Search

Contextual economics weaves together aspects of orthodox and heterodox economics theories (e.g. feminist, ecological, Keynesian and Marxist economics) in such a way that (re)interprets formal economic models within changing social, historical and environmental contexts. Drawing from the work of Julie Nelson, Kate Raworth and process philosophers, this paper conceptualises the contextual economic paradigm as nesting static abstractions within changing contexts. This brings into question the static metaphysics assumed by mainstream neoclassical economics, and presents an alternative basis for economics arising from processrelational metaphysics. This leads to an economics that: situates the economy as a subsystem of society and ecosystems; replaces Homo economicus with persons-in-communities; and redirects economic policies from profit and GDP growth to purpose and improving wellbeing. This shift in thinking, metaphysics and economics--nesting static in processes--is posited as a critical reorientation of economic decision-making for personal and planetary wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically evaluates the liberal-humanist critique of neoclassical microeconomics and shareholder-driven corporate governance to articulate a more realistic cooperativist– humanist organisational philosophy of practice. Through an engagement with pluralist heterodox economics, it attempts to reconcile with contemporary concerns and philosophical developments around social ecology and care ethics. Our specific contribution is to develop a microfoundational complement to the macro-relational analysis of leading radical philosophical and political-economic thinkers on the Latin American left. In particular, the worker-inclusive multistakeholder cooperative (MSC) form is arrived at as the ideal firm-level organisation through which to promote diverse human (and non-human) dignity, understood through the lens of an affective-relational ethics of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heterodox economics emerged because of dissatisfaction with the high level of abstraction of neoclassical economics and its excessive reliance on mathematical modelling. Instead of ontological and epistemological references to the natural sciences, heterodox economists turn their attention to the social sciences and biology. The article aims to contribute to the discussion of methodology of heterodox economics and original institutionalism in particular. It explores the potential of content analysis for empirically oriented research in heterodox economics. Content analysis is widely used in the social sciences (sociology, linguistics, political sciences, legal studies) to analyze qualitative data (texts, images, videos) but is relatively unknown to heterodox economists. Content analysis takes several forms: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. It is argued that content analysis is not only compatible with the methodology of heterodox economics through critical realism but has a potential to contribute to its further development. With the help of content analysis, heterodox economists would be better equipped to collect and process qualitative data that prevail in social realms. A content analysis of a sample of articles published in Journal of Economic Issues (N = 763) in 1967–1969 and 2010–2019 informs the discussion of applications of content analysis to heterodox economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

He was highly critical of the ideological structure behind capitalism with liberalism putting property over people (Losurdo [35]; Henry [27]) and neoclassical economics being one, among other, frauds used to justify the capitalist socio-economic order (Henry [12]). I Erik Olsen i Recollections of John F. Henry I first encountered John in an Economics of Racism class at California State University-Sacramento in the summer of 1976. If one bases their analysis on social foundations, John argues, an ensuing theory cannot be natural, normal, and universal (which are the characteristics of neoclassical economics that John considered the "illusion" of our epoch). A festschrift in Dr. Henry's honor, I Marx, Veblen, and the Foundations of Heterodox Economics: Essays in Honor of John F. Henry i , was published in 2015 (Jo and Lee [31]). In particular, I'm thinking of John's essay on Keynes as a Neoliberal (Henry [30]) and a piece on Frank Knight, "Ethics and Economic Theory" (Henry, unpublished manuscript). [Extracted from the article]

As I have argued elsewhere, there is no room for the concept of need in the prevailing neoclassical school of economics—without reducing the need to a purely subjective construct. Not so, however, both in classical political economy and in the contemporary heterodox schools of economics. The main aim of this paper is, firstly, to show the existence of the concept of need as such in Carl Menger—widely acknowledged as one of the fathers of modern economics; and secondly, to trace the concept's erasure in the orthodox school along with its rediscovery in the heterodox schools. With this exposition on the history of the idea, I hope to demonstrate how taking the concept seriously would urge us to engage ontological research and would mandate a significant change in economic analysis, regardless of whether this change is considered to reside within the orthodox tradition or be deemed a departure to heterodoxy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article identifies the assumptions of "orthodoxy" by observing their evolution in economic analysis. Topics include no correlation between orthodoxy or heterodoxy in economics and political beliefs and commitments, how the French Revolution has disrupted political culture and intellectual life in France, and competition among buyers and among sellers.

This paper revisits the conception of heterodox economics advanced by Tony Lawson in 2006 and critically assesses its reception. I consider the bearing of later contributions—most importantly, his 2013 paper 'What is this "school" called neoclassical economics'—in which Lawson further develops his analysis of heterodox economics. The goal is to provide additional clarity to the discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Foundations of Real-World Economics: What Every Student Needs to Know John Komlos argues that many modern textbooks on the principles of economics offer an inadequate and misleading introduction to economics. A number of the shortcomings he identifies are often dealt with in more advanced economics courses, but many students only take one course in economics. [Extracted from the article]

Modern heterodox theories of money reject the neoclassical conception of money as primarily a medium to facilitate exchange. These heterodox theories of money all have as common starting point an analysis of credit-debt relations in which production is a central feature, with these economies organized along capitalistic design. The Keynesian-Marxian framework describing the process of monetary circulation, traditionally referred to as the theory of the monetary circuit (TMC), perhaps best represents this comprehensive vision. This broad TMC analytical framework is compatible with institutionalist theories of money that also point to the importance of credit-debt relations. The question, however, is whether this more unified heterodox theory of money, which describes sequentially monetary relations under capitalism, can be used to understand pre-capitalistic monetary institutions. By conceptualizing money as a means of payment rather than medium of exchange, Karl Polanyi’s analysis offers social scientists crucial insights to understanding monetary relations in all types of societies in which credit-debt relations have emerged historically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Economics as a discipline is currently in disarray. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, academic experts, students, commentators, practitioners and politicians all questioned the status of academic economics and many called for a 'new economic thinking'. Nearly a decade later, however, there is little evidence of a transformation in research and teaching. The present study first clarifies what is meant by a transformation of economics as a discipline, since this remains an ill-defined term and may be interpreted in very different ways. It then establishes the conditions of a successful transformation of the discipline in terms of intra-disciplinary and extra-disciplinary factors. The paper argues that economics as a discipline cannot be expected to trigger this transformation by itself (i.e. via self-regulation), since the 'market for economic ideas' is prone to market failure. In addition, the influence of external factors and actors on the market may serve to distort the congruence between the individual researcher's utility and societal welfare. External incentives are therefore required to establish constitutional guardrails that ensure fair competition between ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The vision of a steady-state economy elaborated by Herman Daly describes an economy that uses materials and energy within the regenerative and assimilative limits of the planet's ecosystems. Sustainable scale, just distribution, and efficient allocation are its constitutive theoretical goals. This paper is a critique of the theoretical foundations of steady-state economics. It argues that steady-state economics consists in an attempt to squeeze neoclassical economics into a biophysical and ethical corset. As a result, many fundamental flaws and criticisms of neoclassical economics remain. As a consequence, steady-state economics does not lead to a radical departure from, or improvement upon, neoclassical theory but rather to fundamental internal inconsistencies between the ‘old’ economics paradigm and ‘new’ progressive ecological economic thinking. Contradictions appear at various levels ranging from ontology and methodology to theory and values. As Daly has pioneered the foundations of ecological economics with his thinking, these ambiguities are not only problematic for steady-state economics but ecological economics as a field more generally. The paper concludes that ecological economics has to let go of neoclassical foundations as they contradict its core values and ambitions. A new and consistent theory of political economy of the environment along heterodox lines is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is this school called neoclassical economics? Does it exist? Should it? Where does the term ‘neoclassical economics’ come from, and is there any connection between any of the current interpretations of the term and its original meaning? How do we make sense of competing current interpretations? Is there a sustainable formulation? These and related questions are raised and answered in an attempt to bring clarity to ongoing economic discussion and debate, thereby to under-labour for a more relevant academic economics discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Post-Keynesian economics and ecological economics have in common that they are considered to be ‘heterodox’ schools of thought. Aside from that, there has not been a strong connection between them. Previous books on post-Keynesian economics contain no chapter on environmental or ecological issues. This neglect has led leading ecological economists to criticize post-Keynesians for succumbing to the same growth paradigm as the neoclassical school. This paper argues that the two approaches are complementary in the sense that they each have different strong points. Ecological economics has correctly pointed out that the growth of the global economy may not be welfare-improving anymore, whereas post-Keynesians have gained valuable insights into the functioning of the capitalist growth process. To determine the feasibility of a synthesis between the two schools, the paper compares their approaches to the problems of production, consumption, and economic dynamics as well as the associated policy recommendations. It shows that on a theoretical level the two schools have much in common, but their policy conclusions differ with regard to the desirability of further growth. The paper concludes that a synthesis of both approaches may lead to a better understanding of how a capitalist economy operates in a natural environment with limits to growth and to better-informed policy advice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The presented article belongs to the research school of sustainable development economics as a relatively new science discipline within the broader area of heterodox economics. This paper is based on literature studies of homo concepts in economics, sociology and psychology. It identifies a research gap in sustainable economics, especially in sustainable energy management, formulating a novel concept of an economic man involved in energy management called homo energeticus. Homo energeticus concept is verified by empirical evidence at a local level-quantitative research conducted on a sample of 500 households in Lower Silesia region in Poland. The research's first objective is to build the original author's methodology on which the shift patterns from homo oeconomicus (neoclassical economics) to homo sustinens (sustainable economics) may be presented and may be used by scientists worldwide. After preparing a method for identifying concept, the second goal is to identify and describe the new concept of behaviour. The main conclusions are the sustainable behavioural pattern is dominating trend observed among households' local energy management (homo energeticus). The homo energeticus behaviour was confirmed by every third respondent (critical threshold of 70%) or less restrictive and sustainable behaviour model homo sustinens (critical threshold of 50%) by more than 91.8% of whole respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]