a conceptual and theoretical institutional approach to the relations between the economy and economics and uses it to examine, through a structured survey of the literature, the relations between institutions in the economy and the institutions of mainstream economics, macroeconomics, and financial economics, highlighting issues related to the financial and macroeconomic crisis and focusing on the United States from the late 1970s to 2008. Institutions are socially shared systems of rules of behavior or of thought. Some systems of mental and behavioral rules are socially shared among economic agents and policymakers in part because they are socially shared among academic economists. They may exert on economic agents and policymakers some of the same types of influence they have on economists. On the other hand, there are important limits to the influence of the institutions of economics outside academia, and institutions in the economy also influence the institutions of 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.     

阿马蒂亚·森发展理论探析

阿马蒂亚.森凭借自己在经济伦理方面的突出贡献,打开了或至少是恢复了一个与现代主流经济学世界迥异的、经济学研究的"另一个世界"。站在这另一个世界中,森向我们昭示了一种相异于主流增长发展、堪称"异端"的另类发展理论。他的这一另类发展理论具有三方面的特点,一是以伦理原则指导发展,二是以理性争取发展,三是以自由看待发展。就当前而言,森的发展理念无疑切中了我们现代社会的发展困境问题。     

Neuroeconomics: Infeasible and Underdetermined

Advocates of neuroeconomics claim to offer the prospect of creating a “unified behavioral theory” by drawing upon the techniques of neuroscience and psychology and combining them with economic theory. Ostensibly, through the “direct measurement” of our thoughts, economics and social science will be “revolutionized.” Such claims have been subject to critique from mainstream and non-mainstream economists alike. Many of these criticisms relate to measurability, relevance, and coherence. In this article, we seek to contribute to this critical examination by investigating the potential of underdetermination, such as the statement that testing involves the conjunction of auxiliary assumptions, and that consequently it may not be possible to isolate the effect of any given hypothesis. We argue that neuroeconomics is especially sensitive to issues of underdetermination. Institutional economists should be cautious of neuroeconomists’ zeal as they appear to over-interpret experimental findings and, therefore, neuroeconomics may provide a false prospectus seeking to reinforce the nostrums of homo economicus.     

Contributions of German and American jesuits to economics: The last 100 years

This article focuses on the contributions of six economists schooled in the Jesuit tradition. Four are Jesuit priests: Heinrich Pesch and Oswald von Nell-Breuning who are German, and Bernard Dempsey and Joseph Becker who are American. Two others, Goetz Briefs and William Waters, are lay persons who are referred to as “Jesuits without collars.” Five have direct ties to one another. Von Nell Breuning was a student of Pesch, as was Briefs. Waters was a student of Briefs, and Dempsey was influenced by Pesch and von Nell-Breuning. All five are solidarist economists who think about economics and economic affairs in a distinct way which originates with Pesch. Today they would be called personalist economists. The distinctive work of these six Jesuits is barely visible in the ranks of academic economists. Their contributions should be highlighted before they are lost forever to those who sense there is something inadequate about mainstream economics.     

Contributions of German and American jesuits to economics: The last 100 years

This article focuses on the contributions of six economists schooled in the Jesuit tradition. Four are Jesuit priests: Heinrich Pesch and Oswald von Nell-Breuning who are German, and Bernard Dempsey and Joseph Becker who are American. Two others, Goetz Briefs and William Waters, are lay persons who are referred to as “Jesuits without collars.” Five have direct ties to one another. Von Nell Breuning was a student of Pesch, as was Briefs. Waters was a student of Briefs, and Dempsey was influenced by Pesch and von Nell-Breuning. All five are solidarist economists who think about economics and economic affairs in a distinct way which originates with Pesch. Today they would be called personalist economists. The distinctive work of these six Jesuits is barely visible in the ranks of academic economists. Their contributions should be highlighted before they are lost forever to those who sense there is something inadequate about mainstream economics.     

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.     

Ethics,human behavior and the methodology of social economics

Social economists differ among themselves but are united in rejecting the rational actor model. They insist that individuals are more than economic actors; they arepersons with ethical values who live in community. That agreement over fundamentals leads social economists to embrace a methodological approach that differs substantially from the mainstream of economics. They (sometimes explicitly but usually implicitly), engage in a special form of storytelling known in the philosophy of social science as pattern modeling. Instead of using a pre-existing theoretical framework, such as rational choice theory, to logically construct a story, this type of story is constructed empirically from the bottom up through the use of case studies. The article concludes with a specific consideration of Albert Hirschman's methodology to illustrate the storytelling approach of a first rate and well-recognized social economist.     

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.     

Ethics,human behavior and the methodology of social economics

Social economists differ among themselves but are united in rejecting the rational actor model. They insist that individuals are more than economic actors; they arepersons with ethical values who live in community. That agreement over fundamentals leads social economists to embrace a methodological approach that differs substantially from the mainstream of economics. They (sometimes explicitly but usually implicitly), engage in a special form of storytelling known in the philosophy of social science as pattern modeling. Instead of using a pre-existing theoretical framework, such as rational choice theory, to logically construct a story, this type of story is constructed empirically from the bottom up through the use of case studies. The article concludes with a specific consideration of Albert Hirschman's methodology to illustrate the storytelling approach of a first rate and well-recognized social economist.     

Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success

Abstract

This essay is a comment on“The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics”by Frances Woolley, which appeared in Feminist Economics, Vol. 11, No. 3, November 2005.

This contribution comments on Frances Woolley's recent Feminist Economics article, “The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics.” It points to two avenues through which Woolley's article could have better illuminated the extent of Feminist Economics' scholarly relationship with the communities of both heterodox and mainstream economists: first, she omits several important heterodox economic journals in her study, and second, she could have offered a more critical evaluation of mainstream journals and economists relative to Feminist Economics and feminist economists. This paper uses citation data drawn from ten heterodox and ten mainstream journals to identify and build on these gaps.     

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.