Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

[Alan G Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:17:02 -0400 mongiovg <mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

It will do for now.  As long as we do not loose sight of the
goal for heterodox (or non-mainstream as Paul would have it)
economics to become orthodox and mainstream.  (By winning,
not by capitulating, of course.)  In my view, the last 20
years have seen large attempts in the mainstream to
accommodate traditionally heterodox concerns.  (E.g., the
role of institutions, the evolution of institutions, the
implications of deviations from the traditional rationality
assumptions  and of bounded rationality, the implications of
market power, the role of time and irreversibility, the
nature of the competitive process, stability and replication
at the systemic level, etc., etc.)

Of course at the level of policy discussion, the primary
approach remains as always the promotion of theoretical and
empirical studies that support one's pre-existing beliefs.
The merits of a study are presumed to reside in its
conclusions rather than in its methods.  I wish I could
claim that this weakness is less prevalent outside the
mainstream than inside it.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac