The Emergence of Heterodox Economics

8/10/2019 The Emergence of Heterodox Economics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-emergence-of-heterodox-economics 1/18

THE EMERGENCE OF HETERODOX ECONOMICS, 1990 - 2006

By

Frederic S. Lee

[Derived from Chapter 10 in A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the mainstream inthe twentieth century , Routledge, 2009]

Heterodox economic theory consists of a theoretical critique of neoclassical economictheory as well as a theoretical alternative to it. Moreover, it is a theory that is composed of aconcatenated array of arguments drawn from different heterodox approaches. For this outcometo occur, engagement between the different approaches had to take place. Hence a heterodox‘social movement’— that is the bringing together of different heterodox economists to exchange

ideas and work together — was needed to produce the community of heterodox economists that inturn is working on developing a heterodox economic theory. The history of the ‘movement’ ormore accurately the emergence of the heterodox economics community from 1990 to 2006,

primarily in theUnited Statesand theUnited Kingdom, is the focus of this paper. The first part ofthe story concerns the adoption of heterodox economics as the ‘identifier’ or name of a group ofheterodox theories. With the name in place, the second strand of the story deals with of theemergence of the community of heterodox economists by focusing on professional integrationacross heterodox associations and journals in the second section, and on theoretical integrationacross heterodox approaches in the following section. The paper concludes with an overview ofheterodox economics in 2006 and a brief discussion on the future of heterodox economics in acontested landscape.

Emergence of Heterodox Economics as the Identifier of a Group of Heterodox Theories

Heterodox as an identifier of an economic theory and/or economist that stood in someform of dissent relative to neoclassical economics was used within the Institutionalist literature inthe 1930s and 1940s. In particular, Institutionalists used it to identify their own dissent from theorthodox mainstream, but left the ‘heterodox’ ambiguous as to whether it meant dissent withinthe orthodox but contributing to the development of a better mainstream theory or dissent quacomplete rejection of the orthodox and the development of an blasphemous alternative economictheory. This situation remained the state-of-affairs to the late 1960s when Joseph Dorfman usedthe phrase ‘heterodox economic thinking’ to characterize the contributions of economists such asJohn A. Hobson, Thorstein Veblen, John R. Commons, and others. In this case, heterodoxthinking meant dissenting in some way from orthodox, neoclassical economic thinking, but notnecessarily rejecting neoclassical theory. Dorfman’s position was very similar to Allan Gruchy(1969) characterizing the neo-Institutionalist contributions of Clarence Ayres, J. K. Galbraith,Gunnar Myrdal, and others as dissenting from neoclassical theory, but at the same time

presenting a constructive challenge to the orthodoxy. Then in 1972 Gruchy went further andimprecisely used heterodox economics as identifying an economic theory, in this case neo-



Institutional theory, that stood in blasphemous contrast to mainstream theory; and finally in 1987he explicitly used heterodox to identify Institutional as well as Marxian and Post Keynesiantheories in this way. However, Gruchy and the Institutionalists were mostly alone in this usageof heterodox economics for the period 1970 to 1990, although Post Keynesians (includingSraffians and Kaleckians), Marxists and many radical economists, and social economists

considered their theoretical approaches to be in blasphemous opposition to mainstream theory.By the 1990s, it became obvious to many ‘heterodox’ that there were a numbe r of

theoretical approaches that stood in some degree in opposition to neoclassical theory. Theapproaches identified included Austrian economics, feminist economics, Institutional-evolutionary economics, Marxian-radical economics, Post Keynesian and Sraffian economics,social economics, and ecological economics; however, it was not possible to use any of thenames of the various heterodox approaches to represent them collectively. Thus, terms, such asnon-traditional, non-neoclassical, non-mainstream, were used to collectively represent them, butthey did not have the right intellectual feel or a positive ring. Moreover, some thought that

political economy (or heterodox political economy) could be used as the collective term, but itshistory of being another name for Marxian-radical economics made this untenable .[1] Therefore,to capture the blasphemous commonality of the various theoretical approaches in a positive lightwithout prejudicially favoring any one approach, a descriptive term that had a pluralist ‘big -tentfeel’ combined with being unattached to a particular approach was needed. Moreover,‘heterodox’ itself became increasingly used in co ntexts where it implicitly and/or explicitlyreferred to a collective of alternative theories vis-à-vis neoclassical theory and to the economiststhat engaged with those theories. So in spite of its Institutionalist connection, heterodoxeconomics fitted the bill and hence increasingly became the term of choice among PostKeynesians, Institutionalists, and similarly inclined economists .[2]

For example, heterodox economics, heterodox economists, and even just heterodox wereused in 1992 to cover the diversity of non-neoclassical thought that characterized the economicsdepartment at the University of Tennessee as well as in correspondence on AFEEMAIL (startingin March 1994), on PEN-L (starting in January 1994), and on PKT (starting in January1999) .[3] More significantly was Eric Nilsson ’s establishment in 1995 of the short -lived Reviewof Heterodox Economics for the purpose of increasing the interchange of ideas betweeneconomists working within different heterodox approaches to economics which he identified asradical, Marxist, feminist, Post Keynesian, Institutionalist, Sraffian (neo-Ricardian), andothers. The intent of the Review was to publish abstracts of working papers and dissertation

projects that sought to make a contribution to heterodox economics. However, because of thehigh cost of processing the abstracts, the first issue in Summer 1995 listed only twelve working

papers but did contain the contents of thirty-eight journals of interest to heterodox economists;while the second and last issue appeared in Winter 1996 and cont ained Anne Mayhew’s critiqueof the American Economics Review, Journal of Economic Literature , and Journal of Economic

Perspectives , the list of contents of forty-two journals, and notices of five books of interest toheterodox economists .[4] In addition, heterodox economics and heterodox economists beganappearing with increasing frequency in articles and in titles and/or forwards of books, that dealtwith various heterodox theories including those mentioned above as well as Austrian, Georgist,and social economics .[5] Finally, it started to appear as a descriptor of conference topics: “The

Review of Political Economy will sponsor a conference in a broad range of topics in heterodoxeconomics, inTrier, German, from 28 to 31 July 1997”.

http://hetecon.net/division.php?page=about&side=history_of_heterodox_economics#_ftn1






















The final stage in the general acceptance of heter odox economics as the ‘official’collective term for the various oppositional theories began circa 1999. First there was the

publication of Phillip O’Hara’s magnificent and comprehensive Encyclopedia of Political Economy , which explicitly brought together the various heterodox approaches:

…recently there has been some degree of convergence among the schools. This current workseeks to flesh out these commonalities, and thereby contribute towards some degree ofunification of the traditions. We seek to cross bridges, showing interconnections where possible.

While O’Hara preferred the term ‘political economy’ to collectively represent the variousheterodox approaches, various entries in the Encyclopedia --such as exchange rates, exploitation,interest rate-profit rate link, journals of political economy, monetary theory of production,money, credit and finance: major contemporary themes, political economy: school, profit inSraffian political economy, and supply and demand: aggregate--included the terms heterodoxeconomics, heterodox analysis, heterodox approaches, heterodox political economists, heterodoxeconomists, heterodox journals, and heterodoxy. At the same time, in October 1998 Fred Lee‘formed on paper’ the Association for Heterodox Economics (AH E) for the purpose of putting ona one-day fringe conference at the Royal Economic Society annual conference at the Universityof Nottingham in 1999 — see below. The conference was opened to all heterodox economists inthe United Kingdom and Ireland .[6] As it was quite successful, the AHE put on a two-dayconference in London the following year. At this point, heterodox economics was clearly definedas a collective term that included Post Keynesian, Marxian-radical, Institutionalist, Feminist,Evolutionary, and Social economics; and by 2003 it included Austrian economics as well .[7] To

publicize the conference and other activities of the AHE as well as heterodox activities aroundthe world, Lee also developed from 1999 to the present an informal ‘newsletter’ that eventually

became (in September 2004) the Heterodox Economics Newsletter , which is sent to over 1800economists worldwide .[8] Thus the combination of the publication of O’Hara’s Encyclopedia ,the formation and activities of the AHE, and the Newsletter , heterodox economics along withheterodox economists and heterodox itself became by 2006 the preferred terminology amongheterodox economists .[9]

Emergence of the Community of Heterodox Economists: Professional Integration

For the community of heterodox economists to exist, it must be grounded in a socialsystem of work that produces economic knowledge that contributes to a heterodox understandingof the economy and the social provisioning process. Since a social system of work implies that

participants are dependent on each other for the production of scientific knowledge, how strongor weak the community is, in part, a function of how dependent heterodox economists are oneach other’s research and on the extent to which they work on common research goals, and, in

part, is dependent on the degree of integration of their social activities. Therefore, while aheterodox economist may find one particular heterodox approach, such as Post Keynesianeconomics, to his/her liking, he/she is also professionally and theoretically engages witheconomists who are perhaps partial to other heterodox approaches. Professional engagementincludes attendance at heterodox conferences, membership in multiple heterodox associations,subscribing to and/or serving on boards of multiple heterodox journals, and participating in cross-



















approach collective efforts to support and promote heterodox economics. Theoreticalengagement (which is dealt with in the following section) extends from at least reading andteaching alternative heterodox approaches, to partaking in multi-approach theoretical discussions,and to actively synthesizing different heterodox approaches especially in collaboration withheterodox economists associated with the different approaches.

Professional Integration

While it is sometimes claimed that the various heterodox approaches practiced strict professional segregation in the 1970s and up to almost the present day, there is in fact littlesupport for it. There are three kinds of professional segregation to examine: legal, informal, andvoluntary. First, ‘legal’ se gregation occurs when an association accepts or rejects applicantssolely on the basis on their theoretical views and expels members if their theoretical views

become questionable. This form of segregation has not been instituted by any heterodox (ormainstream) economics association past or present. [10] Moreover, since 1988 a number of newheterodox associations have formed, such as the European Association for EvolutionaryEconomics (1988), International Association for Feminist Economics (1992), ProgressiveEconomics Forum (1998), Association for Heterodox Economics (1999), and Society ofHeterodox Economists (2002), and have adopted explicit non-segregationist approaches towardstheir name, membership, and conference participation. Secondly, ‘informal’ segregation existswhen members of an association define its agenda in a manner that creates significant pressure onmembers not in favor of it to leave the association and on potential new members who are not infavor of the agenda not to join. This has occurred in two heterodox associations, URPE and CSE,in the mid-1970s. In the case of URPE, the attempt at informal segregation quickly failed and bythe latter 1970s it openly embraced heterodox pluralism again, but the impact was long lasting inthat a number of heterodox economists (particularly Institutionalist economists) left URPE andnever returned. On the other hand, the push for informal segregation within the CSE circa 1975lead to the exodus of constructive Sraffians and other heterodox economists and this had a lastingimpact on the heterodox community in theUnited Kingdom until the 1990s. However, by themid-1990s the impact of these two incidents had dissipated and hence informal segregation hasnot been a disruptive factor within the heterodox community in either country for the past decade.

Professional Integration Across Heterodox Associations and Journals

A third kind of segregation takes the form of a voluntary lack of professional engagementacross heterodox approaches and associations. However, American graduate programs withheterodox components had faculty with different heterodox approaches and hence their studentsreceived a heady heterodox mixture of theory. As a result, their graduates published in differentheterodox journals that represented different theoretical traditions — see AppendixA.11 [11] Moreover, URPE, AFEE, and ASE contributed to the growth of Post Keynesianeconomics; and in addition, Post Keynesians were members of those heterodox associations — seeAppendix A.12. In short, from the beginning in the 1970s, AFEE, ASE, and URPE open theirconferences to Institutionalist, social economics, radical-Marxian, and Post Keynesian papers and










sessions; appointed and/or elected heterodox economists to the editorial boards of their journalsand to their governing bodies who also were members of other heterodox associations or engagedwith Post Keynesian economics; and had members who held memberships in other heterodoxassociations, engaged with Post Keynesian economics, and subscribed to more than oneheterodox economics journal. Therefore it is not surprising to find evidence of American

heterodox economists engaging in professional integration across heterodox associations and journals circa 1990. That is, for the period 1987-1995, approximately 1538 heterodoxeconomists in the United States belonged to AFEE, ASE, AFIT, URPE, and/or subscribed to the

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics — see Table 1. Each heterodox association and journal hadfrom 8% to 88% of its members and subscribers belonging to a least one other heterodoxassociation or subscribed to the JPKE and from 2.7% to 33.9% belonging to three ormore. Overall 11% of the 1538 heterodox economists belonged to two or more associations orsubscribed to the JPKE while 2.3% belonged to three or more — see Table 1. Moreover, thethirty-five economists that belonged to three or more associations or subscribed to the JPKEincluded Marxists (Burkett, Sherman), Institutionalists (Dugger, Mayhew), social economists(Elliott, Ulmer), and Post Keynesians (Minsky, Niggle) — see Appendix A.24, Table 1.

Table 1

American Heterodox Economists Membership in AFEE, ASE, AFIT, URPE, and/orSubscription to the JPKE, 1987 - 2006

Association/Journal TotalMembership

Membership in Twoor More

Membership inThree or More

1987-95

2000-01

2006 1987-95%

2000-01%

2006% 1987-95%

2000-01%

2006%

AFEE 608 306 239 25 44 50 5.5 12.7 13.8ASE 416 142 128 25 38 41 7.2 19.0 18.8JPKE 79 103 90 24 28 22 12.7 16.5 15.6AFIT 59 101 120 88 78 63 33.9 27.7 20.8URPE 585 294 312 8 16 17 2.7 6.5 7.1Overall* 1538 750 707 11 19 19 2.3 5.3 5.1

* Excludes double countingAFEE – Association for Evolutionary EconomicsASE – Association for Social EconomicsJPKE – Journal of Post Keynesian EconomicsAFIT – Association for Institutional ThoughtURPE – Unionfor Radical Political Economics

[Derived from Appendix A.24, Tables 1 – 3]

From circa 1990 to circa 2000, in spite of an apparent 51% decline in Americanmembership, these four associations and the JPKE experienced significant growth in professionalengagement, with an overall 19% of their members belonging to two or more and 5.3% belongingto three or more associations or subscribing to the JPKE — see Table 1. The forty Americanheterodox economists that belonged to the latter included those that clearly have the reputations



of engaging across heterodox associations and heterodox journals — see Appendix A.24, Table2. So by 2000 a community of heterodox economists that were professionally engaged hadclearly emerged in the United States in the sense that a significant minority, if not majority, of themembers of each association and the JPKE were engaged with one other and more than 5% andup to 28% were engaged with two or more associations. And in 2006, the overall degree of

professional engagement remained about the same, even though American membership in theassociations and subscriptions to the JPKE declined by 6%. More significantly, the percentage ofthe professional engagement of the membership of AFEE, ASE, and URPEincreased. Consequently, an important characteristic of these associations is that a significantminority of their members is professionally engaged and becoming increasingly more so — seeTable 1.

The above indicates that, even though individual heterodox associations and the JPKEcontinue to exist, heterodox economists in the United Statescoalesce into a professionalcommunity by 2000 and remained so. If we go beyond AFEE, ASE, AFIT, URPE, and the JPKEto include the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE), the total number ofAmerican heterodox economists for 2000-01 and 2006 increases, although the overall percentageof membership in two or more and three or more associations and the JPKE did not. However,for individual associations and the JPKE the percentages do increase for 2000-01 and 2006 — seeTable 2. Hence, the core of American heterodox economists that were professionally engagedincreased their professional engagement, that is, the network that emerged between the

professionally engaged economists became denser. This fact becomes even clearer when thenumber of heterodox associations are increased to include the Association for HeterodoxEconomics (AHE), Progressive Economics Forum (PEF), Outline on Political Economy (OPE),and Heterodox Economics Newsletter (HEN). In this case, for 2006 the number of heterodoxeconomists in the United States increases to 1020, with 28.7% having membership in two ormore associations, JPKE, OPE, and HEN and 9.6% in three or more — see Table 3. The point isthat, as measured, nearly 30% of heterodox economists in the United States and professionallyengaged with nearly 10% being significantly engaged. And these 10% or 96 heterodoxeconomists represent those whose publications, intellectual arguments, and conferenceengagement have created a heterodox economics community and given it its personality and

persona — see Appendix A.24, Table 6 .[12]

Table 2

American Heterodox Economists Membership in AFEE, ASE, AFIT, URPE, IAFFE,and/or Subscription to the JPKE, 2000- 2006


Membership inTwo or More

Membership inThree or More

2000-01

2006 2000-01%

2006% 2000-01% 2006%

AFEE 306 239 46 50 15.7 18.4ASE 142 128 42 43 22.5 22.7JPKE 103 89 31 22 19.4 15.7AFIT 101 120 80 64 30.7 23.3URPE 294 312 26 26 8.5 8.7







IAFFE 294 288 23 18 6.8 4.9Overall* 975 944 20 18 5.3 5.1

*Excludes double countingIAFFE – International Association for Feminist Economics

[Derived from Appendix A.24, Tables 4 – 5]

Table 10.3

American Heterodox Economists Membership in AFEE, ASE, AFIT, URPE, IAFFE, AHE,PEF, and/or OPE, Subscription to the JPKE, and/or Receive HEN 2006


Membership inTwo or More%

Membership inThree or More%

AFEE 239 55.6 28.0ASE 128 52.3 29.7JPKE 90 34.8 18.9AFIT 120 69.2 33.3URPE 312 42.9 18.6IAFFE 288 23.3 9.4AHE 20 85.0 50.0HEN 223 78.0 32.8PEF 12 33.3 25.0OPE 26 61.5 34.6Overall* 1020 28.7 9.6

*Excludes double countingAHE – Association for Heterodox EconomicsHEN – Heterodox Economics NewsletterPEF – Progressive Economic ForumOPE - Outline on Political Economy List

[Derived from Appendix A.24, Table 6]

Professional Integration through the Formation of Heterodox Associations: A Case Study of the Association for Heterodox Economics Based on Participant-Observation



In the mid-1990s, the CSE, PKSG, and the Great Malvern conference were quiteactive. However by 1998 the CSE no longer had an annual conference, the Great Malvernconferences had ceased, and the PKSG activities and attendance at its seminars haddecline. Moreover, the Royal Economics Society (RES) accepted very few heterodox papers forits annual conference and generally created an environment that made many heterodox

economists feel less than welcome. Thus, there existed no venue in theU.K.where heterodoxeconomists could come together in a welcoming environment to give papers, debate, andsocialize. This state of affairs changed rather quickly. At the 1998 RES Conference, I over heardPaul Dunne mention something about a fringe conference on peace and the economics of armsreductions he would like to put on at the 1999 RES Conference that was to be held at NottinghamUniversity. This got me thinking about putting on a heterodox fringe conference. My purposefor the fringe conference was to bring together as many of the British heterodox economists as

possible to hear papers that interested them and to socialize and network. So in October 1998 Icontacted the Nottingham University Conference Centre about hiring a room for a day-conference during the period of the RES Conference. When asked who I was representing, Icame up with the Association for Heterodox Economics. Once the room and date (March 30,1999) were agreed upon, I polled a number of colleagues to see if they thought the conferencewas a good idea and would support it. The feedback was very positive; so I put together a flyercalling for papers and sent it out to virtually all the heterodox economists I knew of in the U.K.(and elsewhere as well). The response to the flyer was better than I expected, which meant thatthe conference expanded from one to two rooms. To cover the expenses, a conference fee of£5.00 was charged and I was able to solicit support and contributions from the Open University,CSE, and EAEPE.

The conference was a success. There were eight sessions in which eighteen papers weregiven on such heterodox topics as financial fragility, whither Post Keynesianism, critical realismand econometrics, the regulation school, dialectics and method, and the non-neutrality ofmoney. There was also a plenary session on the future of heterodox economics with

presentations by Chick, Alan Freeman, and Luigi Pasinetti. Forty-four economists attended andtheir affiliations spanned theU.K.heterodox communities. At the conclusion of the conference,all the participants said that they would like to have another fringe conference at the RES 2000Conference atSt. AndrewsUniversity, either as part of or outside of it. However, the RESrejected my proposal that the fringe conference be part its annual conference; andSt.Andrewsrefused to provide any rooms for the conference. Refusing to admit defeat and supported bymany to hold a second fringe conference, I looked for an alternative conference site. AndrewTrigg came to my rescue and offered the Open University Conference Centre inLondonas the sitefor the conference.

Establishing the AHE: the 2000 and 2001 London Conferences

With the site for the second annual AHE fringe conference secured, Freeman, Trigg, and I began to organize it. Freeman came up with the conference title of The Other EconomicsConference 2000 to signify that there was more to economics than what was to be found at theRES 2000 Conference. Next, when putting together the call for papers, we felt that we needed to

be more specific about what we included under heterodox economics. Drawing upon our



collective perspectives, we came up with Post Keynesian economics, Marxian economics, labor process theory, Institutionalist economics, feminist economics, evolutionary economics, historyof economic thought, business history, social economics, input-output analysis, economic policy,interdisciplinary economics, Sraffian economics, and economic philosophy .[13] Thus, a call for

papers via e-mail and post was sent to individuals in the U.K., Ireland, and overseas. The call for

papers resulted in over eighty submissions, about half being international. When selecting papersand organizing them into sessions, there was an initial tendency of grouping papers togetherrepresenting a specific theoretical perspective, that is for example, all Post Keynesian paperswere grouped together separate from Marxist papers. However, Freeman objected to thisintellectual segregation, especially since the purpose of the AHE was to bring heterodoxeconomists together, not to divide them and put them into separate sessions. Hence all theconference s essions were identified by themes, such as ‘heterodox political economy: publicfinance’ .[14]

The conference was organized into three parallel sessions over two days in order toaccommodate the sixty-one papers being presented on the many different facets of heterodoxeconomics. In addition, there were also two plenary sessions at the conference. At the firstsession, Paul Omerod gave a lecture on “The Death of Economics Revisited” and at the secondChick and John Grahl debated whether the U.K.should join the European singlecurrency. Finally, there was a conference dinner at which Bernard Corry gave the after dinnerspeech. Ninety-three conference participants came from the U.K., Ireland, Europe, NorthAmerica, and the Pacific Rim. During the conference, a meeting was held to discuss the future ofthe AHE and it was decided to form a open coordinating committee with Trigg as thecoordinator. It was charged with the mandate to put on an annual AHE conference and to engagein any other activities that would promote heterodox economics in the U.K.andIreland .[15] There was also an extensive discussion at the meeting on whether the AHE shouldcontinue to hold fringe conferences at the RES conferences. However, the majority felt that thiswas being too confrontational and hence it was agreed to hold the AHE conference at a differenttime and place from the RES annual conference.

The third AHE conference, which was also held in Londonat the Open UniversityConference Centre, was even more of a success than the previous year, with eight-four papers

being presented and three plenary sessions. One plenary session dealt with the concerns of theFrench movement for Post- Autistic Economics and the Cambridgestudents’ proposal on theopening up economics, while a second session was on the future of heterodox economics. At thethird plenary, A. W. Coats gave a lecture on the history of heterodox economics, pointing out thatideas quickly switch in status from orthodox to heterodox and vice versa . Finally, at theconference dinner, John King, the after-dinner speaker, delighted his audience with spicyanecdotes and derisive tales of journal editors from hell. The success of the conference meantthat the AHE was now an established association with a good financial base and a growing bodyof activists and participants.

Building a Community of Heterodox Economists















The purpose of the AHE and its annual conference was and is to bring all heterodoxeconomists in the U.K. and Ireland together to hear papers that interest them, to socialize andnetwork, and to build a community where pluralism, not division existed. The themes of the firstconferences promoted community with pluralism and the participants included heterodoxeconomists from the CSE, PKSG, EAEPE, and the Cambridge Realist Workshop; the subsequent

conferences Dublin (2002), Nottingham (2003), Leeds (2004) and London (2005, 2006)continued in the same vain. In addition, recognizing that the future of heterodox economicsdepends critically on the next generation of economists that emerge from academia, WendyOlsen and Alfredo Saad Filho obtained funding from the ESRC to organize an AHE advancedtraining workshop in heterodox research methodologies. The first AHE methodology workshoptook place in November 2001 and covered causal explanations, modeling, grounded theory,statistical analysis, and qualitative research. There were twenty-six Ph.D. students in attendancefrom the U.K., Ireland, Germany, Canada, and the U.S., many of which continued to participatein the AHE annual conference. The three subsequent workshops repeated the successes of thefirst one and hence promoted further professional engagement among Britain’s heterodoxeconomists. Finally, the AHE promoted professional engagement by representing allU.K.heterodox economists before governmental agencies, such as the Quality AssessmentAgency regarding the revision of the subject benchmark statement for economics. Thus the AHEand its professional-engaging activities made a significant contribution to the building of acommunity of heterodox economists in the U.K .[16]

Emergence of the Community of Heterodox Economists: Theoretical Integration

Theoretical segregation involves the isolation of a particular theoretical approach and itsadherents from all other approaches and their adherents; that is to say, theoretical segregationoccurs when there is no engagement across different theoretical approaches. Again a popularview to articulate which elicits voluminous e-mails attesting to it but providing no supportingevidence. However, as will be shown below, it does not exist within heterodox economicscurrently and nor has it existed in the past among the various heterodox approaches. That is, inthe first half of the 20 th Century the development of Institutional economics did not occurindependently of engagement with Marxism and the economics of Keynes; and Marxists were notadverse to drawing on Thorstein Veblen and also engaging with Keynes. Moreover, Marxism,and particularly Paul Sweezy and the monopoly capital school, drew upon the work of MichaelKalecki and Josef Steindl, who also contributed to the development of Post Keynesianeconomics. Finally, the development of Post Keynesian economics from the 1930s onwardsengaged with Institutionalism and Marxism directly or indirectly through Gardiner Means,Kalecki, Steindl, and Piero Sraffa. This had as an outcome an alteration of the heterodoxapproaches — that is to say the various heterodox approaches were somewhat alter so as to be lessdistinct from each other and to be more conducive for integration with each other.

This general proclivity for pluralistic theoretical engagement continued unabated from the1960s through the 1980s with various endeavors by heterodox economists to engage, integrate orsynthesis Institutional, Post Keynesian, and Marxist-radical approaches, Institutional and PostKeynesian approaches, Post Keynesian and Marxian-radical approaches, Post Keynesian andAustrian, Austrian and Institutionalists, Feminist and Marxist-radical approaches, Institutional







and Marxist-Radical Approaches, Institutional and Social Economics, ecological and Marxian-radical approaches, and social and Marxian economics. Thus by 1990 many heterodoxeconomists could no longer see distinct theoretical boundaries between the various approaches,an outcome that mirrors the professional integration already taking place.

From 1990 to the present day, heterodox economists continued the past integration effortsof engaging across the various heterodox approaches — see Table 4. The theoretical engagement between Post Keynesian, Institutional, social, Marxian/radical, and feminist economics isunsurprising since, as delineated in the previous section, many heterodox economists aremembers of more than one heterodox association. In addition, we find that there areengagements between ecological and Marxian, social, and Institutional economics as well as

between Austrians and Marxian/radical, Post Keynesian, Institutional, and feministeconomics. Moreover, there are creative mixtures of heterodox approaches that are bestdescribed by their own names, such as the social structures of accumulation school, the Frenchconventions school, and economic sociology. Finally to reinforce the theoretical integrationobvious in Table 10.4, the informal but de facto editorial policies adopted by their editors resultedin papers being accepted for publication that engaged with the full range of heterodoxapproaches. Consequently, from 1993 to 2003 the nine principle English language generalistheterodox journal s[17] cited each other so extensively that no single journal or sub-set of journalsis isolated — see Appendix A.27. Hence they form a completely interdependent whole where allheterodox approaches have direct and indirect connections with each other.

It is clear that the heterodox community is not segregated along theoretical lines, butrather there is cross-approach engagement to such an extent that the boundaries of the variousapproaches do not simply overlap, they are, in some cases, not there at all. The ensuingtheoretical messiness of cross-approach engagement is evidence to detractors of the theoreticalincoherence of heterodox economics whereas to supporters of progress towards a moretheoretically coherent heterodox economics — a glass half-empty of coherence vs. a glass half-fullof coherence .[18]

Table 4

Theoretical Work that Engaged Two (or More) Heterodox Approaches

(Representative Sample for the Period, 1990 – 2006)

Post KeynesianI nstituti onalism

Post KeynesianFeminism

Post KeynesianMarxism/Radical

Post KeynesianAustrian

Lavoie (1992) Levin (1995) Dutt (1990) Runde (1993)Jennings(1994) Danby (2004) Crotty (1993) Prychitko (1993)Arestis (1996) van Staveren (2006) Lavoie (2006) Mongiovi (1994)

InstitutionalismFeminism

InstitutionalismM arxi sm/Radical

InstitutionalismSocial Economics

FeminismMarxism/Radical

Peterson & Brown(1994) Garnett (1999) Stanfield (1994) Matthaei (1996)











Waller (2005) Mouhammed (2000) Merrett (1997) Gibson-Graham(1996)

Dugger & Sherman(2000) Niggle (2003)

Barker & Feiner

(2004)FeminismSocial Economics

Social EconomicsEcological

AustrianI nstituti onalism

AustrianM arxi sm/Radical

Emami (1993) Gowdy (1994) Horwitz (1998) Adaman & Devine (1996) Nelson (1993) Ropke (2005) Burczak et. al (1998)

Prychitko (2002)Ecological

I nstituti onalism Ecological

Marxism/Radical Austrian

Feminism Other

Soderbaum (2000) Martinez-Alier (2003) Horwitz (1995) Kotz, et. al (1994)Vatn (2005) Burkett (2006) Levy (2002)

Smelser & Swedberg (2005)

Heterodox Economics in 2006

The absence of professional and theoretical segregation means that the heterodoxcommunity is a pluralistic integrative whole. Some heterodox economists hold distincttheoretical views while maintaining a broad professional engagement, while others hold broadtheoretical views but maintain a narrower professional engagement. In any case, all heterodoxeconomists have much in common that is positive (as opposed to holding only a critique ofmainstream economics in common), which means they are all capable of producing scientificknowledge about the economy and the social provisioning process that is of direct and/or indirectinterest to each other. This combination of professional and theoretical engagement has twoimportant implications for heterodox economics. The first is that the community is distinct fromthe community of mainstream economists; and the second is that it generates the central valuethat underpins the community of heterodox economists: that is the value of pluralism — the rightof different theoretical approaches to exist without qualification — and its corollary thatengagement with the different approaches is a positive social value.

So what does the community of heterodox economists look like in terms of its members,associations, publication outlets, work sites, conferences, and communications? First of all it is

both a national and world-wide community. That is, it consists of at least twenty-sevenheterodox associations, some of which were formed over thirty years ago while others wereformed in the last decade; and those identified are located in the United States, UnitedKingdom/Ireland, Japan, Brazil, Europe and seven other countries around the world — see Table5. In addition, there are many heterodox economists not members of these associations butsimply subscribe to heterodox journals, such as the JPKE, subscribe to heterodox newsletterssuch as HEN, or are members of particular heterodox e-mail lists such as OPE or MEX-V. Consequently, heterodox economists are found around the world — see Table 6 and AppendixA.25. Some associations and e-mail lists are specific to particular countries because of language(ADEK, KSESA, MEX-V) or particular focus (PEF), which means that the number of their



members that belong to other associations may be low. However, other associations are not soconstrained and hence 28% to 68% of their membership belong to two or more other heterodoxorganizations and from 15% to 34% belong to three or more — see Appendix A.26. Furthermoreevery heterodox organization has at least a few members that belong to four or more suchorganizations; and these fifty-five heterodox economists are well-known for their professional

engagement and leadership, with forty located in the United States, four in the United Kingdom,two each in Canada and Australia, and seven scatted around the world — see Table 6 andAppendix A.26.

Table 10.5

Heterodox Economics Associations, 2006

NameDate

Formed Countr y or Regionof Primary Activity

M embership2006 (ifknown)

Association d’Economie Politique (AEP) 1980 Canada 250Association for Economics and SocialAnalysis(AESA)

Late1970s United States

Association for Evolutionary Economics(AFEE) 1965 United States 360

Association for Heterodox Economics(AHE) 1999 United Kingdom &

Ireland 167

Association for Institutionalist Thought(AFIT) 1979 United States 128

Association for Social Economics(ASE) 1970 United States 181Association pour le DeveloppementDes Estudes Keynesiennes(ADEK)

2000 France 54

Association Recherche et Regulation 1994 FranceBelgian-Dutch Association forInstitutional and Political Economy 1980 The Netherlands &

BelgiumConference of Socialist Economists(CSE) 1970 United Kingdom

European Association forEvolutionary Political Economy(EAEPE)

1988 Europe

German Association of Political Economy GermanyGerman Keynes Society Germany 100International Association for FeministEconomics(IAFFE)

1992 World 624

International Confederation of Associationsfor 1993 United States/World



Pluralism in Economics(ICAPE)JapanAssociation for EvolutionaryEconomics(JAFEE)

1996 Japan

JapanSociety of Political Economy(JSPE) 1959 JapanThe Japanese Society forPost Keynesian Economics(JSPKE)

1980 Japan

Korean Social and Economic StudiesAssociation(KSESA)

1987 Korea 179

Progressive Economics Forum(PEF) 1998 Canada 183

Society for the Advancement ofBehavioral Economics(SABE)

1982 United States

Society for the Advancement ofSocio-Economics(SASE)

1989 World

Society for the Development ofAustrian Economics(SDAE)

1996 United States

Society of Heterodox Economists(SHE) 2002 Australia 86

Sociedade Brasileira de Economia Politica(SEP) 1996 Brazil

Unionfor Radical Political Economics(URPE) 1968 United States 363

US Society for Ecological Economics(USSEE) 2000 United States

Table 10.6

Heterodox Economists by Country, 2006

Country Number of HeterodoxEconomists

Membership/subscriptionin four or

more heterodoxorganizations

United States 1026 40United Kingdom 233 4



Canada 231 2Korea 187 1Mexico 113Australia 105 2France 77

Japan 58 1Italy 44 1Germany 39Brazil 35India 33TheNetherlands 32 1Austria 30 1Turkey 25

New Zealand 24 1Spain 23Greece 21Rest ofEurope 117Rest of World 106 1Total 2559 55

[Derived from Appendix A.25 and A.26]

The community also includes some thirty generalist heterodox journals, seventeenspecialist journals, twenty-six interdisciplinary journals, and a whole host of popular

journals. Some of the journals are national in orientation while others are international, particularly the Post-Autistic Economics Review with its 9,410 subscribers from over 150countries. Moreover, there are approximately fourteen heterodox book series and at least eightinternational publishers, including Ashgate, Cambridge, Edward Elgar, Michigan, Pluto Press,Routledge, M. E. Sharpe, and Verso, and a large number of national publishers that have aspecific interest in publishing heterodox economics books. In addition, there are a large numberof work sites, that is, academic departments in many different countries where the production andteaching of heterodox economics takes place without prejudice. The number of departmentsaround the world that offer post-graduate qualifications, such as a M.A. or Ph.D., in whichheterodox economics is an important component is more than thirty; and it is the graduates ofthese post-graduate programs that will determine the character and personality of the heterodoxcommunity over the next two decades .[19] Finally, as a rough estimate there are at least thirty-five heterodox conferences a year around the world, including the annual conferences of many ofthe above heterodox associations, supplemented by AESA’s and ICAPE’s triennialconferences. The significance of the many conferences is that they promote and maintain socialrelationships between heterodox economists and hence help glue the community together. Andwhen not attending conferences, heterodox economists, especially those in relatively isolatedsituations, rely on association newsletters or more generally the HEN to remain part of thecommunity.







The response of mainstream economists to individual heterodox economists in recentyears has not changed from the responses in earlier times. Such responses, while painful toindividuals and threatens their continual membership in the community, do not necessarily affectthe structural and relational components that maintain the community of heterodoxeconomists. However, in the past decade the mainstream has threaten the actual structures of the

community by attacking, through assessment exercises, subject benchmarking statements, andranking departments and journals, the work site and production of doctoral students. Repulsingthe attack requires, in part, that heterodox economics be taught to more students, that moredoctoral students be produced, and that heterodox economists become more professionally andtheoretically engaged through joining multiple heterodox associations, subscribing to multipleheterodox journals, attending multiple heterodox conferences, and engaging in open pluralistictheoretical dialogue with other heterodox economists. But what is really necessary to do is forheterodox economists challenge the research assessment exercises, subject benchmarkstatements, and the mainstream ranking of journals and departments through, perhaps, developingtheir own methods of research assessments and ranking of journals and departments. All this willtake is the will to act and in 2006 there are many members in the community of heterodoxeconomists who have such capabilities.

[1] This issue still exists today in that some find heterodox economics too uninspiring and wouldlike heterodox political economy, political and social economy, or Institutional-evolutionary

political economy instead.

[2] Illustrative of this transition was the use of heterodox political economy, heterodox perspectives, and heterodox economics atHobart andWilliamSmithCollege over the period fromthe late 1980s to the early 1990s to collectively refer to the various heterodox approaches. Forexample, in 1993 Charles Whalen taught a course on political economy that included a survey ofheterodox economics which covered Austrian, Marxian, Sraffian, Institutional, Feminist, and PostKeynesian economics (course outline is in the possession of the author).

[3] AFEEMAIL is the discussion list for the Association for Evolutionary Economics and itsarchive can be found at Heterodox EconomicsWeb: http://www.orgs.bucknell.edu/afee/HetDisc.htm ; PEN-L is the discussion list for theProgressive Economists Network and its archive can be found athttp://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/index.htm ; and PKT is the discussion list for PostKeynesian Thought and its archive can be found athttp://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pkt/index.htm . For the period 1994 to 1999 there wereover 300 me ssages that included the term ‘heterodox’ and of these approximately 150 had theterms ‘heterodox economics’ and/or ‘heterodox economists’. It needs to be noted that while thePKT discussion list started in 1993, it is only possible to search it for “heterodox” for the period1999 to 2004 when it was discontinued.

[4] The two issues of the Review can be found at http://www.heterodoxnews.com/ Heterodox Economics Newsletter issue 41. Nilsson stopped publishing the Review because it was too costly

http://www.orgs.bucknell.edu/afee/HetDisc.htm


http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/index.htm


http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pkt/index.htm


http://www.heterodoxnews.com/









to produce; however, he did post on the web one outcome of the Review, information on twenty-eight journals of interest to heterodox economists. This list of heterodox journals was first put onthe web in 1994 and last updated in September 1995 but has a long web life being cited and/orreferred to as late as 2004. The most recent version of a list of heterodox economic journals isfound at http://heterodoxnews.com/directory/HeterodoxDirectory4th-2011.pdf .

[5] In 1995 Prychitko established a ‘heterodox’ book series with the State University of NewYork Press on “Diversity in Contemporary Economics”. The aim of the series was to publishscholarly manuscripts that explored methodological and/or theoretical alternatives to (not justcriticisms of) mainstream neoclassical economics. And the series was not bound to any oneideology or school of thought, but welcome contributions from Austrians, Feminists,Institutionalists, Post Keynesians, radicals, Sraffians, and others. Unfortunately, the book serieswas short- lived with Prychitko’s book as the only publication.

[6] Concretely, this meant Marxist, radical, Post Keynesian, and evolutionary economists.

[7] While many heterodox economists welcome Austrian economists into the heterodoxcommunity, many Austrian economists seem to have little interest in being part of it, perhaps

because of the former’s questioning perspecti ve about free markets.

[8] The Heterodox Economics Newsletter , which comes out every three weeks, can be found athttp://www.heterodoxnews.com/HEN/home.html .

[9] Evidence for this is their widespread usage on the Capital and Class, Feminist EconomistsDiscussion Group, International Association for Feminist Economics, Online on PoliticalEconomy, AFEEMAIL, PEN-L, and PKT discussion lists from 2000 to 2006 (perhaps on theorder of 3 to 5 times greater than for the period of 1994 to 1999).

[10] However, some ‘local’ actions have occurred, such as when the localNew York Citychapter of URPE expelled Anwar Shaikh in 1975 because he engaged with Sraffian-PostKeynesians.

[11] The Appendicies can be found athttp://cas.umkc.edu/economics/people/facultyPages/lee/default.asp .

[12] To provide a comparison with the mainstream, there are approximately 14,775 members ofthe American Economic Association located in theUnited States; or there are about fourteenAEA mainstream economists for every heterodox economist.

[13] This encompassing view of heterodox economics was retained for the 2001 AHEConference; but for the 2002 and subsequent AHE Conferences it was reduced to a more generalstatement: All economists are encouraged to come together and hear a diversity of papers ontopics not well represented in mainstream economics. Papers from a plurality of perspectives andtopics are encouraged.

http://heterodoxnews.com/directory/HeterodoxDirectory4th-2011.pdf



http://www.heterodoxnews.com/HEN/home.html


http://cas.umkc.edu/economics/people/facultyPages/lee/default.asp







[14] This approach has generally been retained for the subsequent AHE conferences. The onlyexception was the two sessions on Austrian economics at the 2001 AHE Conference. Theexception was made in order to get Austrian economists involved in the AHE. The drawback tothe approach is that schools of thought or branches of economics are disguised and this has

prompted some heterodox economists who are only familiar with a ghettoized heterodox

economics to argue that the AHE appears to be closed when it is not.[15] Prior to the Conference, few heterodox economists fromIreland participated in heterodoxactivities in theU.K. However, given the interest of the two that attended the Conferencecombined with the AHE’s intention to include all “local” heterodox economists, its mandate wasextended to includeIreland as well.

[16] In 1996 – 2000 and in 2002 – 2003 there were approximately 174 and 166 heterodoxeconomists in theU.K. — see Appendix A.22. In 2006, there were approximately 233 heterodoxeconomists, in spite of the impact of the RAE. Of the 233, ninety-five belonged to two or moreheterodox associations while twenty-three belonged to three or more. Moreover, the AHE hadseventyU.K. members in 2006, of which twenty belonged to other heterodox associations orsubscribed to the JPKE — see Appendix A.25.

[17]The journals include Cambridge Journal of Economics, Capital and Class, Feminist Economics, Journal of Economic Issues, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Metroeconomica, Review of Political Economy, Review of Radical Political Economics, and Review of Social Economy .

[18] Consequently, allegations that heterodox economists maintain a ‘strict’ allegiance to a particular approach that is the truth as well as the phr ases ‘rigidity of heterodoxy’ and ‘stalenessof work’ lose meaning and substance.

[19] It should be noted that every one of the post-graduate programs take a pluralistic-integrativeapproach to teaching heterodox economics.

Documents

The Emergence of Heterodox Economics