How to succeed in economics without really trying

[pdavidso <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>]

>===== Original Message From Goncalo Fonseca <hetwebsite@xxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>
>But Viner and Sweezy were rare specimens! I am just as certain that we can
>pair up a few mainstreamers and heterodoxers for lunch today with no less
>civility. It is the mediocre dimwits that are the problem. But the dimwits
>have ALWAYS been a problem and will always be a problem.
>

Yes and I have lways had good social relations with people like Bob Solow, the
people at Brookings, Alfred Kahn, Don Patinkin,etc -- even being apointed to
the Broookings Panel when the 1970s oil shock threatened to upset mainstream
theory of the Hotelling theory of using non-renewable resources-- especially
since after working for an oil company I had an article on economic problems
of the domestic oil industry in the AER in the 1960s. But when I started
pulling apart the American Keynesian model, things turned cooler.


>> Things are different now of course. The mainstream is a largely intolerant
>> club that has no interest in non-mainstream work. The leading generalist
>> journals are inbred and unwelcoming to non-noclassical submissions. The
>> history of how this happened remains to be written (I think: does anybody
>know
>> of one?), but I suspect it was partly a reaction to some good hits that
>> non-mainstreamers landed during the 1960s & '70s.

Yes you should see my correspondence with George Borts when he became editor
of the AER -- and his response to my public criticism of his deliberately
shoving non mainstream manuscripts to the garbage pail. [ See George Borts
last Editors report in the AER.}
>
>If this summary seems to indicate anything is that there is no room for
>heterodoxy today unless one or all of the following are fulfilled:
>
>(1) A few grand-old-men of the mainstream decide to listen to us seriously,
>even if critically -- as Walker did in the 1880s, as Samuelson and Solow did
>in the 1970s -- and thus "bless us" with their interest (if not quite
>approval).
>

Thisw is now impossible in my view.

>(2) If we fall on the luck of having a few interested wealthy patrons (e.g.
>Henry W. Farnam, Alfred Cowles) bankroll research institutions and journals
>for us that give us prestige and harbor (government could do the same, but,
>in the current political mood, that is less likely).
>


This was my hope --- and at first I thouoght theJerome Levy Institute at bard
might play this role. After all Leon Levy is in the George Soros wealth class
--- and he could have made the Levy Institute the equivalent to the Cowles
Commission of the 1950s!
!Unfortunately the Levy Institute while open to some heterodox approaches
--was unlikely to go for a strong heterdox institute. And if someone looks at
the recent invited speakers to recent Annual Minsky Conferences sponsored by
the Levy Institute, one can hardly separate it from typical manstream
conferences.

>(3) Somebody creates a brand new university with such an enlightened (or
>misinformed) president and board of trustees that they appoint a "strong"
>heterodox personality ready to create a kick-ass economics department, with
>precise research objectives and no tolerance of dissent (Paul, are you
>available?). A change-of-heart in a small conventional university would do
>as well.

I am ready and williong --

There was some hope for this at Rutgers in the 1970s but as I indicated in the
past notes, I was unable to really cultivate this situation. And from
hindsight it seems the reason was i was to willing to to make the Department a
wide umbrella one. So I accept responsibility for dropping the ball on this
one. The mainstream , of course, does not talk about umbrellas. If I had the
opportunity again, I would have learned from my willingness to have a
pluralistic tent!
>
>(4) We look overseas, to Canada, Europe, Latin America, Asia, etc., less
>concerned with the American academic ratings-race and more interested in
>making something out of the universities they already have.

But in the UK in recent years, the Diamond list was used to rank econ.
departments-- and heterodox journals didn't make the Diamond list.

[ Some one also ought to look at my correspondence with the former Editor of
the ECONOMIC JOURNAL [ my papers are archived in the Duke library] regarding
how my manuscript on the Tobin Tax was ultimately accepted. Also my
correspondence with the editors of the JEP regarding an invitation for an
article on Post Keynesian economics-- it will make for an interesting history
of this problem.]
>
>Once any of the options 1-4 are fulfilled, proceed with Machieavellan
>calculation, win the great "American science" race, i.e. create such a
>great, self-referencing research program that makes the mainstream seem
>"unscientific" by conventional standards. A few guidelines: Firstly, no
>tolerance of dissent; pluralism seems "unscientific" and "scientism" is the
>measuring rod here. Back this position up with absolutely NO reference to
>the mainstream whatsoever -- unless it is to heap ridicule on them (to take
>someone seriously is to acknowledge their merit and thus lose your advantage
>in the scientism race). You must conduct your debates and advances only
>with your own, rip apart anybody who disagrees with you on fundamentals and
>bring the young to heel. Write or commission alternative histories of the
>discipline to make yourself seem the keystone to advance. An important
>note: Do NOT connect your research overtly with government policy -- policy
>means politics and politics makes your research seem "unscientific".

I do not agree that we must not make our research associated with government
policiess. I was very successful in the 1960s and early 1970s of making a Post
Keynesian slant to many government policies -- including Lady Bird Johnson's
Beautification of America -- and in the 1970s even having a Washington meeting
with Carter's Energy Czar, Alfred Kahn on energy policy.



At
>best, make it seem as if you are merely providing "technical" analysis and
>support for existing (i.e. already-accepted) government policies. Apply for
>government research money, as much as you can get, from whatever branch is
>willing to provide it.

OK.


Paul





Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
University of Tennessee
SMC 503
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0550
phone # (561)369-1951; fax #(561)369-1951;
email pdavidson@xxxxxxx
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html