The changing face of mainstream economics

Abstract

This article argues that economics is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in its method, away from neoclassical economics and into something new. Although that something new has not been fully developed, it is beginning to take form and is centered on dynamics, recursive methods and complexity theory. The foundation of this change is coming from economists who are doing cutting edge work and influencing mainstream economics. These economists are defining and laying the theoretical groundwork for the fundamental shift that is occurring in the economics profession.

Twenty Challenges for Innovation Studies

“…The IS community will need to join forces with newer and more sympathetic sub-fields of economics such as behavioural economics, experimental economics, and ecological economics (cf. Colander et al, 2004). 62 This challenge might be extended to include Lundvall's (2012Lundvall's ( & 2013b plea that IS researchers, besides conducting research to further their own careers, emulate illustrious pioneers like Freeman and Nelson (and, one might, add Lundvall himself) in contributing collectively to the ever necessary work on developing and strengthening the 'infrastructure' of the field (in the form of research centres, journals, conferences, professional associations, networks, mentoring young scholars, and so on) -in other words, 'public good' contributions rather than those aimed at enhancing individual careers.…”

Attentiveness cycles: synchronized behavior and aggregate fluctuations

“…Some other authors, namely, Arthur et al (1997), Martin and Sunley (2007) and Fontana (2008), systematize the main features a model fitted to discuss real world events should contain: besides contemplating agent heterogeneity, it must take into consideration that dynamic processes are not immutable in time, because agents are evolving organisms that adapt and learn; furthermore, it should capture the evidence 1 See, e.g., Barucci (1999), Chiarella and He (2002), Giannitsarou (2003), Negroni (2003), Branch and McGough (2004), Gomes (2005) and Gallegati et al (2011), on evolutionary and adaptive learning, herding behavior, bubbles and related phenomena, in connection with the presence of belief heterogeneity in the economic system. 2 The idea that the economic system should be viewed and analyzed as a complex entity is vigorously emphasized by authors such as Colander et al (2004), Markose (2005) that interaction determines aggregate outcomes because the economy is an interconnected and selforganized world. Out-of-equilibrium dynamics are often relevant and it is reasonable to question if an equilibrium even exists.…”

Heterodox economics: history and prospects

“…For example this follows from the definition by some of mainstream economics as whatever the most prestigious economists think (Colander, Holt and Rosser 2004) or whatever is taught in the top schools, is published in the top journals and attracts the most funding (Dequech 2007). …”

“…Colander (2000) and Garnett (2006), for example, argue that what is identified as the 'paradigm-warrior' stance within the heterodox economics of the 1970s has been overtaken by pluralism which can extend from heterodox economics to mainstream economics (see also Colander et al 2004). 4 By pluralism, Garnett means not just the tolerance of other positions but also openness to exchange of ideas across positions (Garnett 2010).…”