Search

In this paper the main developments in post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s will be reviewed. For this purpose the main differences between heterodox economics in general, including post-Keynesian economics, and orthodox economics will be reiterated and an overview of the strands of post-Keynesian economics, their commonalities and developments since the 1930s will be outlined. This will provide the grounds for touching upon three important areas of development and progress of post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: first, the integration of distribution issues and distributional conflict into short- and long-run macroeconomics, both in theoretical and in empirical/applied works; second, the integrated analysis of money, finance and macroeconomics and its application to changing institutional and historical circumstances, such as the process of financialisation; and third, the development of full-blown macroeconomic models, providing alternatives to the mainstream ‘New Consensus Model’ (NCM), and allowing us to derive a full macroeconomic policy mix as a more convincing alternative to the one implied and proposed by the mainstream NCM, which has dramatically failed in the face of the recent crises.

In the context of ongoing criticisms of the lack of pluralism in economics, the present article aims to discuss the development of ‘heterodox’ economics since the 1970s. Following Lakatos’s concept of scientific research programs (srp), and concentrating on the situation in Germany, the article will discuss classifications of economics, and will specify the understanding of diversity in the light of ‘axiomatic variations’ of the economic mainstream. This will form the basis for the subsequent description of the development of heterodoxy in Germany, with special reference to the founding of new universities and the reform movements in the 1970s. It can be shown that the heterodox scene flourished in this period, but that this pluralization remained fragmented and short-lived; by the 1980s at the latest heterodoxy was again on its way to marginalization. The history of heterodoxy in Germany thus presents itself as an unequal ‘battle of the paradigms,’ and can only be told as the story of a failure.

Quantitative measures of supposed scientific ‘quality’ (or ‘impact’) based on bibliometric indicators are used as the primary or exclusive tools of research evaluation in a growing number o...

For a long time, France was a country in which various approaches to economics coexisted. This pluralism began to dwindle in the mid-1990s. Since then, France has witnessed the increasing and now overwhelming domination of mainstream economics. This article, drawing on a study of the evolution of the recruitment of professors of economics in France, documents the situation and links the observed trends to the changing institutions governing the discipline (a centralized system evolving under the influence of international norms and instruments). It is demonstrated that far from being fair and neutral devices, the rules and instruments governing economics—notably the ranking lists of economic journals—incorporate specific worldviews strongly biasing the assessment of research toward the mainstream. This article documents the tentative use of ‘voice and exit’ by the French Association of Political Economy to reform the economics discipline. Furthermore, it discusses the arguments proclaimed by Jean ...

Introduction This article is a proposal to change the way economists are educated by applying the principle of "assertive pluralism" to the definition and concept of economics. This will equip the public to recognize bad economics, which I define as economics that takes no precautions against the possibility of error. It offers a remedy for what Colander et al. (2009) describe as a "systemic failure" of economics, prior to the crash of 2008. And it offers the profession a defense against the cause of this failure, which, following Turner (Tett 2009), I describe as its regulatory capture by financial interests. The objectives are intimately linked: a definition of good economics equips the public to demand good economists. By embedding this definition in the requirements placed on economics education providers, a supply of good economists will be created. Both will conspire to produce a generation of economists who can react, and prepare for, those changes in the world that their predecessors were so poorly placed to foresee or react to. The U.K. Context The methodology proposed--assertive pluralism--has wider implications for the reform of economics. It is a general principle, applicable equally inside and outside the United Kingdom and in all spheres of economic practice and theory including research, publication, selection, and promotion, the procurement of policy advice, and, not least, funding. I focus however on U.K. higher education. For the information of readers unfamiliar with the way this has evolved, at this point some context may be helpful. The article outlines the rationale for, and principles behind, a pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for Economics (SBSE). It is an offshoot of a consultation (Freeman 2007) undertaken by the Association for Heterodox Economics (AHE) to provide input for a consultative review of the SBSE undertaken by the U.K. Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in 2007. This led to an AHE-sponsored paper (Freeman 2009) in a special edition of the International Review of Economics Education (Denis 2009), a journal published by the Economics Network, the main practitioner body for developing economics teaching in the UK. The discussion it reflects is thus quite well advanced in the United Kingdom. In 2009 the AHE was asked to address the U.K. Committee of Heads of University Departments of Education (CHUDE), which is formally charged with establishing the SBSE. With CHUDE's support the AHE proposed a panel on pluralism in economics education to the 2010 conference of the Royal Economic Society (RES), effectively the profession's highest U.K. body. The RES however declined to accept. Such refusal, two years into the present crisis, to even consider a discussion on curriculum change, adds weight to the conclusions of this article that significant structural and institutional reforms are required in economics. Subject benchmarks were themselves introduced by the QAA, itself established following a review of higher education conducted at the request of the U.K. Labour government in 1997, headed by Ron Dearing. (1) The QAA, continuing the practice of "audits," which began in 1990, initially concentrated on the teaching and learning process as such, rather than content. However Dearing had recommended that "standards should be developed by the academic community itself, through formal groupings for the main areas of study." Accordingly in 1999, the first three subject benchmarks were released for consultation and a further 19 in 2000. By the middle of the last decade, benchmarks existed to cover almost all subjects. In consequence, imperceptibly but relentlessly, the content of teaching entered into the definition of "quality" of teaching in the United Kingdom. A latent conflict between standards and diversity was recognized from the outset. As Dearing (1997: 10.3) noted: Uniformity of programmes and national curricula, one possible approach to the development of national standards, would deny higher education the vitality, excitement and challenge that comes from institutions consciously pursuing distinctive purposes, with academics having scope to pursue their own scholarship and enthusiasms in their teaching. …

After the 2007–2008 financial crisis exposed the shortcomings of mainstream economic theory the need for pluralism in economics has become more acute. Pluralism appears as the main alternative to avoid the threat to economic science posed by the monopoly of an economic theory divorced from reality and real-world problems. This paper argues that rather than one unique economic theory, there is a collection of economic theories – our collective diversified intellectual portfolio – that compete with each other. Pluralism in economics education is a necessary precondition to enable a level playing field where students have equal access to different theories. However, the difficulties to implement such an approach should not be underestimated. From a practical point of view, it is suggested that implementing a unique digital platform would greatly help to present heterodox ideas and develop internal debate.

What is the role of science in water management? It is argued that science cannot claim value neutrality when dealing with policy or political issues. The scholar is better understood as a political person and actor in a democratic society. Technocracy has a role but should be subordinated to normal ideas of democracy. Experiences from humanities and social sciences are relevant for water policy and management. These issues are discussed in relation to the discipline of economics. The monopoly position of neoclassical economics at university departments of economics is challenged and regarded as part of the problems faced. This monopoly position has strongly influenced the thinking and mental maps of more or less influential actors in our societies. The fact that a specific theoretical perspective in economics is not only science but at the same time ideology suggests that only pluralism in economics research and education is compatible with a democratic society.

International audience; There have been many student calls for more pluralism in economics classrooms. The paper outlines the reasons for which such a call is unlikely to be heard. Orthodox economists believe that there is already enough pluralism and debates within the orthodoxy, and they do not realise that heterodox economists can make a positive contribution to the field, believing instead that their contribution is mostly made up of various criticisms of mainstream economics. In addition, the present situation is not conducive to more pluralism because there is an excess supply flow of PhDs in economics willing to pursue an academic career. More pluralism in the classroom may thus necessitate the creation of a new field, distinct from economics.

Demands for pluralism in economics education have been widespread in recent years. As change in the universities is slow and piecemeal, we present a comparative approach to economics which builds the intellectual basis for the online learning platform Exploring Economics (www.exploring-economics.org). This approach is committed to a vision of theoretical and methodological pluralism and is grounded in concepts derived from biology, the history of economic thought, the philosophy of science and international political economy. We find central categories in which the ten schools of economic thought selected show meta-theoretical patterns which may not only serve as a guide to economics education but may also be relevant for economics research.

Pluralism is a key term in the current discourse in heterodox economics, emphasizing the need for greater theoretical integration and institutional cooperation of different economic traditions. However, both the nature of pluralism and the concrete role ascribed to pluralist thinking for the development of economics have been somewhat contested, pointing to a lack of (widely agreed) conceptual foundations. This paper addresses this conceptual gap by proposing a framework for interested pluralism as a guideline for organizing heterodox economic research, in particular, as well as economic debates, in general. In essence, interested pluralism suggests replacing the traditionally invoked demarcation criteria between different economic traditions by a set of rather ecumenical pluralist principles, whose concrete implications for economic research we discuss.

A pluralist approach to economics is both necessary from an academic as well a policy point of view. From an academic viewpoint pluralism can be understood as the outcome of competition and specialization in the search for new ideas that can deal with imperfections of the real world. From a policy point of view a diversity of view is also desirable as it helps to spread the risk of large mistakes in policy choices. However, the present-day teaching practices and textbooks are by and large not well suited to deal with a pluralist approach. Possible routes of that can help to enrich teaching and curricula are: (1) teaching the art of economic policy; (2) stress teaching economics by learning from the past; (3) teach by becoming imperialist so that a conversation between discipline gets underway; (4) merge business and general economics as the dividing line between the two is nowadays quite thin; (5) practice Reality Economics; and (6) teach basic principles (especially in the bachelors stage) in a 'Socratesian' manner, i.e. let students learn economics by doing (e.g. by experimental economics or interviewing businessmen).

This discussion, with a true pioneer of pluralist economics teaching, examines a particular strategy for achieving reform that has been adopted at Sydney University. It is a strategy that may have wide applicability for the reform of economics. The strategy is shown to have two features. Firstly, there has been the pursuit of institutional independence: a separate department of pluralist economics has been established that is independent of the existing neoclassical economics department. The second feature of the strategy has been one of explicit disciplinary differentiation: a pluralist economics is taught using the disciplinary title of ‘political economy’ rather than ‘economics’. The discussion also offers a range of interesting insights on the mainstream research frontier, the relationship between a pluralist economics and other social sciences, and the issues facing mainstream economists.

University departments of economics have to move from monism to pluralism in the sense of encouraging competing theoretical perspectives. The tension between monism and pluralism is not limited to economics paradigms but also concerns theory of science and ideological orientation. It is argued that dominant theory of science (positivism), dominant paradigm in economics (neoclassical) and dominant ideological orientation (neo-liberalism) together largely explain the institutions that are dominant in present society. Two arguments for pluralism in economics are stressed; it is not realistic to expect one paradigm to be the best for all purposes. The neoclassical perspective was developed for specific purposes and is insufficient for instance in relation to sustainability issues. In addition to the ‘purpose’ argument, there is an ‘ideology-democracy’ argument for pluralism. Each theoretical perspective in economics is specific not only in scientific terms but also in ideological terms. The present close to monopoly position of neoclassical economics at departments of economics limits the scope of economics research and education ideologically in a way that should not be accepted in a democratic society.

Pluralism is one of the most problematic concepts in the social sciences. Despite a bourgeoning debate on the nature of pluralism and its relevance for economics, consideration of pluralism within economics has a short history. This paper identifies the key stages in the development of the pluralism debate within economics. This paper identifies developments in the philosophy of science, the disarray in economic methodology, the consequent pleas for tolerance in economics, and the wider orthodoxy-heterodoxy debate as key factors in shaping the nature and direction of the pluralism debate. The paper concludes with some reflections on the impact of the pluralism debate for economic pedagogy, and postulates returning to the philosophy of science and epistemology as a fruitful direction for discussing and implementing pluralism in economics.

Do we need a Green economics different from mainstream neoclassical economics? The position taken here is that exclusive reliance on neoclassical economics (with its extension to environmental economics) will not be enough in guiding us towards a sustainable society. Neoclassical economics is specific not only in scientific but also in ideological terms and the combined conceptual and ideological message of neoclassical economics is part of the problems faced rather than any solution. Neoclassical economics has to compete with other theoretical and ideological perspectives. In this article an attempt is made to systematically compare elements of neoclassical economics, such as assumptions about the Economic Man, profit-maximising firms and markets, in terms of supply and demand with alternative conceptual and ideological/ethical premises, thus suggesting one possible version of a Green economics.