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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Work is a Four‐Letter Word: The Economics of Work in Historical and Critical Perspective*

The article highlights and explains the neglect of the activity of work in much of the mainstream economics literature. The neglect of work is seen to have denied space for mainstream economists to engage with the full range of possibilities for progress in human well‐being. The article also considers perspectives on work from within heterodox or non‐mainstream economics and argues that these perspectives provide a superior foundation for the theorization of work.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Increasing the Impact of Heterodox Work: Insights from RoSE

To help understand what enhances the prospects for heterodox work to have strong research impact, this article analyzes the pool of articles published in the Review of Social Economy in the past 15 years, aiming to identify what differentiates well‐cited articles from others. Well‐cited papers tend to be in areas of core concern in social economics (labor, health, social theory) and attract attention in related social sciences and policy fields. Yet about half the articles published in RoSE are not cited in another scholarly journal within three years of publication, suggesting that, as well done and interesting as these papers may be, problems like narrow focus seem to limit their influence on other people's work. The article's results suggest that increasing the impact of heterodox work requires articles to be interesting and accessible to intentionally broad audiences, and to prompt people to change their thinking. Better still if they open up channels of communication between diverse communities of scholars that are likely to be sustained.     

The Heterodox Economics of "The Most Orthodox of Orthodox Economists"

A bstract The prevailing view of Frank Knight is that he was a defender of neoclassical economics and the free market system While this view has validity, it tends to obscure the presence of significant heterodox elements in his thought Knight was, in fact, one of the most perceptive critics of economic orthodoxy and the market system The question thus arises as to how Knight could combine advocacy and criticism of the market system Knight reconciled the two by separating questions of policy from the evaluation of ideals. Thus while his criticism of the market system proceeded on the basis of regarding it as ideal, in contrast his judgments on policy were based upon comparisons of the available alternatives. Knight found the alternatives to the imperfect market order even less appealing     

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.     

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.     

Feminist Economics: Theoretical and Political Dimensions

Feminist economics is a school of economic thought and political action that gained important visibility during the 1990s, although its origins can be dated back to the mid‐19^th century. Since then, feminist economics has developed its own concepts, analytical frameworks, and methodologies. With gender as a central category, it seeks a more integral and humane comprehension of the economy and of the processes of inclusion and exclusion taking place in it. In addition, feminist economics has grown into a political practice that aims at improving the functioning of the economic system so that all people can have access to a dignified life on the basis of equality. This article presents a general systematization of these theoretical and political dimensions, particularly focusing on the critique of the neoclassical paradigm and its political correlates. We connect the epistemological, methodological, and conceptual contributions of feminist economics, as well as its propositions for transformative action, to specific debates on economic issues, such as the ecological emergency, crisis and austerity, the commodification of life, and the liberalization of trade.     

Henry George and the Ethics of Economics

Abstract . Henry George's Progress and Poverty (1879) is a great ethical masterpiece. Its moral tone distinguishes the book. More than an economics test, it is a philosophic quest for justice, an impassioned declaration of the rule of natural law. Indignantly attacking the contention that economics has no place for natural law or ethics, George exclaims: “She [economics] has been degraded and shackled; her truths dislocated; her harmonies ignored.” On the contrary, George stresses, political economy (economics) is a science, and like all sciences, is governed by natural law. Furthermore, it is basically “moral.” Science must, of necessity, always lead to ethics. Natural law must, of necessity, always lead to morality, or justice.“The law of human progress, what is it but the moral law?” George asks. “Unless its foundation be laid in justice the social structure cannot stand.” The social ill that perpetuates poverty and the manifold evils it causes is private ownership of land and the private privilege of collecting its rent. “The fundamental law of nature, that the enjoyment by man shall be consequent upon his exertion, is thus violated.”     

Economics,Darwinism, and the Case of Disciplinary Imports

The problem of causality in economics is still contended by various epistemological alternatives. The article builds on the received view of Darwinism in economics and examines the way in which economics and biology find common ground in concepts and assumptions that reflect causal commonalities of the natural and the social world. We claim that the role the contingent pattern plays in understanding socioeconomic change provides reasons to concede corrections to a rule‐based causal mechanism. The article concludes on the merits of advancing the ontological equivalent of interdisciplinary studies as one possible standard in reference to which to judge the epistemic adequacy of any import.     

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.     

The Economists of Tomorrow: The Case for Assertive Pluralism in Economics Education

This article presents the case for “assertive pluralism” in economics education and proposes how to achieve it, illustrating the point with reference to the U.K. Subject Benchmark Statement in Economics (SBSE). It proposes a revision of the benchmark, prioritizing the role of controversy in the teaching of economics, combined with pluralistic principles that uphold and guarantee critical and independent thinking. This reform is a necessary response to what Colander et al. (2009 ) term the “systemic failure” of economics—the inability of the profession, taken as a whole, to anticipate and understand the financial crash and recession of 2008. Failure on this scale testifies to a more deep‐seated weakness in economics than commonly recognized. It arises from what Turner ( Tett 2009 ) terms the regulatory capture of the economics profession by narrow financial interests. The public, and the economics profession, require specific protection against the pressures that have produced this systemic failure. This requires a rethink of the relation of economics to society, founded on a rejection of the idea that the function of economics is to provide a single, unequivocal solution to every problem of policy. Instead, the article explains, good economics should be constrained to evaluate the full range of relevant solutions to any given policy issue, leaving the decisionmakers accountable for the decisions they make on which solution to adopt.