Re: Mirowski and critiques

[enilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Nilsson)]

Andreas Goesele writes:

> Anybody bold enough to propose his favourite candidate for
> "a full blown alternative"? Or at least the basic lines of
> what could be (one day) this alternative?

J. Galbraith writes:
> I challenge his detractors to come up with other examples of truly heterodox
> work -- and by that I mean work that thoroughly escapes the orbit
> of the neoclassical equilibrium framework . . .

J. Galbraith sets up a very high standard for a "truly heterodox"
alternative.  In any case, while I might have some idea of what is included
in the "neoclassical equilibrium framework" I'm not sure that all included
in this term must be thrown away.

In any case, it might be unreasonable to ask for a "full blown alternative."
 This is simply because the neoclassical research program has had 1000s of
contributors who all accept a few basic building blocks and ideas of what a
theory of economics should include.  The heterodox traditions have had far
fewer contributors and disagree greatly on what economics should and
shouldn't be.

Further, it is not entirely clear at this point what would be the most
productive avenue to follow.  That is, it is not clear what initial
contribution today would lead to an interesting theory in, say, 30 years.

The standards that we hold contributions today should not, therefore, be is
it "a fully blown alternative" (which I understand Andreas is NOT asking
for).  Nor should it necessarily be something which completely breaks from
the neoclassical tradition.  Rather, it might simply be: did this
contribution introduce an interesting idea which might become part of a
fully blown theory 30 years from now?

The attempt to do too much today (attempting to indeed create a full blown
alternative) leads to many incomplete and idiosyncratic theories.


While I certainly have doubts about their attempt to make explicit
connections with neoclassical economics in recent years, Gintis and coauthor
Bowles have certainly made bold attempts to forge a new path.  Of course, 30
years down the road what they have done will not be accepted 100% (nor would
it be today), but their work might contribute a component or two to a "full
blown alternative."  This is as much as really can be asked for today.  One
can (and should) criticize their work, but one can't criticize them for not
attempting to forge new paths or for not attempting to introduce new ideas
into economics.

Further, it might not be possible to identify -- today -- what the
components of this fully blown alternative will be in 30 years.  We might
suggest what this theory should contain, but at this point it is not clear
which ideas today will be productive over the next, say, 30 years.  Even if
we agree today what tomorrow's theory should include, we might lock
ourselves into an unproductive path of theory development.


Eric Nilsson
Department of Economics
California State University, San Bernardino
enilsson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
909-880-5564