Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 There is a european association called International Association for
Evolutinary Political Economy. It defines evolutioary economics very broadly
(far more broadly than does AFEE for example) to include of course Veblen,
Polanyi, Ayres-but also-Hayek, Keynes, Schumpeter, North, etc.

Some would argue that this can only lead to intellectual incoherence. To
which I say, economics has too much coherence. Anthropologists think nothing
of employing substantivist, formalist or marxist methods-depending on the
situation and questions being asked. Even critical sociologists can
recognize the importance as well as the shortcomings of Talcott-Parsons,
just as structural functionalists can sometimes concede the critical
sociologists have valid points. It is extremely rare to find sociologists or
anthropologists dogmatically insisting on paradigm consistency.

I perceive, among economists (and unfortunately I think I must include a
substantial number of heterodoxers) a confusion about the concept of
paradigm incommensurability. Paradigms and research programs are only
incommensurable on the very deep levels: capitalism cannot be both stable
and unstable (though it can have stable and unstable periods). Research does
not take place at the level of paradigms. Research takes place at the level
of empirical problems, and scientists responding to these problems can find
common ground and room to discuss concepts. Just because a term is coined or
discovered by a neo-classical, does not mean that it is somehow tainted by
original sin, never to be incorporated into a heterodox model. That I
suggest, is the path to Lysenkoism.

There has been some incredibly interesting research coming out of the
"mainstream": for example, new growth theory has revived Schumpeter. Yet
many heterodox have recognized Schumpeter's contributions (Minsky and the
Social Structure of Accumulation gang of five for example). If I understand
endogenous growth theory (and not being a mathematical economist I probably
don't get it a very deep level), Solow has been shown to have been very
wrong, and Robinson quite correct with regards to the capital controversy.
Whether or not the mainstream really understands this is beside the point.
We ignore endogenous growth theory at our peril (just as an example).

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan G Isaac
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 8/23/02 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Heterodoxers are crackpots

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