The Contrast between Mainstream and Heterodox Economics: A Misleading Controversy—“Necessary” System versus “Natural” System

Fusari, Angelo (2014): The Contrast between Mainstream and Heterodox Economics: A Misleading Controversy—“Necessary” System versus “Natural” System. Published in: Journal of Business and Economics , Vol. 5, No. N° 7 (July 2014): pp. 1077-1091.

Abstract

This article focuses on a broad distinction within economic thinking and the methodological misconceptions that are implied by it. We find today, on the one hand, mainstream economics, which uses both the method of abstract rationality typical of the logical-formal sciences and the method of the natural sciences—two methodologies that, as we shall prove, are inappropriate for the study of social reality. On the other hand we find the opponents of mainstream economics, primarily heterodox economics, who emphasize methodological pluralism and lend, in the extreme, their support to the relativist view that all views may be right in their own way. Such an unconstrained pluralist attitude to method obstructs interaction and reciprocal understanding among students, the scientific appreciation of theoretical contributions and the same fecundating role of pluralism. We shall see that methodological diffuseness is the primary factor explaining the failure of attacks against mainstream economics and we shall look for a solution to this embarrassing impotence by searching for general methodological procedure and rules fully appropriate to the scientific study of social reality.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: This article focuses on a broad distinction within economic thinking and the methodological misconceptions that are implied by it. We find today, on the one hand, mainstream economics, which uses both the method of abstract rationality typical of the logical-formal sciences and the method of the natural sciences—two methodologies that, as we shall prove, are inappropriate for the study of social reality. On the other hand we find the opponents of mainstream economics, primarily heterodox economics, who emphasize methodological pluralism and lend, in the extreme, their support to the relativist view that all views may be right in their own way. Such an unconstrained pluralist attitude to method obstructs interaction and reciprocal understanding among students, the scientific appreciation of theoretical contributions and the same fecundating role of pluralism. We shall see that methodological diffuseness is the primary factor explaining the failure of attacks against mainstream economics and we shall look for a solution to this embarrassing impotence by searching for general methodological procedure and rules fully appropriate to the scientific study of social reality.
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B40 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B49 - Other

References

Barone E. (1971). “The ministry of production in collectivist state”, in: G. Lunghini II (Ed.), Valore, prezzi ed equilibrio generale, Mulino,Bologna

Davis J. B. (2008). “The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.349-366.

Davis J. B. and D. Wade Hands (Eds.) (2011). The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, Edward Elgar.

Delorme R. and Dopfer K. (Eds.) (1994). The Political Economy of Diversity, Edward Elgar.

Dow S. C. (2011). “Heterodox economics: History and prospects”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 35, pp. 1151-1165.

Ekstedt H. and Fusari A. (2010). Economic Theory and Social Change, Routledge, London, New York.

Feyerabend P. K. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, NBL.

Friedman M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Fusari A. (2004). “A reconsideration on the method of economic and social sciences: Procedures, rules, classifications”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 501-535.

Fusari A. (2005a). “A model of the innovation-adaptation mechanism driving economic dynamics: A micro representation”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 297-335.

Fusari A. (2005b). “Toward a non-capitalist market economy: Spontaneous order and organization”, American Review of Political Economy, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 85-125, available online at: http:// www.arpejournal.com.

Fusari A. (2012). “Economics and society: Freedom, creativity and social justice”, in: WEA Online Conference: “Economics in Society: The Ethical Dimension”.

Fusari A. (2013). “Radical uncertainty, dynamic competition and a model of business cycle: The implications of a measure and explanation of what is supposed non-measurable and non-explainable”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol.8, No. 12, pp. 8-28.

Fusari A. and Reati A. (2013). “Endogenizing technical change: Uncertainty, profits, entrepreneurship—A long-term view of sectoral dynamics”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp. 76-100.

Garegnani P. (1984). “Value and distribution in the classical economists and Marx”, Oxford Economic Papers, No. 2, pp. 291-325.

Hicks J. R. (1974). The Crisis in Keynesian Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Homer S. (1996). History of Interest Rates, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick New Jersey.

Kaldor N. (1960). “Alternative theories of distribution”, in: Essays on Value and Distribution, London, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.

Kirzner M. I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Kirzner I. M. (1985). Discovery and the Capitalist Process, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Knight F. (1950). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, La Nuova Italia edition.

Lange O. and Taylor F. M. (1938). On the Economic Theory of Socialism, edited by B. Lippincot, Minneapolis.

Lawson T. (2006). “The nature of heterodox economics”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 30, No. 4.

Lee F. S. (2009). A history of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century, London, Routledge.

Lerner A. P. (1938). “Theory and practice in socialist economics”, The Review of Economic Studies.

Mäki U. (Ed.) (2001). The Economic World View: Studies in the Ontology of Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pasinetti L. L. (1981). Structural Change and Economic Growth: A Theoretical Essay on the Dynamics of Wealth of Nations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Pasinetti L. L. (2007). Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians, Cambridge University Press.

Robinson J. (1965). The Accumulation of Capital, Macmillan, London.

Salanti A. and Screpanti E. (Eds.) (1997). Pluralism in Economics: New Perspective in History and Methodology, Aldershot, Edward Elgar.

Schumpeter J. A. (1977). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Universale Etas, Milan.

Silone I. (1990). Fontamara, Mondadori, Milan, published in 27 languages.

Sraffa P. (1960). Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Cambridge University Press.

Stiglitz J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents, Einaudi, Turin.

Zaghini E. (1974). “On the existence of equilibria with un-voluntary unemployment”, Rassegna Economica, No. 5