Re: Heterodoxy

[mongiovg <mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In response to Harry Cook: Well, yes and no.

Of course, what ultimately matter are the sort of concrete problems Harry
mentions.  But to influence the way those problems are resolved,
economists--mainstream or otherwise--need to be heard and heeded.  This
discussion is about how non-mainstreamers can carve out a larger slice of the
discourse. Getting your message on the radar screen is part of what political
economy is about.

I've been mulling over what Paul wrote in response to my earlier post on this
topic. I have some nuanced differences with him. First, I'll take credit (or
blame) for applying the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" in this
context: I suggested--a couple of years ago in an on-line discussion with
Paul, as a matter of fact--that it had some relevance to how non-mainstreamers
engage with economists with whom they disagree. There are lots of thing wrong
with orthodox economics, and non-orthodox economists will have different views
about which of the many defects is most disabling. But to the extent that we
can agree that these various criticisms have merit, they reinforce each other:
that ought to be acknowledged, so that the criticisms can be incorporated into
a unified opposition to (mostly) bad orthodox theory.

That doesn't mean we should deny our differences: Paul is right to say that
these differences are not trivial; at least, not all of them are. We ought to
debate them out. But it makes a difference whether we go into those debates
with the attitude that there's only one way right way to attack the mainstream
theory and develop alternatives to it, and all the other ways have to be
discredited; or instead go in with the attitude that there are a number of
useful ways to think about economic processes and what we ought to strive for
is clarity in articulating our differences (so we don't waste time arguing
over misunderstandings).

Also, there is a good deal of agreement among non-mainstreamers on policy
issues, and this ought to be exploited better than it has been.  Paul rebuffed
 James Tobin's offer to make common cause with the Post Keynesians on
unemployment policy. I groaned when I read that.  As I've said on other
occasions, at least we can have a useful converstation with folks like Tobin,
even if we disagree on theoretical fundamentals. I don't understand this idea
that disagreeing with someone, even disagreeing at a foundational level, means
you can't work with him to promote common ends--for example, injecting some
common sense into public debate about unemployment policy. I don't think this
is naive: I think it's realistic.  I think that's how the Constitution of the
United States got hammered out, and how the New Deal got formulated and
inmplemented, and it's how any insitution  comprised of
not-exactly-like-minded individuals (URPE is a good example) manages to
function and accomplish good things.

Again, even the Austrians have a role in this discussion.  Lachmann's
economics is close enough to Shackle's to provide support for Post Keynesian
positions, and insight for further thinking.  And the time is ripe for a real
discussion between Austrians and leftists on the issue of freedom.  Seems to
me that there is some common ground on the notion of the State as a principal
force for the suppression of freedom (now if only the Austrians would
recognize that capital plays at least an equally important a role in
suppressing freedom).

I was just a lad in the days of the Trieste school, and I was not part of the
inner circle.  But I have the impression that Paul's characterization of what
happened is off target.  I don't think the problem was that people tried to
camouflage the fundamental incompatibilities of their approaches for the sake
or presenting a (false) unified front against orthodoxy.  I think there was a
genuine search for common ground that got scuttled because some participants
couldn't abide the big tent conception of heterodoxy. Had the experiment
continued, the outcome might have been a more unified, though not homogeneous,
heterodox school, under the label of post Keynesianism--a "gorgeous mosaic,"
as ex-mayo David Dinkins once described New York City. The essays in "Growth,
Profits & Property" (edited by Ed Nell, CUP, 1980, for example were the
culmination of a project to integrate Keynesian, Kaleckian, Sraffian and
Marxian insights into a unified Post Keynesian account of postwar capitalism;
to judge from the essays, the  prospects in 1980 were not so bleak as they
appear now.

Paul bemoans the the mainstream view of heterodoxy as a "divide-and-conquer"
phenomenon.  But his approach promotes this view, and if I may say so, plays
into the enemy's hands. It is appropriate for non-mainstream economists to
disagree with one another on unsettled issues. But they should also
acknowledge common ground.

Gary



>