Reply to Frederic Lee's Comment on “The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics”

Abstract

This essay is a response to “A Comment on the Citation Impact of Feminist Economics,” by Frederic Lee, which appears in this issue ofFeminist Economics.

Frederic Lee's comment is a valuable addition to our understanding of the intellectual interactions between feminist economics and other schools of heterodox thought, and demonstrates how much can be learned by studying citation patterns.     

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.     

Adding links,adding persons,and adding structures: Using Sen's frameworks

Abstract

This essay is a comment on “Sen on Freedom and Gender Justice,” by Mozaffar Qizilbash, which appeared in Feminist Economics Volume 11, Number 3, November 2005.

Building on the 2003 double special issue of Feminist Economics entitled “Amartya Sen's Work and Ideas,” this paper responds to the review essay by Mozaffar Qizilbash. It identifies and illustrates various possible evaluations of a theoretical system, including that it has acknowledged strengths, unrecognized strengths, remediable gaps or failings, or structural faults. The paper then looks at Sen's system as a theoretical basis for “human development”– in particular in relation to personhood, emotions, and psychological interdependence – and argues that it points in directions required for economic and social analysis, including towards theories of care, but is not itself a sufficient treatment. The paper suggests deepening Sen's system by connecting to other important languages of analysis concerning the structuring of attitudes, emotions, felt well-being, public reasoning, and politics.     

Guy Routh's Heterodox Critique of Economic Methodology

Guy Routh was an outstandingly incisive and severe critic of mainstream economic theory's abstraction, class bias, and empirical irrelevance. Routh's The Origin of Economic Ideas (1975 1989), with such chapter titles as “The Preposterous Origins” and “From Propaganda to Dogma”, was described by Robert Heilbroner as “irreverent, original, controversial, and delightful” while J. K. Galbraith expressed his “utmost enjoyment” and “utmost approval” of the book. Routh's trenchant critique of mainstream theorizing and his vision of an empirically-grounded alternative have been largely forgotten since his death in 1993, but deserve the attention of heterodox and especially of institutionalist and social economists.     

The wages‐and‐profits fund: Classical remnants in Marshall's early theory of distribution

Abstract

This paper traces the development of Marshall's theory of wages from the late 1860s to the publication of the first edition of the Principles of Economics (1890). Section one attempts to unravel Marshall's recollections of early intellectual influences, many of which were often distorted or wrong. Specifically, J. S. Mill's, Fleeming Jenkin's and J. H. von Thünen's influence on Marshall's early theory of distribution is explored in this context. In section two, analyses of Marshall's theory of wages in Economics of Industry (1879) and in other published writings is presented. This section draws attention to the similarity between Marshall's treatment of wages and the classical wage fund doctrine. In the final section, we re‐examine Marshall's defence of his theory of value and distribution in the Economics of Industry in the face of criticism of it by American economists S. M. MacVane and J. L. Laughlin in the Quarterly Journal of 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.     

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.     

Reassessing welfare reform data: a response to cherry

Abstract

This is a response to Robert Cherry's comment on the article, “Welfare as We [Don't] Know It: A Review and Feminist Critique of Welfare Reform Research” that appeared in the 10(2) issue of Feminist Economics. This response argues that while some combination of welfare reform, the booming economy in the late 1990s, and changes in economic policy all worked together to decrease caseloads and increase employment rates among welfare leavers, these are incomplete measures of the impact of welfare reform on the lives of lone mothers. This paper also argues that the effects of welfare reform on lone mothers are more mixed than Cherry acknowledges. This paper concludes that when one holistically examines low-income lone mothers' lives, it is premature to declare welfare reform a success.     

Social Economics and Evolutionary Institutionalism Today

This paper discusses theoretical and methodological elements that constitute social economics. It also considers those elements for evolutionary (Veblenian) institutional economics. It investigates how these “heterodoxies” may further converge. Such convergence would probably not trigger a complete unification, but lead to a broadly defined common research program and a strategy for joint “heterodox” survival, in face of the ranking game of the neoclassical “mainstream” and of the dominant powers supporting it as the discipline providing ideological legitimization. A common denominator of “heterodoxies” in terms of real-world orientation, direct interdependency and interaction of agents (social decision situations), appropriate complexity, and the treatment of values is drafted. Theoretical concepts discussed include complex and open systems, individual agency, institutions, embeddedness, networks, social reform, and process orientation. Formal methodological developments considered are complex modeling, game theory, or computer simulations. We arrive at a more formal common basis, which we term socio-economics. We also consider the relations of evolution and institutions, the institutional dichotomy, and the theory of institutional change. The monism of the “market” of the “mainstream” turns out to dissolve into the institutional diversity of real-world network forms, which helps explaining real-world forms of markets, hierarchies, or spatial clusters. Focuses of “heterodox” convergence will have to be the related “microfoundations” and “macrofoundations” projects, integrating an interdisciplinary “naturalistic” approach to genetic-cultural co-evolution of cooperation, and social reform. While modern socio-economics makes “heterodoxies” leading in economic research, their future still appears open between ideological cleansing and extinction through the mainstream, and proactive paradigmatic pluralism.     

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.     

Financial and Capital Account Liberalization,Financial Development and Economic Development: A Review of Some Recent Contributions

Abstract

This article presents a review of some recent contributions on the relation between global finance and economic development in emerging economies. It first, stresses the growing consensus among economists on the financial instability that financial and capital account liberalization can possibly cause in emerging economies. It then outlines and compares two alternative strategies to tame such instability. The comparison is between the “good-institutions need-to-come-first” approach put forward by some mainstream economists, and the request for a deeper reform of the existing monetary system advocated by heterodox economists.     

How modern economics learned French: Jacques Drèze and the foundation of CORE

The Center of Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), founded in 1966, was one of the channels through which economic modelling practices were imported from the USA to Europe. Officially modelled after the Cowles Foundation for Economics Research, it reflected Jacques Drèze's broad experiences in the USA during the 1950s when modelling techniques were not yet anchored in disciplines. CORE gained an international reputation, however, through the rather exclusive community of Neo-Walrasian economists represented by Werner Hildenbrand, Jean Gabszewicz, and Gérard Debreu. After this community modified the disciplinary divisions at CORE, the influence of CORE on continental economics occurred mainly through disequilibrium economics, which still represents a “French accent” in modern macroeconomics. At the same time, operations research and econometrics prospered at CORE while receiving scant attention from economists. This essay tells the story of how CORE changed continental economics through the unique career path of its founder, Jacques Drèze.     

Epistemology and the tasks of feminist economics

This paper examines the implications of current epistemological debates for the work of feminist economists. Feminist economists must acknowledge (in accordance with recent developments in the study of science) that (a) inquirers can never be certain whether claims about the world are true; (b) scientific inquiry is permeated with “internal” and “external” values; and (c) beliefs are affected by inquirers' social locations. But feminists should not, it argues, embrace the “relativist” stance of some postmodern thinkers, or reject the ideal of “truth,” or argue that beliefs are strictly determined by inquirers' identities and interests. It seeks to outline an epistemological “middle ground” for feminist economics, between the extremes of exaggerated claims of certainty and a disempowering relativism.     

On being an equal opportunity journal

In this paper I argue that Maggie Coleman's paper, “On Being An Equal Opportunity Hire: A Personal Reminiscence” and papers like it should be published in Feminist Economics because they articulate clearly the complexities of gender, class, and power relations which inform discussions in economics as well as in other disciplines.     

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.     

Political economy and the closet: heteronormativity in feminist economics

Abstract

Returning to a question raised by M. V. Lee Badgett in the first issue of Feminist Economics, this paper traces the persistence of heteronormativity in feminist economics to assumptions that kinship is organized around conjugal bonds. These assumptions let “the family” stand automatically for a husband, wife, and their children. “Heteronormativity” is not a synonym for heterosexual privilege, but rather names tacit conceptions about what is socially normal, conceptions that make it possible to think of heterosexuals or homosexuals as essential categories of people. Critique of heteronormativity makes visible a pattern of state repression that makes proper citizens by opposing them to improper ones, a process that simultaneously shapes gender, sexuality, citizenship, and race. Such critique opens the opportunity to better understand gender, integrate scholarship on lesbians and gays, link gender analysis more directly to racializing processes, and reopen the category of heterosexuality.     

Philosophy of Economics Rules: introduction to the symposium

ABSTRACT

Economists have long been criticized for their use of highly idealized models. In Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015] Dani Rodrik responds to this criticism by offering an account of models that emphasizes the diversity of models in economics. Rodrik’s account presents a rare opportunity for economists and philosophers of economics to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange that could improve our understanding of the power and limits of economics, and the rights and wrongs of the dismal science. The symposium on Rodrik’s Economics Rules is the first attempt to seize this opportunity.     

A Case Study of Pluralism in Economics: The Heterodox Glass Ceiling in Italy

ABSTRACT

Quantitative measures of supposed scientific ‘quality’ (or ‘impact’) based on bibliometric indicators are used as the primary or exclusive tools of research evaluation in a growing number of countries. The negative impact of this method of evaluation on pluralism in economic teaching and research has been documented in Italy, France, Australia and the United Kingdom. We provide new evidence for Italy by investigating the CVs and publications of all candidates for the ‘national scientific qualification’, which is needed to access all tenured Italian academic positions. With respect to past evidence, we focus on the homologation of research topics and methods as well as the delegitimization of particular publication outlets. Our analysis has relevant implications internationally. First, research evaluation aimed at identifying ‘excellence’ often boils down to (as in the case of Italy) the adoption of rankings of supposedly top journals, which systematically discriminate against heterodox journals. Second, the legitimacy of academic research published in the form of books and book chapters must be reclaimed. Third, heterodox economists risk discrimination not so much because of their methods or policy recommendations, but because of the topics and research fields they investigate.     

Scientific misconduct and research ethics in economics: an introduction

Abstract

Since the screening of Inside Job in movie theatres around the world in 2010, research integrity in economics has been questioned by scholars and public intellectuals. Prestigious economists and policy makers are accused of conflicts of interest while prominent economists are charged with plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Some of these economists replied to accusations about themselves while many others have preferred not to respond at all. These days, economists hear the following question more often than before: “what is wrong with economics?”     

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.