Search

This paper introduces a special issue of Housing, Theory and Society entitled "Behavioural biases in the housing market". First, we provide a brief overview of theoretical considerations and empirical research applying the behavioural economics approach to housing market studies. Second, we summarize the topics of the papers included in the special issue and, finally, point out directions for future analyses involving behavioural economics and the housing market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article has two objectives. The first is to understand why the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) did not lead to continuing intra-disciplinary debates between mainstream and heterodox economists. This gap is attributed here to mainstream macroeconomists' insistence on using a general equilibrium analytical lens: so doing invisibilizes key aspects of the GFC and restricts the space for inter-paradigmatic exchange. This leads to our second objective: to explore the place of institutional economics in an era in which our community exists outside the economics mainstream. Assisted by insights from Richard Rorty and Tom Shippey, we argue that institutional economics' role remains robust precisely because of features already present in the earliest original institutionalist explorations: analytical flexibility, and specifically understanding that no one model can fully describe lived reality or guide policy responses; a willingness to challenge the use of power for positional advantage, either by privileged agents in the economy itself or by economists defining acceptable terms of theoretical discourse; and an awareness that while social scientific inquiry can "make" (t) truths by careful explorations of socio-economic dynamics, it cannot "find" (T) truths that exist independent of human understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering that the U. S. inflation rate peaked in June 2022, there is no evidence that monetary policy had any significant effect on the direction taken by prices. Yet, like premodern physicians committed to the ancient humoral theory of disease, mainstream economists today have shown that they lack the tools to cure the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Economía is the property of Universidade Federal do Parana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The decline of Neoclassical dominance has paved the way to a more fragmented Mainstream. In this article, we empirically explore the Mainstream’s thematic structure and its fragmentation’s effects on within-discipline communication. For this purpose, we exploit a dataset containing 10,064 articles published in economics in seven Blue Ribbon Eight journals between 1985 and 2006 and their citations. Articles are assigned to 18 topics created via Latent Dirichlet Allocation to represent specialities within economics. Results show that the economic Mainstream has yet to experience a dramatic increase in fragmentation in the observed period, and the prevailing topics are related to market equilibrium and econometrics. Moreover, the Mainstream’s thematic structure does not include any heterodox approach. Regarding communication, economists increasingly tap into diverse sources of information, and such diversity positively impacts the citational patterns of articles. The same result holds for the articles written by Nobel Prize winners and the most cited articles in the discipline, which exhibit a higher diversity than the whole sample.

Human is defined as homo-economicus in mainstream theories. It is accepted that economic person always behaves rationally under the assumptions that he has full information about his decisions, and makes decisions that will maximize his utility. Thus, in a world where there are limited resources with unlimited desires, people are expected to make the same decision between preferences. However, a person who is faced with a decision problem between his preferences at every stage of his life may not always make the expected decisions as the theories assume. As a psychological being, human can make different decisions than expected under the influence of many factors. Thus, with the behavioral approach, psychological, emotional, intuitive, social and cultural factors replace the mainstream concepts of rationality and utility, and human psychology comes to the forefront. It is accepted that people can be bounded rational, and while they are expected to make objective decisions that will always maximize their utility, they can make subjective decisions that emphasize instant pleasure with different priorities. Behavioral approach increases the power of the mainstream to explain people by bringing a different perspective. The aim of the study is to bring together the important points of human behavior in the process from mainstream economics to behavioral economics with a literature review and to explain the human in economic life from the perspective of behavioral approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Irving Fisher's capital-income theory uses the discounted cash-flow model to explain prices, markets, and capitalism. How did his theory get into 'fair-value' accounting standards given that his framework was discredited in the post-1929 crisis aftermath? This article explores one of the possible causes, namely, the popularity of Fisher's theory in mainstream accounting and economic research albeit its lack of supportive evidence and logical consistency. Nonetheless, its history of ideas is far from straightforward. Although 'decision-usefulness' researchers (who inform standard setters) currently endorse Fisher's theory, they have seldom engaged with Fisher's writings. Alongside them, capital-income theorists, normative-theorists and mainstream-economists have been advocating Fisher's theory with a taken-for-granted-knowledge status, which often fails to cite its heritage. Furthermore, although 'decision-usefulness' researchers have historically claimed opposition to normative theories, this opposition is deceptive. Fisher's theory is undeniably normative. It favours shareholders/owners over other stakeholders. Moreover, various normative-theorists have accepted Fisher's theory for valuation purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article begins by identifying different ways of conceptualizing political economy. In light of this conceptual discussion, it looks at political economy from an institutional perspective, in two different senses. First, paying special attention to the distinction between mainstream and nonmainstream in economics and in other disciplines, it considers the institutions of contemporary political economy, i.e., the rules of behaviour and of thought that are socially shared among one or more groups of academics involved with political economy. It argues that there are good institutional and intellectual reasons to strategically promote further interdisciplinary integration between various approaches in nonmainstream economics and in the mainstream of other disciplines. Second, the article examines institutions in political economy, i.e., institutions in the reality outside academia that are relevant for political economy. Institutional issues in political economy are highlighted here not only because they are relevant and ubiquitous outside academia, but also because they are especially promising as subject matters about which that much needed interdisciplinary integration of approaches in political economy can occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mainstream economics is one way of understanding how the economy works, but mainstream economists argue much more: that mainstream economics is the only way of understanding the economy. Mainstream economists should embrace pluralism for reasons suggested by John Stuart Mill: as a guard against the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny that fortifies itself against doubt not by reason but by power; even if the majority is right and the doubters wrong, engaging with doubt is a way to strengthen correct arguments; and, most likely, according to Mill, there is partial truth on the side of heterodoxy as well as on the orthodox side. The two elements of the power of mainstream economists are related: the police power over what is and what is not published in the major journals, and the role of publication in these journals in the tenure process. Pluralism is not an issue of concern to academics only. Economists of all stripes may try to construct the economy in the image of their theories, but for some time the mainstream has had the upper hand, just as it does in the academy. The push to deregulate the economy, which began in the United States during the Carter presidency, had its full flowering in the financial crisis of 2008. What will it take to allow heterodoxy into the academy? If history is any guide, innovations in economics take root when they are allied to successful political movements. One case in point is the symbiosis between Keynes’s General Theory and the New Deal and social democracy. Another is the resurgence of pre-Keynesian theory dressed up in the high-tech mathematics of New Classical theory and the coming to power of the apostles of neoliberalism in the 1980s. It’s a good bet that for a new economics to take hold in this century, it will do so in partnership, however tacit, with a new politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opponents of mainstream economics have not yet called attention to the lack of in-depth examination of the general scientific conception of modern economics. However, economic science cannot consistently fulfil the epistemological and ontological requirements of the scientific standards underlying this conception. What can be scientifically recognized as true cannot be answered, neither through the actual ontological structure of the object of observation nor through a methodological demarcation. These limitations necessarily lead to the claim for both a pragmatic and a radical methodological pluralism.

This paper discusses the roots of the unending conflicts between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in economics, including the paradigms behind the main disagreements. Historically, it is impossible to define any school of economics and thought - in Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - via homogeneous and monolith terms, concepts, outlines, definitions, and ideas. The most essential and obvious fact of the economy (and the especially central fact of political economy) is the "transformation of economics," including concepts, methodologies, understanding, and even perception(s). Since the early 19th Century, the "concept of economics" has changed. This process has been advancing on controversial studies based on concrete facts and phenomena in human life (especially inflation, unemployment, growth, wealth, poverty, development, etc.). But just like the methodologies and understanding of the facts, economic studies' and focuses on economics transformed the outcomes of these concepts) have also been changing. Unfortunately, most economists still choose to label themselves via one of the "poles" (Orthodox or Heterodox) and become part of/this polarization. And the economy has much more profound and solid polarization than any other social sciences (including sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, etc.) and natural sciences (math, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, this polarization means more than just methodologic differentiation. It also includes biases and, most of the time, ideologic backgrounds. This fact makes "the schism" much deep, unique and vital, especially in critical periods (such as like financial crisis in 2007, Covid19 in 2019, and many others). Also, unlike other social sciences, economics is directly related to daily life (and political dilemmas). And the main focus of this article is briefly explaining the roots of this polarization(s) via the most explosive conflicts between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, including a brief Ontological analysis of this schism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT The financial crises in emerging economies during the 1990s and 2000s propelled academia and multilateral institutions to investigate whether the promised benefits of capital account liberalization were being delivered or not. In the course of empirical studies on the subject, many ex ante theoretical assumptions on financial globalization were demystified, and previously unknown risks and dysfunctions began to be evidenced. This article analyzes the main empirical studies on the effects of financial globalization published in the last two decades and shows that the main conventional assumptions that were built to theoretically base the capital account liberalization processes that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s were wrong.

Economic thought always permeated human living. Economic thought and the development of economics as a discipline in the last few centuries made it central to the world order. However, the foundational problems that mainstream economics suffers from led to uncounted crises and issues within the same order that created it. A physicalist ontology, rationalist epistemology, axiological futility, and methodological deficiency are the problems of philosophical foundations of mainstream economics we reviewed in this paper. The methodology of this paper is qualitative and generally adopts the library research and critical content analysis methods to review and respond to identified foundational problems. Muslims islah and tajdid responses to the West and mainstream economics problems and issues found shape in Islamisation of Knowledge (IOK) and Islamic Economics (IE). The recent shift to Integration of Knowledge (IoK) universalizes the appeal and revives the zeal for IE development in light of IoK based on IOK in this paper. A thorough analysis of IOK, IoK, and IE responses to the West and mainstream economics enabled us to appraise it as the alternative and solution to the foundational problems. The paper clarified the way for future research in IE in light of IoK and directed the academia and industry towards economic reasoning based on robust foundations.

The article draws on the consideration that, especially after the Second World War, economics started favouring its alliance with technical reason, loosening its previous ties with practical reason. In so doing, the discipline has considerably developed its technical-analytical apparatus, but at the price of diminishing its capacity to come to grip grips with the most intriguing problems of present-day reality. It is a fact that technical advancements may offer answers, but are unable to ask the right questions. The reductionist stance of mainstream economics is put to a test in regard to two areas of inquiry: finance theory and the economics of happiness paradox. The thesis defended is that an axiological re-orientation of economic science is urgently required. To this end, the proposal of the civil economy paradigm, as an alternative to the political economy one, is put forward. The suggestion is that the civil economy perspective represents a viable route to overcome the serious aporias of the discipline, that jeopardize its scientific and social relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Nova Economia is the property of Nova Economia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article looks at the future of heterodox economics from an institutional perspective, while commenting on Geoffrey Hodgson's 2019 book on this issue. It contrasts heterodox and mainstream economics, identifies some problems facing the former and discusses what should be done. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mainstream economics has become more interdisciplinary. Why is this? Does it represent a break with its intra-disciplinary character? How does it relate to major points of criticism – the lack of realism and disregard for methodology and alternative schools and history of economic thought? What light does this shed on the nature of economics today? Answers are found by tracing “economics imperialism” through three phases, emphasising the “historical logic” of economics imperialism, how its initial confinement to market supply and demand created a logical framing of universal application. As a result, microeconomics (and econometrics) triumphed over other fields and methods to such an extent and with such an acceptability that its corresponding principles are now applied, however inconsistently, with those of other disciplines and fields through a process termed “suspension”.

Bu calisma, literature ‘Buyuk Durgunluk’ olarak gecen 2007-2008 krizinin nedensellik iliskilerinin kurgulanma bicimine karsi cikarak krizi anlamak icin alternatif bir izlek onermektedir. Bu oneri temelde David Harvey’in “krizin nedeninin yanlis teshis edilmesinin gelecege yonelik tehlikenin tohumlarini bagrinda tasidigi” iddiasinda somutlasmakta ve gecmisi anlamaya yonelen gayretin gelecek icin de verimli bir tartisma kaynagi olacagi vurgusu uzerinden sekillenmektedir. Anaakim iktisat anlayisinin iyimser bir vurgu ile krizin sisteme ickin bir unsur olmadigi inanisinin sorgulandigi bu calisma, genis bir baglamda krizi ele alarak guncel elestirel yazin uzerinde selektif bir okuma yapmaktadir. ‘Krizin dogru anlasilmasi’ uzerinden yukselen bu vurgu, yalnizca kriz momentine dair cikarimda bulunmaz; ayni zamanda kriz sonrasi gelecegin insa edildigi alana yonelik verimli bir kaynak olarak islev gorur. Bu dogrultuda calisma ilk olarak elestiri nesnesi olarak ele aldigi anaakim kriz yaklasimlarini incelemekte, sonrasinda ise alternatif ve elestirel yaklasimlari guncel bir baglamda kavramsallastirmaktadir. Bunun da otesinde, yakin donemde gelisen literature odaklanan bu calisma, “satin alinan zaman”, “ertelenmis kriz”, “kuresel Minotauros” gibi alternatif yaklasimlari somutlastirmaktadir. Calisma, “interregnum” kavramindan yola cikarak krizle birlikte ortaya cikan celiskilerin yaratici bir bicimde kullanilmasini ve celiskinin otesine gecmenin onemini imleyerek sonlanmaktadir.

The empiricism from its emergence in the 19th century to the logical Positivism and Falsificationism in the 20th century has had its effects on sciences in its period. These effects in Economics include matters such as: the separation of the prescriptive Economics, renaming the Political economy to Economics, converting the identity of Economics into an instrumental science, effecting on the economic heuman, the change in the method of theorizing and writing of scientific articles, spreading of econometrics and neglecting history of economic ideas and so on. The empiricism has effected unwantedly on economic ideas of Islamic theoresians so that the Islamic economic system does not be counted as of Economics. This leads to some kind of interior incompatibility in the Islamic Economics and likewise the positive and prescriptive dimensions of Islamic Economics be explained with the analytical tools of the Mainstream Economics. The explanation of these issues in the Mainstream and Islamic Economics and its factors is introduction to the reconstruction of the Islamic Economics

There are three intentions (aims) of this paper. First, to focus the attention of readers to three not so well known and least frequently quoted by economists of Mises’s books, namely his 1957 Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution, and two closely related The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method (1962), and Epistemological Problems of Economics (1933/1960).

Purpose: The aim of the paper is to overview the research on inequalities in economics. The paper is based on mainstream and heterodox economic theories and approaches addressing inequality and its economic interdependence. Methodology: Due to its positive and normative nature, inequality is a complex concept that eludes precise definition. The available application of mainstream and heterodox approach to study inequality and its economic interdependence allows for the identification of various components of inequality. Classifications that fall within the mainstream economics especially reveal less numerous and often even different types of inequalities compared to heterodox approaches. Moreover, what determines within-country inequality is the number of driving forces related to the factual and regulatory sphere of an economy. Findings: This study does not exhaust the general debate over inequality in economics. The question remains about the state of research dedicated to the outcomes of inequality, for instance, perceived in its dynamic and historical perspective. Moreover, there emerges a need to overview the theoretical and empirical research dedicated to inequality in terms of not only its driving forces but also economic outcomes.

Opponents of mainstream economics have not yet called attention to the lack of in-depth examination of the general scientific conception of modern economics. However, economic science cannot consistently fulfil the epistemological and ontological requirements of the scientific standards underlying this conception. What can be scientifically recognized as true cannot be answered, neither through the actual ontological structure of the object of observation nor through a methodological demarcation. These limitations necessarily lead to the claim for both a pragmatic and a radical methodological pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper was born with the purpose of encouraging academic debate within the economic discipline that has been dominated by a purely orthodox or mainstream approach. One of the most innovative books in the expository-pedagogical part and its content is represented by the Anti-Blanchard macroeconomics by Emiliano Brancaccio. Beyond the analysis of the two contrasting models, the Anti-Blanchard model is used to study the situation in several Latin American countries. In particular, the structural change happened in those countries since the stronger wave of increasing neoliberal policies seem to fit particularly well in the explanation of the Anti-Blanchard model.

The subject matter of this paper is Buddhist economics in theory and practice. The goal is to point out the main concepts of Buddhist economics, which is different from Western mainstream economics, and then explain how applying Buddhist teachings to business can possibly improve societal well-being and the condition of the natural environment. The main contribution of the article is twofold. Firstly, it aims to plumb the literature to identify characteristics of Buddhist economics, which is a relatively new field. Secondly, it compares Buddhist enterprises to relatively well-known social enterprises, showing the main differences between them. “Buddhist ideas in practice” are illustrated by examples of such companies as Benefit System or Patagonia. The main conclusion is that money and wealth are allowed in Buddhism, but religion reminds people not to become attached to their possessions and to share them with others. Examples described in the paper lead to an awareness that economic activity can be a means to a noble life. New criteria of assessment of business success including social engagement and care for the environment should be created. Thus, deep institutional changes which redefine the roles and duties of business would be required. The paper is based on literature, documents and online sources. The research methods used are the critique of literature covering the subject matter, comparative analysis and elements of case studies.

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.

The financial crises in emerging economies during the 1990s and 2000s propelled academia and multilateral institutions to investigate whether the promised benefits of capital account liberalization were being delivered or not. In the course of empirical studies on the subject, many ex ante theoretical assumptions on financial globalization were demystified, and previously unknown risks and dysfunctions began to be evidenced. This article analyzes the main empirical studies on the effects of financial globalization published in the last two decades and shows that the main conventional assumptions that were built to theoretically base the capital account liberalization processes that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s were wrong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to highlight the differences between mainstream and heterodox economics and essence of the dispute between them, as well as to indicate that this dispute results from attachment to a reductionist Cartesian research approach. Research method - The work utilises a review and analysis of the literature on the subject, deductive and inductive inference, as well as a linguistic descriptive method and tabular summaries. Results - The author concludes that the contemporary discussion between economic trends can be reduced to a confrontation of two reductionisms in the perception of economics: individualistic and objective, as well as social and normative. Breaking this methodological limitation provides an opportunity to search for pluralistic (integrated) economic positions in the future. Originality/value/implications/recommendations - Awareness of methodological aspects of the dispute between economic trends. Indication of the possibility of building pluralistic and integrated positions. Usefulness in building economic theory. Awareness of the need for diversity in economic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The orthodox economic science is evolving into contemporary form of mainstream economics based on imaginations that economies are similar entities as mechanical ones (in today's terms called - systems). However, in objective reality the economy is a complexly evolving social organism building oneself as complex network. Unfortunately, by contrast to mechanical system, the economy as a whole is not directly observable and susceptible to manipulation. Certain intervention into the economy in objective reality frequently is bringing unexpected results, because it is complexly answering social organism not mechanical mathematically processing able entity. There exist thanks to ICT and computational intelligence devices and tools possibilities to directly observe the result of evolution in virtual economy, more or less affected by interventions of its constructor. In this essay we are trying to imitate an economy in objective reality by virtual economy built in software STELLA as not very complex network. However, network approach is a relatively novel subject in economic theorizing, and there are several ─ different ways of understanding them. The main stress in this essay is laid on specific properties of holistic economic network in computer reality, which needs to be understood as common mathematical theory of complex networks, theories of neural networks, percolation theories and it is differing from applied economics of real networks in economies existing in the form of traffic, pipelines, etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Development Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Smith’s metaphor of the invisible hand, commonly attributed to The Wealth of Nations, is described in the Theory of Moral Sentiments. It is a ‘deception’ fed to the lower classes. Private initiative depends upon the presence of privileged classes in a conservative rather than liberal state. Only thus can the ‘invisible hand’ improve the nation’s ‘wealth.’ Hence, the economic mainstream cannot easily claim Adam Smith as their ancestor. Nor can the Marxists associate him to the misdeeds of the mainstream. A Smithian ancestry is more plausible for Neoliberals.

This study investigates contemporary mainstream economic system, does Islamic Economics taking advantage of the shortfall of the system outlined above based on Tawhidical approach? By using descriptive qualitative method this paper proposed the appropriate of Islamic economics theorize that the Islamic system provide the ideal form of a socio-economic order. This paper found that Tawhidic based economics approaches can be focused towards seeing wholes of economics, rather than parts; seeing economics activities as a worship, rather than competition; cultivating the solidarity (charity), rather than individualism and creating the justice, rather than injustice. Thus this paper designed to provide the concept of Islamic economic system with Tawhid as the basis, to fit the philosophy of economic science and reality of human life. The paper also shows the position of Tawhid in the system and theory of economy in creating prosperity and benefit for all mankind comparing to mainstream economic system and their theory. DOI: 10.15408/aiq.v9i1.3481

Vengono analizzati gli elementi di contatto e di distinzione tra i punti di vista di Blanchard e Brancaccio, cercando di trarre considerazioni più generali sulle differenze tra approcci mainstream e alcuni approcci eterodossi. Si sostiene che negli approcci mainstream viene mantenuta una distinzione concettuale tra domanda e offerta in cui, con maggior nettezza rispetto agli approcci eterodossi, si individuano problemi economici che non possono essere affrontati con la gestione della domanda aggregata, anche qualora se ne ritenga utile o necessaria una gestione attiva. Condividendo questo approccio, si discute brevemente della situazione economica italiana, in cui le debolezze di offerta di lungo periodo si intrecciano con i problemi di domanda, e in cui il livello del debito pone seri vincoli alla possibilità di far ricorso alla spesa per sostenere la domanda interna. Si sottolinea infine l’utilità del dibattito accademico, anche tra scuole di pensiero diverse, che si è aperto dopo la crisi. This article analyses similarities and differences between Blanchard and Brancaccio points of views, trying to elicit some general considerations on the main differences between the mainstream and some heterodox frameworks. Mainstream approaches, more clearly than heterodox approaches, tend to emphasize the existence of economic problems that cannot be addressed by aggregate demand management, even when it is considered useful or necessary. In this vein, the Italian economic situation is briefly discussed, where long-term supply weaknesses are intertwined with demand side problems and where its high public debt restricts the possibility to support domestic demand with public spending. The author also stresses the usefulness of the academic debate that has been opened after the crisis, also across different theoretical approaches. JEL codes: A1, B40, B50, E00

Copyright of Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais is the property of Centro de Estudos Sociais and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Moneta e Credito is the property of Associazione Economia Civile and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

There are such concepts used to define neoclassical economics as 'orthodox', 'mainstream', 'conventional', 'dominant', 'modern', 'prevalent' or 'standard' in economic literature. But these concepts have different meanings. Yet if we accept that these concepts have the same meaning, the discipline of economics evolves. In this regard such concepts as 'orthodox' and 'mainstream' may change in time. So for example some school of thought which is a part of mainstream may fall outside of mainstream in future or vice versa. Similarly the orthodoxy of the discipline may change eventually. The aim of this paper, from the point of view that neoclassical economics is dominant approach in economics discipline nowadays, to emphasize that neoclassical economics represents the ortodoxy of economics discipline, but mainstream doesn't consist of only neoclassical economics and includes other approaches and schools of thought along with neoclassical economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

One of the tasks assigned to mainstream economists is to legitimize the significance of unemployment. This paper aims to reconstruct the evolution of their approaches from the theoretical impossibility asserted by Pigou to the recognition of involuntary unemployment by Keynes and eventually to different versions of the natural unemployment rate. The unemployment rate had become an instrument for fine-tuning of the economy, but it no longer fulfills this role. It is then the whole dominant macroeconomics that is shaken to its foundations. But this crisis might help to return to expansionary fiscal policies (a Green New Deal) and to the Job Guarantee, thus echoing Keynes' question: 'There is work to do; there are men to do it. Why not bring them together?'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of the paper is to overview the research on inequalities in economics. The paper is based on mainstream and heterodox economic theories and approaches addressing inequality and its economic interdependence. Methodology: Due to its positive and normative nature, inequality is a complex concept that eludes precise definition. The available application of mainstream and heterodox approach to study inequality and its economic interdependence allows for the identification of various components of inequality. Classifications that fall within the mainstream economics especially reveal less numerous and often even different types of inequalities compared to heterodox approaches. Moreover, what determines within-country inequality is the number of driving forces related to the factual and regulatory sphere of an economy. Findings: This study does not exhaust the general debate over inequality in economics. The question remains about the state of research dedicated to the outcomes of inequality, for instance, perceived in its dynamic and historical perspective. Moreover, there emerges a need to overview the theoretical and empirical research dedicated to inequality in terms of not only its driving forces but also economic outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]