Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:51:14.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roundtable: The Progress of Heterodox Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

A. W. Bob Coats ,
Roger E. Backhouse ,
Sheila C. Dow ,
Daniel R. Fusfeld ,
Craufurd D. Goodwin  and
Malcolm Rutherford
A. W. Bob Coats
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham.
Roger E. Backhouse
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham, U.K.
Sheila C. Dow
Affiliation:
University of Stirling, Scotland.
Daniel R. Fusfeld
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Craufurd D. Goodwin
Affiliation:
Duke University
Malcolm Rutherford
Affiliation:
Victoria University, British Columbia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The central theme of this session is the changing relationship between “orthodox” (i.e., mainstream, neoclassical) and “heterodox” economics, especially in the USA, during the past two or three decades. Economics is such a large and heterogeneous discipline that it cannot be characterized both briefly and accurately. Alongside the growth of formalization and mathematization, and the high degree of uniformity in the undergraduate and graduate curricula and in the leading textbooks, there are also within the subject a number of dissenting or deviant doctrinal schools, rival methodological approaches, and innovative developments designed to remedy its defects and/or overcome its limitations. Moreover, many of the outspoken criticisms of the status quo, proposed remedies, and innovations, originate with or are endorsed by prominent economists with impeccable professional credentials. Indeed, in some cases their contributions threaten the discipline's foundations and can, therefore, be considered a species of “orthodox subversion.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 145 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Backhouse, Roger E. 1997. Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Coats, A.W. Bob. 1997. “Fusfeld and Methodology.” In Aslanbeigui, Nahid and Choi, Young Back, eds., Borderlands of Economics: Essays In Honor of Daniel R. Fusfeld. London: Routledge, pp. 32–46.Google Scholar
Gruchy, Alan G. 1972. Contemporary Economic Thought: The Contribution of Neo-Institutional Economics. Clifton, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R. and Winter, Sydney G.. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Malcolm. 1994. Institutions In Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, Ulrich. 1991. “Reflections on the Present State of Evolutionary Theory.” In Hodgson, Geoffrey M. and Screpanti, Ernesco, eds., Rethinking Economics: Markets, Technology and Economic Evolution. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar