Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

[mongiovg <mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mat hints at an interesting point when he refers to the old days, before the
label heterodox became common.  Then a lot of different traditions fit
comfortably (more ot less) under the heading of Post Keynesian economics. In
the two decades since the discontinuance of the Trieste summer schools, these
different traditions have become much more insular, to the point where --oh, I
don't know, let's say-- Post Keynesiansm defines itself in a way that doesn't
leave much room for Sraffians or Marxists; and the Sraffians and Marxists have
to some extent done the same.

I'm not  nuts about the label "Heterodox Economics" either.  But I like the
fact that it's a big tent that encourages discourse across all non-mainstream
traditions; hell, there's even room for the Austrians.  The Assn for Heterodox
Economics is a terrific development in this regard. The next step is to become
a significant enough voice that some of the sharper mainstreamers will have to
engage with us--as they did, at least in some degree, with Radicals, Post
Keynesians and Sraffians in those thrilling days of yesteryear. It's a
long-shot, but not outside the realm of the possible.  All the mosre reason to
make sure the discourse is collegial and of high quality.

Mat's also right to say that there's no turning back now.  ("The
Anti-Neoclassical League" anyone?)  Once a phrase turns up on someone's
letterhead, it's an institution.

Gary

>===== Original Message From "Forstater, Mathew" <forstaterm@xxxxxxxx> =====
>Mason - Many people do not like the term heterodox.  (Some don't like
>the term "orthodox" either--someone on here once cleverly suggested
>"homodox" in its place!).  But you should understand two things, at
>least:
>
>1) I am old enough to remember the pre-"heterodox" days. (I even
>remember when there was no such term as "Sraffian"--it was
>"neo-Ricardian" or subsumed under Post Keynesian).  There were Marxists,
>neo-Marxists, Institutionalists, Post Keynesians, Austrians, Feminists,
>Social economists, etc.  In other words, there was no term to bring the
>various "non-mainstream" (that won't do, either) groups together.  And
>for many reasons, many people--especially those whose economics was not
>confined to one branch only--felt it was important for there to be an
>umbrella to cover them all.
>I don't know anyone who *loves* the term--but what is better?  Sorry,
>but "modern" and "correct" don't quite do the job.  Our department often
>uses "pluralism" (as does ICAPE, if I remember correctly) but that
>really doesn't satisfy the same objectives (pluralism refers to
>openness, and includes neoclassical).
>
>
>2) It is too late. Once you have several organizations, conferences, an
>on-line journal, etc., it is institutionalized.
>
>Mat