On Heterodox Economics

An accurate analysis of Marx’s early works reveals the pivotal role of ontology in defining his critical research project, which culminated with the publication of Capital. By re-assessing Marx’s critical project in such terms, a careful review of the ontological conceptions of contemporary heterodox economics becomes possible, revealing a paradoxical situation. By focussing exclusively on mainstream’s logical inconsistencies, a branch of heterodox economics converged towards the same ontological assumptions as mainstream economics. These economists fall into the ‘axiomatic habitus’ of mimicking, at times unconsciously, the same stances as mainstream economics. By contrast, segments of mainstream economics (new political economy and neo-institutionalist economics) are more aware of the nature of the social reality to be investigated, introducing an axiomatised history within their framework. A careful review of Karl Marx’s ontological rupture then becomes an inescapable reference in order to amend both heterodox and orthodox economics, challenging the increasing insularity of our discipline.

PurposeThis study aims to present the perspectives of heterodox economics and Islamic economics on environmental economics, as an alternative to mainstream economics, which takes economic growth as its main objective and argues that environmental problems will largely disappear when economic growth is achieved.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, there was no intention to conduct a detailed analysis of heterodox economic models and Islamic economics. Instead, the approaches to the “environment,” which can be considered as an urgent need of the planet, were evaluated, and the inadequate proposals of the mainstream economics’ environmental approach were theoretically criticized and heterodox economics and Islamic economics were proposed as an alternative model.FindingsHeterodox and Islamic economics offer alternative models of development prioritizing social and ecological justice to address environmental problems, which is in contrast to mainstream economics’ narrow focus on market mechanisms and individual rationality. Thus, engaging in more dialogue in the context of the environment is inevitable for both schools, considering the vast geography inhabited by Muslims and the proposed heterodox economic policies, and moreover, these approaches are modeled for the first time.Originality/valueThis article presents a synthesis of Islamic economics and heterodox thinking in contrast to mainstream economic policy, highlighting their similarities and differences and providing a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and potential solutions of environmental problems. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this approach has not been previously explored, making it an original contribution to the literature.

Several observers have noted signs of a growing plurality in mainstream economics. At the same time there has been a growing emphasis in heterodox economics on commonality. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of plurality in economics in order to make sense of these characterisations, and to consider the issues raised by this plurality. The critical factor is to distinguish between plurality at the level of theory and evidence, at the level of methodological approach (plurality of methods), and at the meta-methodological level (a plurality of methodologies). First it is argued that, while there is plurality at the level of theory and even of type of evidence in orthodox economics, there continues to be monism in terms of methodological approach, and in attitude to methodological alternatives. In heterodox economics, the commonality of methodological approach does not go far before emerging pluralistically into a variety of approaches. Indeed there is, at the meta-methodological level, a range of arguments in heterodox economics for a plurality of methodologies, that is, a recognition that it is legitimate (if not inevitable) that there is more than one approach to economics.

The article examines the philosophy of the economy of ancient India, a unique system of thinking that emphasizes the importance of observing moral principles in business and society as a whole. These ideas are especially relevant today, since, from the point of view of practice, can become the basis for building more stable and equitable economic systems. The philosophy of the economy of ancient India stands out for its stratification approach, which includes consideration of various social classes and their interaction in the economy, as well as an original understanding of the teachings of karma, dharma and harmony in the field of economy. The unique aspects of Indian economic philosophy have deep roots in ancient texts such as the Vedas, Upanishads and Sutras. They continue to influence modern economic thinking, showing a high degree of universality, making a valuable contribution to modern economic thought and enriching it with ethical and spiritual aspects.

This article is a companion to “Orthodox Economics and the Economics of Harm.” It builds on the previous article by developing two topics. In the first section is a further discussion of the concept of harm. What is the best name to give to the concept of harm, as other general terms have been proposed? Is harm a value judgment and thus, as a concept, not able to be part of an objective science? How will harm be treated in economics? The second section discusses heterodox approaches to harm. Much of heterodox economics, such as institutional, feminist, and conflict economics, has focused on major areas of harm, developing and strengthening the analysis of harm. The two costs have been terminologies which differ among the various approaches and the (unmet) need to bring the approaches together in an overall view of harm. Heterodox economics (and the relatively few orthodox authors) are on the right track in understanding productive + harmful economic systems while orthodox economics, as shown by its textbooks, is not. Yet the wrong approach is the dominant one. Will the truth win out?

Hodgson’s recent book Is there a Future for Heterodox Economics? presents a serious critical analysis of the development of heterodox economics and offers diagnosis of why it has mostly failed to attain its early revolutionary hopes, but instead has become something of an intellectual backwater. Hodgson proposes several possible pathways back into the mainstream. I argue here in support of Hodgson’s diagnosis but propose a specific way forward with heterodox economics as the study of the evolution of economic rules and focused on analysis of a digital economy.

The study introduces a Hungarian economic thinker, István Varga*, whose valuable activity has remained unexplored up to now. He became an economic thinker during the 1920s, in a country that had not long before become independent of Austria. The role played by Austria in the modern economic thinking of that time was a form of competition with the thought adhered to by the UK and the USA. Hungarian economists mainly interpreted and commented on German and Austrian theories, reasons for this being that, for example, the majority of Hungarian economists had studied at German and Austrian universities, while at Hungarian universities principally German and Austrian economic theories were taught.István Varga was familiar not only with contemporary German economics but with the new ideas of Anglo-Saxon economics as well — and he introduced these ideas into Hungarian economic thinking. He lived and worked in turbulent times, and historians have only been able to appreciate his activity in a limited manner. The work of this excellent economist has all but been forgotten, although he was of international stature.After a brief summary of Varga’s profile the study will demonstrate the lasting influence he has had in four areas — namely, business cycle research and national income estimations, the 1946 Hungarian stabilisation program, corporate profit, and consumption economics — and will go on to summarise his most important achievements.

The relationship between finance and economic development is one of the central issues in economic history and development economics. Major questions concerned here are importance, direction, and p...

Growth The dismal science is in a foul mood. Pity the orthodox economist who sets foot in debates about development economics these days, for the clearest con sensus of the books reviewed here is that the old orthodoxy in development thinking should be quickly put behind us. The real world has not been kind to the policy prescriptions of the 1990s. Latin America failed to grow rapidly, despite enthusiastic implementation of so-called Washington Consensus reforms. Meanwhile, the Chinese economy's dynamic growth is galling in light of the country's insistent rejection of so many mainstream precepts. Orthodox economists may take solace that they are unlikely to be burned at the stake, as were some particularly misfortunate free-trade advocates following the War of

Based on answers received to an open-ended questionnaire, this study investigates the intellectual and career environment of heterodox economists who work within primarily orthodox economics departments. Ongoing informal discussions have indicated that many heterodox economists perceive themselves as facing a unique set of constraints in the workplace. The object of this study is to begin to document those constraints more formally. The importance of this project rests with the bearing these constraints have on the maintenance of intellectual diversity within the economics profession. Findings are reported in the first part of the paper and discussed in the second. To summarize the findings, many respondents identified difficulties in finding employment when they explicitly identified themselves as heterodox. Many reported that heterodox journals are discounted in importance relative to orthodox journals which, in turn, causes problems in tenure and promotion decisions. Respondents felt pressure to teach the orthodox approach, subordinating their own heterodox approaches. Committee work, especially the hiring committee, was seen as essential for the survival of the heterodox economists. A feeling of isolation was common and morale was negatively impacted. These experiences were overwhelmingly attributed to the failure of orthodox economists to respect or understand heterodox approaches.

This article discusses the contribution of Sayyed Mahmud Teleghani's economic thought to the development of contemporary Islamic economics. To know and understand the contribution of Sayyed Mahmud Teleghani's economic thought to the development of contemporary Islamic economics. The data used are primary data taken from Teleghani's works and secondary data from various documents obtained both online and offline and analyzed descriptively. The results of this article show that as one of the important figures in the Iqtishad school, teleghani transmits many of his economic ideas which play an important role in the development of contemporary Islamic economics. One of the important concepts is about humans as economic actors whereas Teleghani believes that humans have internal principles in the form of a desire for wealth and external impulses that are strongly influenced by the environment and economy. Therefore, three major thoughts become the focus of the economy, namely, property and ownership, freedom, and circulation of money. To achieve harmony, the state must play an important role, especially in decision making and the allocation of resources, the role of the state, prohibiting usury and optimizing zakat, as well as allocating well the concepts of production, distribution, and consumption.

Preface: The Future of Post-Keynesian Economics and Heterodox Economics Contra Their Critics Frederic S. Lee and Marc Lavoie 1. Post-Keynesians and Others John King 2. After the Crisis: Perspectives for Post-Keynesian Economics Marc Lavoie 3. Post-Keynesian Economics - How to Move Forward Engelbert Stockhammer and Paul Ramskogler 4. A Guide to Paradigmatic Self-Marginalization: Lessons for Post-Keynesian Economists Leonhard Dobusch and Jakob Kappeler 5. Post-Keynesianism, Heterodoxy, and Mainstream Economics David Dequech 6. Heterodox Economics and its Critics Frederic S. Lee 7. Building Heterodox Community: Pluralism in Fragmented Epistemological Communities Barbara E. Hopkins 8. Conversation or Monologue? On Advising Heterodox Economists with Addendum Matias Vernengo 9. Economics Fit for the Queen: Barriers and Opportunities Peter E. Earl and Ti-Ching Peng 10. Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Post-Keynesian Economics: Notes on Taxonomy Gary Mongiovi 11. The Global Financial Crisis and the Role of Engagement with the Mainstream in the Future of Post-Keynesian Economics Louis-Philippe Rochon and Peter Docherty 12. Notes on Ideology and Methodology with Addendum Duncan K. Foley 13. Whither Heterodoxy? Or Where is Heterodox Economics Going? Liem Hoang-Ngoc

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to review Fred Lee's book A History of Heterodox Economics.Design/methodology/approachThe paper provides a context for Lee's research within the current debates over the financial crisis, then reviews and evaluates his analysis.FindingsLee has provided valuable and almost overwhelmingly meticulous documentation of the struggle to maintain space for heterodox economics within the discipline of economics, beginning before the turn of the twentieth century and continuing into the present. He is most concerned to use this research to formulate strategies to build community among heterodox economists, to provide a strong alternative to mainstream economics.Originality/valueThe author was less than convinced by Lee's suggestion that heterodox economics should emulate a professional model based on publications and citations that bears a striking resemblance to the methods of mainstream economics. That said, the author shares his belief that heterodox economics has important insights to offer economic theory and policy. In all, Lee has provided an important service in his documentation of the rise of heterodox economics as well as the attempts of mainstream economics to marginalize other schools of thought.

In my response to Garnett and Mearman, I argue that many of their comments are based on the assumption that mainstream economics has truth and value, which is in fact not the case. In addition, I argue that that the divided economics community arises from actions taken by mainstream economists and not due to actions taken by heterodox economists. Finally, I argue that pluralism through tolerance is the way forward. JEL classification: B40, B50

Introduction and overview - recent developments in industrial economics, J. Cable economics of the firm, G. Stewart alternative forms of productive enterprise, S. Estrin conjectural variations, C. Fraser oligopoly and welfare, J. Cable et al models of product differentiation, M. Waterson entry and market share mobility, P. Geroski strategic research and development and innovation, J. Beath et al recent developments in the economics of public utility regulation, T. Weyman-Jones linear and non-linear models of economic time series - an introduction, D. Byers and D. Peel.