Three weeks ago I reported on an international...

Three weeks ago I reported on an international student initiative, whose open letter called for a more pluralist and open-minded approach to economic teaching and research. This important initiative has grown considerable within the last 3 weeks now comprising 65 students’ associations from 30 different countries (three weeks ago the petitioneers covered “only” 19 countries). See here, here or here for some interesting media coverage arising out of this context.

A Kuhnian perspective predicts that any scientific paradigm experiencing empirical failure on large scale is expected to increasingly narrow its discursive paths and to reduce its engagement with dissenters to an absolute minimum. I think this is the main reason why mainstream economists have not really engaged with this students’ appeal, at least for now. However, at the same time mainstream economists are busy debating Thomas Piketty’s book on wealth and capital (even Robert Solow is out to review the book) and I think there is a reason for picking Piketty’s challenge over that posed by the econ students: While Piketty’s challenge is primarily based on empirical data but also well-clad in mainstream economic theory, the students’ initiative is primarily questioning the dominance of the latter thereby addressing the nitty-gritty of the subject. Hence, it seems that current mainstream economics is much more ready to accept an empiricist critique of capitalism than the postulate to incorporate alternative theoretical frameworks and viewpoints. Taking this observation as a premise it maybe was a smart move of Piketty to present his argument in a mainstream instead of a heterodox fashion, although this maneuver in some cases comes at the cost of an ignorant treatment of alternative theoretical perspectives (more from me on Piketty is to follow soon…).

Anyway, the more the challenges for the mainstream the better…

All the Best!

Jakob