words

To celebrate the 100th issue of Heterodox Economics Newsletter (May 2010), Editors asked about 100 heterodox economists around the world, representing their school of thought, institution, association, country, or region, about the current state and future of heterodox economics. We have received very interesting and enlightening responses. The questions asked were:

Questions

1.How is heterodox economics different from mainstream-neoclassical economics?
2.What is the current state of heterodox economics (in your country or region)?
3.What should be done to advance heterodox economics?
4.Any word for the future generation of heterodox economics?

Even though we as heterodox economists are diverse in terms of our theoretical emphasis, we share a lot in common. Most respondents identified heterodox economics as pluralistic, inter-disciplinary, policy-oriented, starting with the real world, and challenging the status quo--perhaps the latter is the main reason heterodox economics has been marginalized in academia around the globe. At the same time, it implies that to advance heterodox economics further, we need unceasing efforts to develop realistic and relevant theories, to engage actively in the policy-making process, and to communicate with other heterodox economists (including, but not limited to, "organizing conference-seminars, refereeing papers, publishing newsletters, editing journals, and doing the administrative/institutional work necessary to establish and run heterodox undergraduate and post-graduate economic programs.")

If you want to add your words to the list, send an email to Editors at heterodoxnews@gmail.com.

List of Contributors

Jorge Garcia-Arias

1. They differ in their objects (and subjects) of study; in their concerns, in many of the questions that they ask, in the answers that they offer (for those questions that they share), in their underlying mode of thought and, mainly, in the methodology that they use. Unfortunately, there are also significant differences in their capacity to influence the general public, the media, administrators and politicians.

2. At this moment, Spain is a “world leader” in the implementation of one of the most perverse, most baroque, least transparent and best planned mechanisms to eradicate heterodox viewpoints from university teaching and researching in Economics. (see Heterodox Economics Newsletter, issue 94, for a brief overview; or interested colleagues can request a more detailed account by e-mail, jrgara@unileon.es).

3. Promoting regional and worldwide associations, developing international research groups, recruiting the best degree students for heterodox postgraduate studies, calling for a public agency to manage bibliometrics analysis, taking further the advances in the development of particular indices for journals and centres involved in heterodox economics, and increasing visibility in the academic environment and in the public arena.

4. To work on the edges, and even more so, clearly outside the boundaries, of mainstream Economics is a hard task which involves considerable costs at both personal and professional levels. Anyway, working in the field from within one of the strands of heterodox Economics can actually make you feel more useful for society, more content with yourself, more able to enjoy things, in a word, happier.

N.B.: These opinions are exclusively those of the respondent. They do not necessarily reflect, far less commit, those of other Spanish heterodox economists, nor those of any Spanish or international heterodox economics association, group or institution, whether or not the respondent is linked to them.

Jorge Garcia-Arias, Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Leon, Spain. Homepage.

David Barkin

The varieties of Political Ecology – involving the integration of ecological, social, and solidarity economics with political economy – offer valuable insights into the underlying causes of the twin crises currently confronting us: economic and ecologic. When these approaches are enriched with the teachings of peoples actively engaged in strengthening their own communities with their multiple proposals for assuring social well-bring and ecological protection and restoration, we can develop new models for economic analysis and political action. From the vantage point of Latin America, we can enrich our teaching by incorporating the experiences of hundreds of communities that are building social and political alliances to develop new paradigms.

David Barkin, Profesor de Economía, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Mexico.

Heinrich Bortis

To revive political economy in the sense of Ricardo, Marx, Kalecki and Keynes is of the greatest importance at present. The problem is to forge the theoretical tools to come to grips with the present crisis and to lay the conceptual foundations for shaping a new world economic and financial order. This requires, however, that political economy, post-cum-classical-Keynesian for example, be systematically presented in the form of volumes on principles, treatises and textbooks. Given this, political economy could be taught systematically. This would, in turn, enable the transformation of existing economic theory chairs into political economy chairs, or even the creation of new chairs in political economy. In any case, in the form of political economy in a broad sense, including, most importantly, the history of economic theories, economic theory would become socially relevant again. To conclude, systematic writing on political economy is, at present, the most pressing task of (experienced) political economists.

Heinrich Bortis, Professor and Chair of Political Economy, History of Economic Theories and Economic History, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Homepage.

Andy Denis

Heterodox economics is constituted by the neoclassical mainstream by exclusion. By excluding some and including others it creates a heterodoxy and an orthodoxy. There will only be consistency in the heterodoxy to the extent that mainstream economics is consistent in what it excludes. Equally, the mainstream itself is not a single entity but simply those approaches deemed insufficiently threatening to warrant exclusion. A salient example is behavioural economics: though highly critical of mainstream microeconomics and the principle of Homo economicus, the reductionism of this school of thought renders it acceptable to the mainstream - at a time when macro level irrationality is apparently endemic, it is helpful to apologetic economics to be able to suggest that the fault lies with insufficiently rational individual agents.

The most important criteria which seem to me to operate in deciding whom to exclude are

•Holism or reductionism: seeing individual agents as isolated atoms or as embedded in networks or social relations; and
•Equilibrium or disequilibrium: explanation of social conditions as underpinned by timeless equilibria or by momentary pauses between kaleidoscopic shifts;

On these criteria institutionalism, post Keynesianism, Marxian economics, Austrian economics and critical realism are all heterodox. On the other hand, neoclassical Keynesianism, monetarism, new classical macroeconomics, new Keynesianism, new institutional economics, and analytical Marxism are all orthodox.

Scientific economics is best served by the struggle for pluralism, that is, against exclusion, against the constitution of orthodoxies and heterodoxies. We cannot support heterodox economics per se, as that would require (for example) support for both Marxian and Austrian economics, which would be incoherent. What we can do is to engage with allies both within and outside the mainstream to oppose the monism of the current orthodoxy, and those heterodox economists who would merely like to replace it. Our goal should not be to replace the current orthodoxy with a new one, but to remove the division of the discipline into orthodox and heterodox camps.

Andy Denis, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy in the Department of Economics, City University London. Homepage.

Sheila Dow

Heterodox economics has never been stronger and at the same time had such a great opportunity for gaining attention. The important challenge in my view is to communicate heterodox ideas successfully. This requires engagement with policy-making, where orthodox theory has been found wanting, and the promotion of alternative theories. But it also involves conveying what heterodox economics entails at the level of ways of thinking about the economic process and of criteria for good theorising (in general, not just in times of crisis). This can best be achieved by advocating a pluralist structure for the education of economists.

Sheila Dow, Professor of Economics, University of Stirling, UK. Homepage

Amitava Krishna Dutt

Recent economic events have drawn attention to the interconnected failings of many aspects of economic orthodoxy: its optimization fetish, its preoccupation with mathematical technique for its own sake, its belief in the efficiency of market economies, its support for free market policies, and its neglect of values. Now, more than ever, heterodox economists, who have long been aware of these deficiencies, need to continue to constructively develop alternative approaches to economics with a genuine commitment to pluralism – in terms of methods, views of the economy, and socially-just policies – while seeking common ground beyond their shared opposition to mainstream economics.

Amitava Krishna Dutt, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, USA. Homepage.

Peter E. Earl

Heterodox economists are different because they are unwilling to compromise being able to address the complexity of the real world in order to construct formal models. They are going to become increasingly rare in Australia as the lack of heterodox journals on the A* list of Excellence in Research Australia limits prospects for being hired or promoted, and as requirements for mainstream coursework deter heterodox PhD students. Heterodox economists should switch to the ‘Real-World Economics’ brand and try operating covertly under the guise of pluralism, showing the value added by incorporating ‘non traditional variables’ alongside mainstream ones in applied economics.

Peter E. Earl, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia. Homepage

Wolfram Elsner

Heterodoxy is about interdependence among heterogeneous agents, complexity, true uncertainty, search, adaptation, and complex process, learning to coordinate, processes with multiple equilibria and manifold lock-ins. About reducing complexity through emergent structure and instrumental institutions, with mutual foundations of macro through micro and ‘meso’, and vv. It is about power, status, and the dominance of ceremonialism in the capitalist ‘market’ economy, which is crisis-prone and with its neoliberal degeneration overly turbulent, unsustainable, and inacceptable; thus about building collective action capability for realizing higher-level rationality.

In Germany, economics is particularly orthodox and anti-pluralist, with its mission to transform German post-WWII-welfare state into a ‘proper’ Anglo-Saxon system.

We have largely determined economic research questions the last three decades. But mainstream teaching, textbooks, and public advise remained unswayed. Let’s get clustered! Any established heterodoxer become mentor and advisor of 15 younger heterodoxers. And say, write, and teach real-world economics from first semester. No longer anti-plural, toxic textbooks, just because the curricula prescribe it. Use only non-toxic textbooks. Students will appreciate it – and get good jobs.

Wolfram Elsner, Professor of Economics, Institute for Institutional and Innovation Economics (iino), Faculty of Business Studies and Economics, University of Bremen, Germany. Homepage

Ben Fine

1. It is different in method, in concepts, in social and historical content, in goals, in interdisciplinarity and in sensitivity to its own history and contemporary relevance.

2. It is alive and well but outside of economics departments where it is suffering a slow and painful death of assault and neglect from an intellectual barbarism that presents itself as scientific and rigorous.

3. Maintain intellectual and strategic integrity, especially in forging interdisciplinarity and attachment to material realities as opposed to slavish and opportunistic dedication to techniques.

4. Good luck but we can prevail collectively and individually contingent upon broader struggles.

To address all of these questions, join www.iippe.org

Ben Fine, Professor of Economics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK. Hompage

William T. Ganley

1. Heterodox economics is distinctive for the utilization of methodological pluralism and the search for the analysis of economic reality. How different than economic orthodoxy with its placement of reality into neoclassical empty boxes!

2. Economic crises created opportunities for heterodox theories to explain the present day economic situation; juxtaposed with the failure of orthodox economics.

3. Now is the time for us to reach new audiences in the general public and the halls of academia. The popularization of heterodox ideas has never been more important.

4. Young heterodox economists: take heterodox economic theory to the people. Power to the people!

William T. Ganley, Professor of Economics & Finance, SUNY Buffalo State College, New York, US

Hardy Hanappi

HET is a pool of approaches advancing the understanding of political economy as a scientific discipline. It differs from the ruling body of economic mainstream by opposing a simple import of methods of 18th century physics. This import - due to inadequacy with respect to human society – has degenerated to a secularized, monotheistic ‘religion’. The breakdown of an inadequate dogma advances with its proven inability to support decision-making – and the simultaneous success of heterodox approaches. Therefore the most important task is to develop a methodological toolbox to explore scientifically how to control the deteriorating dynamics of the global political economy.

Hardy Hanappi, University Professor, Jean Monnet Chair for Political Economy of European Integration, University of Technology Vienna–Economics, Austria. Homepage

Geoffrey C. Harcourt

As a Post-Keynesian, I approach economic issues by having modern capitalism as the background to analysis. I try to analyse processes in historical time and highlight decision making on pricing, production, employment and accumulation in an inescapable uncertain environment by those who run capitalist firms. I look for cumulative causation rather equilibrating processes at work. I try to find why modern economies malfunction, how to rectify this and move towards just, equitable societies. I place all reasoning in historical, biographical settings, taking in the contributions of past greats in our and related disciplines. I happily use many modes of reasoning, including relevant mathematics.

G. C. Harcourt, Professor Emeritus, University of Cambridge, UK and University of Adelaide, Australia. Homepage

Eckhard Hein

1. Heterodox economics rejects the idea that economics has to start from optimising (representative) individuals in a world of probabilistic risk and that meaningful macroeconomic results can be derived from this microeconomic perspective. Institutions, money, state, class, gender, etc. are important for the explanation of economic behaviour in a world of fundamental uncertainty. In this realistic framework all sorts of fallacies of composition can arise.

2. In Germany, heterodox economics has almost disappeared from the major universities and research institutes. However, it is still alive at a few smaller universities, at universities of applied sciences, and in two research institutes which are close to the trade unions. Furthermore, there are heterodox societies and networks with regular conferences, in particular the Research Network Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies with annual international conferences which have more than 200 participants.

3. Increase the pressure on universities to provide relevant teaching and research in economics, and improve access of researchers doing relevant economics to university positions and to public funding.

4. Don’t give up.

Eckhard Hein, Professor of Economics, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany. Homepage

John F. Henry

I’d suggest that the feature that best distinguishes (or should distinguish) heterodoxy from mainstream economics is that we should be trying to “change the world.” While such a slogan would have different meanings for different strands of heterodox economists, all are attempting to produce a world that is more humane, more sensible, more amenable to the provisioning process—in particular to the nurturing of children. It would appear that in this, we are not very successful in the current period. We need to be better organized, more aggressive in making our positions more public. To this end, the advice I would give future generations would be to quote Marx: “Struggle!”

John F. Henry, Professor of Economics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, US. Hompage

Arturo Hermann

One central aspect of a heterodox perspective in economics is its level of interdisciplinarity. As is well known, mainstream economics largely rests on the attempt to insulate itself from other perspectives in economics and in other fields of social and psychological sciences. Such situation is unsatisfactory for those who believe in the unitary character of science and, then, try to establish systematic contacts with other social sciences. This process, of course, is not tantamount to downplaying the distinctive features of each discipline. Conversely, the analysis of different perspectives in particular, sociology, history, anthropology, psychology, psychoanalysis by broadening the horizon of awareness of the observer, constitutes an excellent way for obtaining a better comprehension of the real features of each discipline.

This heterodox and enlarged theoretical perspective, by helping to attain a better understanding of the multifarious aspects of any given reality, can contribute to devise policies more tailored to the competencies and aspirations of all the subjects involved.

Arturo Hermann, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Studies and Economic Analyses (ISAE), Rome, Italy.

John E. King

Heterodox economics is concerned with the real world. It is pluralist, multi-disciplinary and policy-oriented. It is under serious threat from our government’s research assessment exercise (ERA: Excellence in Research Australia), since heterodox journals are systematically under-rated. To advance heterodox economics, we should continue to be pluralist, multi-disciplinary, policy-oriented and concerned with reality: one day the brittle façade of the mainstream will start to crack. The future generation of heterodox economists should talk politely to each other and critically (but still politely) to the mainstream. They should stay cheerful, even though there may be no good reason to!

John E. King, Professor of Economics, School of Economics and Finance, La Trobe University, Australia. Homepage

Dany Lang

The past years have been characterized by an impressive and stimulating revival of post-Keynesian modeling. Roughly speaking, the main strands of this literature are the Kaleckian models of growth and income distribution, the Kaldorian-Robinsonian models of path dependency, and the Minskian models of financial crises. On the top of that, the stock-flow consistent methodology is a perfect tool for understanding complex macroeconomic interactions with multiple buffers. These post-Keynesian models are worth considering, partly because they are rather realistic, and explain numerous aspects of the 2007 crisis and the subsequent recession.

The next stage should be the framing a post-Keynesian synthesis. The baseline of it could be a dynamic model of growth and income distribution, with a path dependant rate of capacity utilization, and an endogenous supply of credit that changes as the behavior of financial institutions varies in the different phases of the cycle. Class struggle, subcontracting and domination should also be taken into account explicitly.

To enrich these models and their understanding of reality, post-Keynesians should really develop further the discussion with the other heterodox schools, rather than engaging with a mainstream that whatever happens won’t listen.

Dany Lang, Associate Professor, CEPN, University of Paris 13, France. Homepage

Frederic S. Lee

All too often I hear a conversation that boils down to two statements: “What can heterodox economics do for me?” and “I am too busy publishing or teaching to do anything to help advance heterodox economics.” Advancing heterodox economics involves much work that does not per se advance one’s professional career. The selfless work I am referring to involves organizing conference-seminars, refereeing papers, publishing newsletters, editing journals, and doing the administrative/institutional work necessary to establish and run heterodox undergraduate and post-graduate economic programs. If all heterodox economists would contribute to this in some small way, then heterodox economics will advance.

Frederic S. Lee, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA, Editor of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, and Founding Editor of Heterodox Economics Newsletter. Homepage

Vladimir A. Masch

The present economic turmoil makes us, once again, return to Keynes. But it would be primitive and wrong to consider only his currently fashionable deficit financing ideas and similar narrow issues. (Moreover, following only this part of his legacy would be counterproductive.) He was the Einstein of economics, and, like Einstein, he was much broader than his discipline: he was a Thinker. The most important true philosophical legacy of Keynes can be reduced to three principles, expressed by him explicitly or implicitly.

I. There is no "universal economics": different approaches should be applied under different states of the society and the economy and under different problems facing them.

II. Economics is based on logic of choice, not under scarcity alone, but rather under both uncertainty and scarcity, perhaps with uncertainty playing more important role.

III. Lower level market activities are beneficial, but -- if the economy is not considered autonomous -- they should be controlled, constrained, and directed, at a higher level, by a non-market entity that pursues broad sociopolitical goals.

There are no absolutes in society, and there exist no timeless rules of behavior or decision-making that can be taken as axioms. Economics cannot be constructed as an axiomatic (deductive) theory. There are only approximate rules of thumb, which sometimes are applicable and sometimes are not. Even the most basic tenets of economics are therefore no more than temporarily acceptable approximations of reality. How acceptable are those approximations? That depends on the then current stage of the society and the economy. What was completely satisfactory yesterday might become unacceptable tomorrow. (from In the Century of "Black Swans", Modern Economics Deserves "Creative Destruction, The Huffington Post, May 12, 2010).

Vladimir A. Masch, President, Risk Evaluation and Management, Inc. Homepage

Alessandro Roncaglia

1. The best short answer is Sraffa's counterposition of the marginalist "one-way avenue" leading from scarce resources ("Factors of production") to "Consumption goods" to the Classical view "of the system of production and consumption as a circular flow". This implies fundamental differences in content for all concepts utilised in our analyses, from prices (indexes of relative scarcity vs. difficulty of production) to markets (a point in time and space where demand and supply meet, or a web of exchanges connecting productive units in a system based on the division of labour), and so on. The Classical ("surplus") approach requires that the different issues (employment, distribution, techniques, finance, etc.) be dealt separately, which allows for an important role to be attributed to (Keynesian) uncertainty.

Alessandro Roncaglia, Professor of Economics, Department of social studies at La Sapienza University of Rome. Italy. Homepage

David F. Ruccio

Heterodox economics comprises all those theories that academic economists and others use to criticize and develop alternatives to mainstream (neoclassical and Keynesian) approaches. Heterodox and mainstream theories differ in terms of their starting points, methodologies, and conclusions. Thus, for example, Marxian economists start with class and use Marxian value theory to criticize capitalism, whereas neoclassical economists start with a set of given preferences, technology, and resource endowments and use a framework of supply and demand to celebrate capitalism. The problems of capitalism and mainstream economic theories, now as throughout their history, create the space for and interest in heterodox approaches.

David F. Ruccio, Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame, USA. Homepage.

Stephanie Seguino

A growing body of research finds that organizations that are diverse function better than those that are homogeneous, due to the greater number of perspectives that can be used in problem-solving and creative production.

Heterodox economists represent that diversity. Unlike mainstream economists, for which the details of everyday life and power imbalances do not seem to matter, heterodox economists embrace real world phenomena, putting forth a vibrant, energetic analysis of how economies do function, and the way forward to create conditions for broadly shared economic well-being.

The challenge for all of the various streams of heterodox economics is to avoid becoming too insular, with attendant risks of a sclerotic analytical framework. This suggests that the health of heterodox economics depends on interaction and exchange across the various branches: post-Keynesian, Kaleckian, feminist, structuralist, Marxist, Austrian, and more.

Stephanie Seguino, Professor of Economics, University of Vermont, USA. Homepage.

Bruno Tinel

The traditions composing Heterodoxy in economics share a common methodological and theoretical ground. This internal diversity of Heterodoxy makes it intellectually exciting and relevant for society. Though it remains scientifically unchallenged, its institutional positions have weakened in most advanced capitalist countries. The issue of academic reproduction is not intellectual but practical. The “Heterodox Economics Newsletter” is a very good element within this strategy which has to be completed by national and international organizations such as FAPE (French Association of Political Economy) and IIPPE (International Initiative for Promoting Political Economy).

Bruno Tinel, CES (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne), University of Paris 1 “Panthéon Sorbonne”, France

Lefteris Tsoulfidis

1. The main difference is that heterodox economics accepts a theory of value and distribution which is separate from a theory of output. In particular, the theory of value is based on objective data (real wage, output and technique) whereas in neoclassical economics it is based on subjective data (preferences). Furthermore, competition is conceived realistically and not as perfect competition, and thus heterodox economics is opposed to the ideas of perfect foresight and rational expectations as it recognizes widespread uncertainty.

2. Heterodox economists in Greece constitute a small but rather active group organized in formal and informal societies.

3. Simply, develop alternative explanations of economic phenomena and propose sensible and viable economic policies. In a period of economic crisis such as the current one heterodox economists are offered a unique opportunity to popularize their ideas and have a lasting impact.

4. The task before the future generation of heterodox economics should be the integration of the existing wealth of heterodox ideas into a single theory competitive to the neoclassical orthodoxy.

Lefteris Tsoulfidis, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Macedonia, Greece and Editor of Bulletin of Political Economy. Homepage.

Richard D. Wolff

Orthodoxy, like heterodoxy, lies largely in its beholders’ eyes. Across the nineteenth century, Marxian economics contested the orthodoxy of classical political economy much as socialism contested capitalism. Across the twentieth, Marxian economics struggled to redefine its specific heterodox difference as orthodoxy swung between neoclassical and Keynesian economics, capitalism alternated between regimes of less and more state economic intervention, and classical socialism peaked. Its new reformulation articulates a self-consciously non-determinist theory of class (defined in terms of the production, appropriation and distribution of surpluses). Such a Marxian economics represents a new, systematic, and well-developed alternative to both neoclassical and Keynesian economics.

Richard D. Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Visiting Professor, Graduate Program in International Affairs, New School University, New York City. Homepage

Heterodox Economics Directory