Search results

This contribution explores the history of women and feminism in the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) using concepts from feminist radical political economy. A feminist approach changes the categories of economic analysis to offer a new interpretation of an older history: the formation of the Women’s Caucus. I reread the early history of the feminist project in economics through the lens of social reproduction to understand the influence of life experience on practice, particularly on the 1971 women’s walkout during a URPE conference, and on economic theory. Highlighting women’s multiple roles, as graduate students, mothers, wives, girlfriends, and/or caregivers – but ultimately as women – reveals social reproduction as a site of radical politics and demonstrates the importance of reproductive labor for understanding solidarity. In doing so, the analysis provides an example of how a feminist perspective contributes uniquely to economics.

For Leftists engaged in the study of political economy during the 1960s and 1970s, Cuba and China held particular promise as postrevolutionary states working to construct systems of production and distribution which were predicated on solidarity and mutuality, rather than on the exploited and alienated labor upon which capitalism depended. Against the claim that the desire for individual material gain was irreducibly a part of the human experience, China and Cuba offered the possibility of – in the parlance of the time – a “new man”: a political subject whose motivations were in alignment with a socialist economy rather than a capitalist one.

Based on research in multiple archives, this paper explores efforts on the part of radical economists in the United States – including the Marxists at Monthly Review, the young academics who founded the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE), and a handful of older Left-Keynesians – to witness Third World experiments in nonmaterial incentives firsthand. What have often been dismissed as pseudo-religious “pilgrimages” were, in reality, voyages of discovery, where radicals searched for the keys to develop a sustainable, rational, and moral political economy.

While many of the answers that radicals found in Cuba and China were ultimately unsatisfying, Third-World experiments in moral incentives serve as a powerful example of “solidarity in circulation” during the “long 1960s,” and as an important reminder that attempts to keep social science research free of political contamination serve to reify disciplinary norms which are themselves the product of the political culture in which they were formed.

American radical economists in the 1960s perceived China under Maoism as an important experiment in creating a new society, aspects of which they hoped could serve as a model for the developing world. But the knowledge of “actually existing Maoism” was very limited due to the mutual isolation between China and the US. This chapter analyses the First Friendship Delegation of American Radical Political Economists (FFDARPE) to the People’s Republic of China in 1972, consisting mainly of Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) members, which was the first visit of a group of American economists to China since 1949. Based on interviews with trip participants as well as archival and published material, this chapter studies what we can learn about the engagement with Maoism by American radical economists from their dialogues with Chinese hosts, from their on-the-ground observations, and their reflection upon return. We show how the visitors’ own ideas conflicted and intersected with their perception of the Maoist practice on gender relations, workers’ management, and life in the communes. We also shed light on the diverging conceptions of the role for economic expertise between URPE and late Maoism. As the first in-depth study on the FFDARPE, we provide rich empirical insights into an ice-breaking event in the larger process of normalization in the Sino-US relations, which ultimately led to the disillusionment of the Left with China.

This study aims to critically review recent contributions to the methodology of financial economics and discuss how they relate to one another and directions for further research.

A critical review of recent literature on new methodologies for financial economics.

Recent books have made important contributions to the study of financial economics. They suggest new approaches that include an emphasis on radical uncertainty, adaptive markets, agent-based modeling and narrative economics, as well as extensions of behavioral finance to include concepts such as diagnostic expectations. Many of these contributions can be seen more as complements than substitutes and provide fruitful directions for further research. Efficient markets can be seen as holding under particular circumstances. A major them of most of these contributions is that the study of financial crises and other aspects of financial economics requires the use of multiple theories and approaches. No one approach will be sufficient.

There are great opportunities for further research in financial economics making use of these new approaches.

These recent contributions can be quite useful for improved analysis by researchers, private participants in the financial sector and macroeconomic and regulatory officials.

Provides an introduction to these new approaches and highlights fruitful areas for their extensions and applications.

There is a substantial body of practitioners within the American economics community whose interests, methods, and outlook differ from the mainstream. Elsewhere, we have labelled this dissenting tradition social economics and attempted to exemplify its scope and method. The social economics perspective is underdeveloped. The purpose here is to open discussion on a strategy to remedy this neglect of social economics. This is obviously a tentative enterprise and the actions we discuss are offered more for purposes of discussion than as policy proposals.

The paper aims to show that economic theory has become “desocialised” and separated from social theory through the adoption of individualistic methods and neglect of social relations and structures. It also seeks to assess the upshot of these trends, as well as the prospects for reversing them.

A historical overview traces how the social content of economic theory has diminished, considering the reasons why. This leads on to a wider evaluation of what desocialisation entails and whether economics could be done differently.

Desocialisation stems from the desire for boundaries between academic disciplines, which drove economics towards individualism and other social sciences towards structural methods. Such an artificial divide between economic theory and social theory is argued to be detrimental to all the disciplines concerned.

Restrictions imposed by desocialised theory have practical consequences for how we understand and model the economy. Some reforms that would loosen the restrictions so as to promote a resocialised economics are suggested.

The idea of desocialisation is defined and interpreted, drawing attention to the changing nature of economics, its isolation from other social sciences, and the possibilities for alternative modes of economic theorising.

This paper aims to examine the role that academic publishers have historically played and how this is being undermined by the revolution in information and communications technology. A central issue here is that of copyright. Although authors need to be protected against plagiarists, the main role of publishers' control over copyright is to generate profits for the publisher by limiting access.

The paper explores some open‐access models for academic publishing, the first involving a heterodox economics library portal and the second a more general open peer quality review site.

It identifies a residual role for commercial academic publishers in the new guise of fee‐for‐service providers of refereeing services, whose accreditations may accelerate the uptake of scholarly contributions.

The paper examines the role that academic publishers have historically played and how this is being undermined by the revolution in information and communications technology.

As women's understanding of work‐place discrimination evolved, their attention shifted from the problem of equal pay for equal work to the issue of comparable pay. This shift was premised on the realisation that even though the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was correcting pay inequities in substantially equivalent jobs held by both men and women, most female‐dominated jobs had no equivalent male comparisons and thus, were outside the scope of the Equal Pay Act. Mahoney (1983) defines Comparable Worth as “comparable pay for jobs of comparable worth.” (p.14). At the core of this definition is the contention that differences in pay that are disproportionate to differences in the worth of jobs amount to wage discrimination.

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.

This introductory article provides an overview and summary of the contributions in the special issue.

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.

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.