Conflict - Notre Dame and elsewhere

["Geoff Edwards" <g.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My contribution to this debate over the need for a unified heterodox theory
is that, it depends on what particular individuals want to do with their
knowledge and their lives. To those such as academics whose mission is to
uncover new insights in extending the boundaries of knowledge, a degree of
professional and theoretical rivalry may be a positive, if it stimulates
original thought. But to those such as civil servants and politicians who
wish to craft enduring public policy, intellectual hair-splitting is
intolerable.

In Mexico in March 2002 at the UN-sponsored NGOs' Conference on Financing
for Development, I asked the senior IMF representative whether it really is
true, as it seems from the outside, that within IMF there is no internal
debate to counter the neo-liberal orthodoxy. He answered, the neo-liberal
policy package is the only game in town. That is, the only coherent body of
unified theory available for him and his colleagues to draw on.

This is not true, but I can understand why it might appear that way.

Critical to the progression of any new idea in the political arena is a
corpus of intellectual reasoning which is able to be harnessed in support.
When politicians and their advisers are casting around for solutions to
their current problems, they will - barring overriding coercion - select the
most convincing and unified paradigm available at the time. If progressive
economists wish to influence public policy, this is what they must produce
and present.

Regards


Geoff Edwards
PhD Student
Griffith University
Brisbane, Australia


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]  On
Behalf Of Bill Mitchell
Sent:	Friday, March 07, 2003 6:49 AM
To:	pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: The conflict at Notre Dame

Clifford wrote:

>I would like someone to show an example where the use of either higher
>mathematics or econometric modeling has provided a theoretical insight that
>made any substantial difference in how policy has been executed, and thus
>led to an overall improvement in economic performance.

all policy design is based on quantitative modelling of one sort or
another. there is
no other game in town and so progressive economists MUST develop capacities
in this area of the discipline. I don't subscribe to the view that the
techniques are
paradigm-specific and so must be rejected by progressives if the orthodoxy
uses
them.

Properly executed quantitative studies are also essential to keep an
effective
level of debate going against the mainstream.


>I doubt such an example exists. While not opposing the use of quantitative
>methods per se, I think that it is ill advised for heterodox economists to
>"ape" neo-classical economics. Method may be the distinguishing factor that
>gets new PhD's jobs or sends them to the unemployment line.

yes but also being exposed to modern quantitative (econometric) techniques
may also attract young PhDs to the progressive cause if they see it has
some "substance". By this I mean that if they have been exposed to orthodoxy
first and are already leaning to the view that "science" requires
"rigorous" foundations
and sophisticated econometrics .... then a progressive economist with all
the tools
can show them (a) how vacuous orthodoxy is, and (b) how exciting a
progressive
applied agenda can be.

>We should focus on what heterodoxers do best-exploring the historical,
>evolutionary and institutional dimensions of economic systems. To the
extent
>that math can aid in that quest, all to the good. To the extent that we can
>use mere words-all the better.

definitely.

On the unified paradigm that Paul advocates: I see more division among
progressives
in many cases than across paradigms. Many progressives span the border line
between
the orthodoxy and something else. I don't see any hope for uniting behind a
"keynes"-type
basis, of the sort that Paul advocates. In that sense, I also think
Clifford's recent post
on the sterility of the party-line among progressives was interesting.

best wishes
bill


William F. Mitchell
Professor of Economics
Director, Centre of Full Employment and Equity
University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +61-2-4921 5065
Fax:   +61-2-4921 6919
Mobile: 0419 422 410

http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
http://www.billmitchell.org