Heterodox economics: history and prospects

Dow, Sheila C.

doi:10.1093/cje/ber017

Cited by 22 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mainstream approach to theory suggests that the resulting policy issue be addressed in terms of moral hazard: the unintended effect of insurance as encouraging the taking on of increased risk (where there is some limit on the scope for monitoring that risk) [60]. In spite of the term 'moral', the issue is one of rational optimizing behavior, under asymmetric information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Development and Instability: A Theoretical Perspective

Chittedi¹

2014

J Stock Forex Trad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Development and Instability: A Theoretical Perspective

Chittedi¹

2014

J Stock Forex Trad

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Due to the difficulty of defining 'heterodox economics', given the diverse spread of Marxian and post-Keynesian theories subsumed under the term (Lee, 2009;Dow, 2011), our contribution centres on making a case for which introductory concepts might be relevant to the fields of sociology and social policy. We argue that following the financial crisis and concern that the economics profession still has too little to say about inequality, there is value in teaching the labour theory of value (LTV) and contrasting it with the neoclassical subjective theory of value (STV).…”

Section: Contribution Of the Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

The value in ‘value’: An exercise for embedding heterodox economics into sociology and social policy education

Coombs¹,

Frawley²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With continuing resistance by economics departments to pluralising their curricula, heterodox economists have suggested an alliance with other social sciences. This article suggests the labour theory value (LTV) as an appropriate concept for embedding heterodox ideas into sociology and social policy teaching. While often seen as a relic of nineteenth century political economy, teaching LTV is beneficial as (1) it is one of few economic theories addressing causes of economic inequality and (2) the contrast with neoclassical subjective value theory (STV) facilitates discussion about relationships between different ideas of ‘value’ and conflicting political ideas about social justice. We present a series of exercises designed to introduce students to differences between STV and LTV. After running and modifying exercises over three years, we find the intervention broadly successful in encouraging students to engage with economic ideas and draw connections between personal experience, society, economics and politics.

show abstract

“…The focus on methodological issues appears to constitute a commonality of the critiques of the 'mainstream', with non-equilibrium, or historical modelling, being core elements: a commonality to Marxian, neo-Austrian and post Keynesian economics -that would contrast with mainstream economics -would thus be 'meta-methodological', with the latter being deductivist, reductionist and based on mathematical formalism, and the former relying on pluralistic reasoning and analysis of real problems (Dow, 2011;Lee, 2009). A common heterodox critique would thus be the opposition to the use of mathematical modelling, with its expansion throughout the 20 th century, as an exclusive tool of argumentation (De Vroey and Pensieroso, 2016).…”

Section: Heterodox Economics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Causality, Modelling, Social Norms: Among the Theoretical Cores of ‘Heterodox’ Economics?

Sindzingre¹

2018

JIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The definitions and theoretical cores of 'heterodox' economics remain subject to debate, as do those of 'mainstream' economics. The theoretical elements that could unambiguously differentiate both perspectives are therefore debated. Common features are difficult to highlight within 'heterodox' economics. Symmetrically, 'mainstream' economics is uneasy to describe via necessary and sufficient features, as numerous authors within its field claim to have enriched neoclassical economics, and to use concepts from other social sciences. On the other hand, 'heterodox' policies and their differences with mainstream ones (e.g., 'austerity') appear to be more identifiable. Despite these uncertainties, the paper shows that some core concepts and theoretical assumptions may represent a distinction between heterodox and mainstream economics. The contribution of the paper is to argue that many conventional distinctions may in fact not be unambiguous criteria of distinguishing the two epistemic frameworks (e.g., self-interested agents, the methodology of modelling, use of concepts of social sciences), and to suggest a few theoretical issues that could constitute lines of difference-notably related to the concepts of causality, time and society.

show abstract

Heterodox economics: history and prospects

Cited by 22 publications

References 25 publications

Financial Development and Instability: A Theoretical Perspective

Financial Development and Instability: A Theoretical Perspective

The value in ‘value’: An exercise for embedding heterodox economics into sociology and social policy education

Causality, Modelling, Social Norms: Among the Theoretical Cores of ‘Heterodox’ Economics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About