It was a great pleasure to take part...

It was a great pleasure to take part in this year’s great EAEPE conference, that took place in Leeds some weeks ago. I always enjoy the pluralist spirit of EAEPE, the theoretical and methodological diversity it incorporates and the fact that the participants are patient and open-minded so that conversation across different heterodox traditions, social science disciplines and cultural backgrounds goes smoothly. In addition, I was super-happy to see so many old friends as well as a huge amount of young and talented people, which gives me some hope in times of overlapping crises.

Experiences like these stand in stark contrast to those occasions, where I am invited to speak to more mainstream audiences. In such contexts, I always try to be as patient and polite as possible. Not only because that’s how I try to be anyway, but also because me identifying as pluralist/heterodox is, in my experience, already a sufficient source of irritation. Similarly to EAEPE, (most) conversations go smoothly when approached this way and I always consider this a great opportunity for learning. Nonetheless, over the years I noticed some bingo-like-patterns in these contexts that seem noteworthy. So here it is my preliminary list of

„the four somewhat awkward things that typically happen when I am invited in a mainstream context“

(1) You are expected to know mainstream views & debates, while it is legitimate to be ignorant towards alternative perspectives.

Almost all conversations are lop-sided in the sense that you should be somewhat conversant about mainstream theory, people and policy views to taken seriously. At the same, when you try to explain some heterodox concept or work, you are often quickly interrupted with advice to read up on some paper, that, maybe, incorporates some aspect of what you are speaking about in a mainstream framework. While this advice is generally constructive, it often comes so quickly that it seems to signal: „I don’t have to know this, I don’t wanna know this“, tacitly suggesting that heterodox approaches are superfluous once you have studied the recommended mainstream paper.

(2) You are filed as politically radical

In a mainstream audience, you will quickly find people aiming to enlighten you by pointing towards the fact that „very left-wing things can be done with mainstream economics when interpreted in the right way“. Hmmm, ok, for me this is always baffling. Believe it or not, I try to choose those theoretical concepts and approaches that have the best fit given a specific situation or problem (while mainstreamers use those, which are publishable in the top 5-25 ;-). Indeed, whether some model or approach aligns with my personal policy views is not something I care much about.*

(3) You are confronted with a self-contradictory stance

Confronted with criticism or alternative views as contrasted to textbook economics, people will quickly tell you that you present a totally obsolete version of economics that has nothing to do with the actual research and thinking, that coins modern econ departments. Then, at the casual dinner conversation, you often have to count very quickly to collect all the implicit and explicit references to simply textbook schemes, like rational agents or perfect-competition-like supply-and-demand frameworks.

(4) You will bring up bad memories

You get at least one story about: „the lazy heterodox colleague that got frustrated and annoying“ / „the ignorant students that should first take the time to understand basic models“ / „the one heterodox instructor that gave a bad class with outdated stuff“ / „the presumably also heterodox person, who ranted at me on Twitter“. It is not fully clear why this story is told, probably to explore to what extent I would be inclined to defend such malicious behavior ;-)

In my view these points should not be taken as a personal rant, but, rather, provide some lessons about how deeply paradigmatic foundations and the investment in one’s own skills and past works associated with such foundations coin one’s own professional (and sometimes also personal) identity. Hence, there is a notion of ‚cognitive dissonance‘ in all the four points mentioned above that may serve as a beacon of hope for establishing a theoretically more inclusive discourse in economics (in the still somewhat far future ;-)

At the same, let me make clear, that notwithstanding these somewhat regular and noteworthy patterns I very much enjoy cross-paradigm and cross-disciplinary interactions – and this also holds for my cherished mainstream colleagues!

All the best,

Jakob

• I could indeed name a few findings throughout my career, which had political implications that ran counter to my personal policy views (getting lower multipliers than expected is just one instance ;-).