Political and Social Economics: Beyond Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Economists face at least two problems when they try to go interdisciplinary. One is how to adapt their theory where the original set of assumptions may fail to apply. This is a particular problem for economists who carry the “default” neoclassical model around in their heads. This paper outlines a map for keeping track of assumptions when doing interdisciplinary work. A second problem is how to take a theory designed for one discipline and turn it into something intelligible to practitioners of another. One needs a common language, and it is argued that general systems theory might help, even though it is not a complete language. The map proposed here provides a unified way to compare and contrast the approaches of different orthodox and heterodox traditions and better see what problems they are most suited to addressing.

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.     

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.     

Post-truth: an alumni economist’s perspective

ABSTRACT

Drawing upon 50 years as an academic economist, this lecture to alumni of SOAS’s Department of Economics reflects upon the continual ‘post-truth’ aspects of mainstream economics, ranging over its substantive, if shifting, content, and its treatment of methodology and interdisciplinarity. It draws upon a wide range of theory, empirical analysis, policy and anecdote to highlight both the need for alternatives and the continuing, even increased, failure of the mainstream to engage with criticism and alternatives.     

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.     

马克思主义政治经济学与西方经济学教学关系刍议

改革开放的实践告诉我们,不搞市场经济,中国无法提高生产力水平;不坚持社会主义方向,中国无法消除两极分化、达到共同富裕。高校如何开好马克思主义政治经济学和西方经济学这两门课,关系到中国特色社会主义事业的接班人和建设者综合素质,关系到国家的命运和前途。为此,笔者认为,首先要准确把握好这两门课的性质和功能,摆正二者的位置,处理好二者的关系;然后要对教学内容、教学环节、教学方法作一些大胆的改进。最重要的一点,是对担任这两门课的教师,要实行＂准入制＂。     

Complexity Economics as Heterodoxy: Theory and Policy

Complexity economics has quickly become a powerful research program for real-world economics in recent years. This article provides an overview of complexity economics, and argues that it is incompatible with the “equilibrium” and “optimality” conceptions of the mainstream and its “market economy.” Instead, it develops older heterodox — including evolutionary-institutional — issues like self-organization, emergence, path?dependence, idiosyncrasies, lock-ins, or skewed power distributions. Also, the space for emergent institutions through the “intentionality” of agents, including their improving collective performance, reducing complexity, and others, is investigated. This article considers complex adaptive systems through “games on networks” in an “evolution-of-cooperation” perspective. Moreover, a surge in policy implications of economic complexity has emerged, even if still rather general. With some more specific implications derived, the article again reveals the close similarities with long-standing heterodoxies: namely, pragmatist policy conceptions in this respect.     

The nature of heterodox economics

Heterodoxy serves as an umbrella term to cover the coming togetherof separate projects or traditions. In answering the question,‘what distinguishes heterodoxy from the orthodoxy?’,the author argues that matters of ontology are central. In answeringthe question, ‘how are the various traditions that makeup the modern heterodoxy to be distinguished from each other?’,the author defends criteria other than varying commitments tospecific substantive theories, policy measures or techniques(or basic units) of analysis.     

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.     

Post Keynesianism,Heterodoxy and Mainstream Economics

After briefly presenting the concepts of orthodox, mainstream and heterodox economics, and applying them to the contemporary period, this article discusses the Post Keynesian school and its relation to contemporary orthodox and mainstream economics. While opposed to the neoclassical orthodoxy, the Post Keynesian school has some positive unifying ideas, although some internal tensions remain. There are also some overlaps between Post Keynesianism and other approaches, and a careful combination of contributions from different approaches and different disciplines is not only possible, but also necessary. Post Keynesianism is located outside current mainstream economics, although this argument partly depends on a more precise specification of the concept of uncertainty. The non-mainstream character of Post Keynesian economics has at least two types of important implications. The first involves the approach's ability to influence the economy and the danger of ‘the scholastic fallacy’; the second refers to a reproductive difficulty inside academia.     

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.     

The Social Economics of Globalization

There is general agreement on the moral values that globalization should serve. These are widespread prosperity and economic growth, ecological sustainability, and cultural diversity. Proponents believe that neoliberal globalization will achieve these goals, while the critics believe that globalization undermines them. An institutionalist theory that recognizes the reality of economic power and choice posits that globalization enhances the power of the business sector at the expense of the government and moral–cultural sectors. Policies for redressing this imbalance are discussed.     

The Social Economics of Globalization

There is general agreement on the moral values that globalization should serve. These are widespread prosperity and economic growth, ecological sustainability, and cultural diversity. Proponents believe that neoliberal globalization will achieve these goals, while the critics believe that globalization undermines them. An institutionalist theory that recognizes the reality of economic power and choice posits that globalization enhances the power of the business sector at the expense of the government and moral–cultural sectors. Policies for redressing this imbalance are discussed.

Social Economics and Evolutionary Learning

The major premise of this paper is that social and individual well-being depends significantly on people's capacity to learn and unlearn in communication with each other. This paper builds on social economic traditions that see communication and conversation as evolutionary generative and adaptive mechanisms through which individual and social learning occurs. Drawing on educational psychology and organizational behavior scholarship, five dynamic processes of conversational learning are introduced with the contention that they can help social economists understand at a micro level more deeply and more concretely how learning happens in the give-and-take of conversation. The paper explores the role of the state, organizations, and communities in fostering individual freedom and dignity, human rights, and economic democracy and concludes that the investment of value in people and their capability for purposeful action as social economic stakeholders can be enhanced through conversation as learning.     

超越契约理论--演化论视角的企业理论研究

企业的契约理论围绕交易成本概念解释了企业的存在、边界和内部组织,但严重忽视了企业的技术和生产功能,演化经济学的企业理论通过研究企业内知识的产生、传播和利用过程,以及组织与个人的交互学习,不仅重新解释了企业的存在、边界和内部组织问题,还研究了契约理论未触及的企业异质性、竞争优势和企业家等问题.     

资源配置：政治经济学研究对象新论

研究对象问题既是政治经济学理论问题,又是创新构建政治经济学体系的基本问题。传统观点认为政治经济学的研究对象是生产关系,是阐明人类社会中支配物质资料生产、交换、分配及消费的客观规律的科学。但政治经济学必须随时代的发展而发展,其研究对象绝不能仅仅局限于生产关系,政治经济学从本质上要求研究资源配置问题,将资源配置纳入政治经济学研究对象,是体现政治经济学与时俱进,开拓创新的重要标志。     

The Challenge of Social Economics: A Review Essay

This paper starts from the perspective that giving meaning to life is a key function of religion: through its narratives, rituals, creeds, and practices, religion clothes life in a meaningful frame. Interestingly, though, meaning of life has not yet appeared in studies on the relation between religion and economic behavior. As meaning of life may prove to be a crucial factor in understanding this relation, this paper seeks to develop a new approach to understanding the link between religion and economic behavior from the viewpoint of meaning of life.     

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.     

关于新政治经济学的思考

本文认为,建立社会主义新政治经济学的指导思想仍然应是马克思主义。其研究对象是生产关系及其经济运行;新政治经济学也应该讲政治。