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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Classical Surplus Theory and Heterodox Economics

It has recently been suggested that heterodox economics can benefit from an engagement with classical surplus theory. However, caution is often recommended due to the ideological concepts that are embedded in classical political economy. This article argues that many of the ideological concepts that are often attributed to classical political economy are actually not part of classical political economy, but rather of a “vulgar” form of political economy, a project that emerged after Ricardo. This vulgar project, often termed as “Ricardian economics,” is often mistakenly taken to be a development of classical political economy, but it is actually a rupture with the classical political economy of Petty, Smith, and Ricardo, as Marx, and later Sraffa, argued. Once this is acknowledged, the relationship between classical political economy and heterodox economics becomes clearer.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

MODELLING COGNITIVELY BOUNDED RATIONALITY: AN EVALUATIVE TAXONOMY

Abstract Since its origins in the 1950s, the notion of bounded rationality has been incorporated into economic theory using an array of methodological approaches. This paper presents a taxonomy by which these approaches can be categorized and understood, evaluating each approach against a range of important criteria. At a time when the foundations of economic theory are being re‐examined, this paper should be viewed as a first step towards an assessment of the appropriate role that this more realistic view of cognition should take in different areas of economic theory, and also of the desirable characteristics of models that incorporate it.     

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.     

Research Evaluation Down Under: An Outsider's View from the Inside of the Australian Approach

Australia is currently undertaking its first national evaluation of university research, which is being performed by the Australian Research Council (ARC) at the request of the Australian government. The Australian approach to evaluation has some unique characteristics, especially a focus on evaluating research quantity and quality by the field of the research activity rather than by individual academic or administrative unit. This raises issues of the classification of areas of research, which has already caused controversy for Australian heterodox economists. There is also controversy about the quality rankings of economics journals. This article provides a critical review of the Australian approach to research evaluation and discusses the implications for heterodox economists.     

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.     

Parsonian Economic Sociology

A bstract .   This article focuses on Parsonian economic sociology and its actual or potential bridges and contributions to contemporary economics. These bridges are methodological or epistemological and theoretical or substantive ones. A relevant instance of the methodological bridges is socioeconomic holism, epitomized in the systems approach to economy and society. An important case of the theoretical bridges is sociological institutionalism. The holistic systems approach is a pertinent methodological bridge in that it treats the economy as an integral element of society as a larger system, and consequently treats economics as part of the complex of social sciences. Sociological institutionalism is an important theoretical bridge to (especially institutional) economics by virtue of its emphasis on social institutions and their economic significance. Some other methodological and theoretical bridges of Parsonian economic sociology to contemporary economics are also identified and discussed.     

Max Weber as an Economist and as a Sociologist

A bstract In this article I first give a picture of Weber as an economist, mainly by focussing on a text which he distributed to his students when he taught economics in the 1890s. From this text it is, for example, clear that Weber was positive to the use of marginal utility theory in theoretical economics, but also felt that this approach was insufficient, by itself, to analyze empirical phenomena. I then outline Weber's work in economic sociology, relying primarily on Economy and Society and its central Chapter 2 ("Sociological Categories of Economic Action"). The differences between the approaches of economic theory and economic sociology, as seen by Weber, are summarized, and an account is given of some of Weber's most suggestive concepts in economic sociology. In the concluding section the question is raised as to when the analyst, according to Weber, should use economic sociology rather than economic theory, and vice versa. Weber's ideas about a broad economic science–what he termed Sozialökonomik or social economics–are also presented.     

Pluralism at Risk? Heterodox Economic Approaches and the Evaluation of Economic Research in Italy

We analyze Italy's recent research evaluation exercise (VTR) as a salient example in discussing some internationally relevant issues emerging from the evaluation of research in economics. We claim that evaluation and its criteria, together with its linkage to research institutions' financing, are likely to affect the direction of research in a problematic way. As the Italian case documents, it is specifically economists who adopt unorthodox paradigms or pursue less diffused topics of research that should be concerned about research evaluation and its criteria. After outlining the recent practice of economic research in Italy and highlighting the relevant scope for pluralism that traditionally characterizes it, we analyze the publications submitted for evaluation to the VTR. By comparing these publications to all the entries in the EconLit database authored by economists located in Italy, we find a risk that the adopted ranking criteria may lead to disregarding historical methods in favor of quantitative and econometric methods, and heterodox schools in favor of mainstream approaches. Finally, by summarizing the current debate in Italy, we claim that evaluation should not be refused by heterodox economists, but rather that a reflection on the criteria of evaluation should be put forward at an international level in order to establish fair competition among research paradigms, thus, preserving pluralism in the discipline.     

Different but Equal? On the Contribution of Dissident Economists

The availability of publication and citation databases facilitate construction of rankings of economics journals, economists, and departments. Mainstream economists typically find the research questions and methods of heterodox economists dubious, and this reaction creates a bias against heterodox research in peer review, which extends to traditional bibliometric rankings. University administrators interested in improving the quality of the economics department, as conventionally measured, will see heterodox economists as a liability. But establishing the bias of conventional metrics of scholarship quality and the consequences of these biases does not establish the comparable worth of the contributions of dissident economists. This special issue seeks innovated ways to document the relative quality of the contributions of dissident economists.     

Would You Barter with God? Why Holy Debts and Not Profane Markets Created Money

Attempting to revitalize the substantive approach to economics in the tradition of K. Polanyi, this paper revives the neglected substantive theory of money's origins by Bernhard Laum and thus disputes the formal approaches that see the origins of money in the context of trade. A wide range of evidence, from archeological to etymological, is utilized to demonstrate that relations between men and God, carried out through the intermediary of state‐religious authorities, played a causal role in the genesis of the ox‐unit of value and account, and, further, in the origins of money, and, subsequently, coinage. The substantive state‐religious approach presented in this paper is also compared and contrasted to the Chartalist perspective on money's origins. It is concluded that the substantive approach presented in this paper differs from the more formal approaches (e.g., Metallism) because it does not rely upon a projection of modern institutions and habits of thought (e.g., a medium of exchange; monetary taxation) into ancient societies.     

CLASSIFYING MONETARY ECONOMICS: FIELDS AND METHODS FROM PAST TO FUTURE

Abstract We propose a simple, yet sufficiently encompassing, classification scheme of monetary economics. It comprises three fundamental fields and six recent areas that expand within and across these fields. The elements of our scheme are not found together and in their mutual relationships in earlier studies of the relevant literature; neither does this attempt aim to produce a relatively complete systematization. Our intention in taking stock is not finality or exhaustiveness. We rather suggest a viewpoint and a possible ordering of the accumulating knowledge. Our purpose is to promote discussion on the evolving nature and internal consistency of monetary economics at large.