Beyond market‐fundamentalist economics: an agenda for heterodox economics to change the dominant narrative

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this article is to introduce heterodox economics as a viable alternative to market-fundamentalist economics and to outline the articles of the special issue.Design/methodology/approach -This introductory article provides an overview and summary of the contributions in the special issue.Findings -Market-fundamentalist economics has failed to adequately explain the economy or to provide guidance to policymakers that lead to widely-shared prosperity and human well-being. By contrast, heterodox economics offers social and historical narratives of both market and non-market activities.Originality/value -The article helps general readers to get acquainted with visions and approaches that are alternative to market-fundamentalist economics. This will allow them to imagine more concretely that a better world is possible.

The European core–periphery divide: towards a new narrative

“…In this regard, Shanks (2018: 20) claims that a dominant narrative in economics exists that 'upholds the neoclassical version of economics as the only real form of economic analysis, and has done so for decades'. The strength of this narrative depends also on its capacity to present some hypotheses as undisputed truths (Jo et al 2012). Shanks (2018: 20) claims that part of the most important hypotheses that allow 'the myriad models to function analytically and predictively' is the idea that humans are amoral optimizers acting individually solely in their own interest within free markets, which represent the best device for coordinating economic activities.…”

“…This seems coherent with the observation of Karagöz (2014: 75), who recognizes how metaphors and stories are widely used by economists as 'illustrative and persuasive devices'. Neoclassical interpretation of human nature and the 'myth of the free market' favoured the dissemination of a market mentality and promoted an interpretation of society as a group of consumers for whom the survival-of-the-fittest principle applies (Jo et al 2012).…”

Exploring new teachers conceptualizations of critical simulations in world history, American history, and economics learning experiences

“…We began the lesson by discussing ways the neoclassical economic paradigm functions as a dominant narrative in economics (Adams, 2019; Shanks, 2018) suggesting it is premised on beliefs that humans act in their own self-interest (Miller, 1993), that humans are insatiably acquisitive (Jo et al, 2012) and that markets are ideal mechanisms to coordinate these unlimited wants and individual interests (Ötsch and Kapeller, 2010). We chose to simulate these elements to critique the neoclassical economic paradigm because we understood this to be fundamental to the promotion of neoliberal policies that have achieved hegemony in the world economy (Couret Branco, 2016; Wright-Maley and Davis, 2016).…”

Divided We Stand? Professional Consensus and Political Conflict in Academic Economics

“…The questions how and to what extent economists influence public opinion is connected to the more general debate about whether there is consensus among economists about economic policy issues (Frey et al, 1984;Fuller & Geide-Stevenson, 2003;Gordon & Dahl, 2013). In this context it was repeatedly discussed whether political partisanship and ideology play any role within the economics profession (Avsar, 2011;Mayer, 2001), in economists' reasoning (Horowitz & Hughes, 2017;Jo et al, 2012) and in their policy recommendations (Backhouse, 2010;Backhouse & Medema, 2012).…”