Search results

The aim of this paper is to review Fred Lee's book A History of Heterodox Economics.

The paper provides a context for Lee's research within the current debates over the financial crisis, then reviews and evaluates his analysis.

Lee has provided valuable and almost overwhelmingly meticulous documentation of the struggle to maintain space for heterodox economics within the discipline of economics, beginning before the turn of the twentieth century and continuing into the present. He is most concerned to use this research to formulate strategies to build community among heterodox economists, to provide a strong alternative to mainstream economics.

The author was less than convinced by Lee's suggestion that heterodox economics should emulate a professional model based on publications and citations that bears a striking resemblance to the methods of mainstream economics. That said, the author shares his belief that heterodox economics has important insights to offer economic theory and policy. In all, Lee has provided an important service in his documentation of the rise of heterodox economics as well as the attempts of mainstream economics to marginalize other schools of thought.

This study aims to investigate the viewpoints of heterodox economic thoughts and Islamic economic thought concerning the concept of waste. Additionally, it explores the shared criticisms that both perspectives hold against mainstream economic thought in relation to waste.

First of all, the concept of waste is examined and the global effects of waste are investigated. Criticisms directed in the context of waste in mainstream economics in the context of heterodox school thoughts are examined. Likewise, criticisms directed in the context of waste in mainstream economics in the context of Islamic economic thoughts are examined. Finally, the common and different aspects of heterodox and Islamic economic thoughts were discussed, and the common criticisms of mainstream economic thought’s point of view toward waste were examined. This study is a theoretical, qualitative study.

Although both ideas have different aspects, heterodox and Islamic economic thoughts believe that the mainstream economy, which is based on capitalism and materialism, creates waste by ignoring the long-term social and environmental consequences of economic activity. They argue that the pursuit of profits and growth, without considering the impact on society and the environment, leads to an inefficient and unsustainable use of resources.

The best author’s knowledge, by emphasizing the common and different aspects of Islamic economics and heterodox thoughts, this study is the first to examine the concept of waste in the context of the common aspects of these ideas.

This study aims to present the perspectives of heterodox economics and Islamic economics on environmental economics, as an alternative to mainstream economics, which takes economic growth as its main objective and argues that environmental problems will largely disappear when economic growth is achieved.

In this study, there was no intention to conduct a detailed analysis of heterodox economic models and Islamic economics. Instead, the approaches to the “environment,” which can be considered as an urgent need of the planet, were evaluated, and the inadequate proposals of the mainstream economics’ environmental approach were theoretically criticized and heterodox economics and Islamic economics were proposed as an alternative model.

Heterodox and Islamic economics offer alternative models of development prioritizing social and ecological justice to address environmental problems, which is in contrast to mainstream economics’ narrow focus on market mechanisms and individual rationality. Thus, engaging in more dialogue in the context of the environment is inevitable for both schools, considering the vast geography inhabited by Muslims and the proposed heterodox economic policies, and moreover, these approaches are modeled for the first time.

This article presents a synthesis of Islamic economics and heterodox thinking in contrast to mainstream economic policy, highlighting their similarities and differences and providing a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and potential solutions of environmental problems. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this approach has not been previously explored, making it an original contribution to the literature.

The purpose of the “Introduction” is to provide the motivation and context for the articles of this special issue and an overview and summary of the contributions that follow.

The paper provides an overview and summary of the contributions in the special issue.

It is argued that heterodoxies had gained a considerable and growing influence on research orientations, methodologies, and critical reflections, also on the mainstream publishing practices, even in the mainstream. This has been widely acknowledged as “hip heterodoxy” recently. Thus, many heterodox economists have developed optimistic expectations for the future of the profession. However, that influence has left the main mechanisms of reproduction of the mainstream untouched. These are mass teaching, public advising, journal policies, and faculty recruitment. Above that, the last decade has seen something like a “counterattack” to safeguard these mainstream reproduction mechanisms. The means used for this seem to be journal (and publisher) rankings based on purely quantitative citation measures and “impact factors”. These have an obvious cumulative “economies‐of‐scale” effect which triggers a tendency towards reinforcement and collective monopolization of the dominating orientation. Department rankings and individual faculty evaluations are then based on journals rankings. As a result, there are observable tendencies towards the cleansing of economics departments in a number of countries.

The paper also discusses potential reasons and methods for alternative approaches to measure citation interrelations, networks, cooperation, and rankings among heterodoxies (journals and departments), and for alternatives of publishing and the future of heterodoxies in general. Finally, it draws the picture of the present situation and the foreseeable future of heterodoxies as it emerges from the 11 contributions of the special issue.

This paper aims to review the undergraduate curricular structure of 36 self‐identified heterodox economic programs in the USA, Australia, UK and Canada.

The author gathers, summarizes, compares and contrasts the structure of 36 undergraduate heterodox departments. Departments are classified into traditional, plausibly pluralistic, and demonstrably heterodox programs. Specific examples illustrate each classification.

With notable exceptions described here, most heterodox economics programs are structured as traditional mainstream departments with a few pluralist or political economy electives available. However, 20 departments exist that require at least one heterodox course; eight require two or more.

A few programs have created imitable curricular structures that one would expect to significantly influence the depth and breadth of heterodox perspectives presented in the undergraduate economics major.

This is the first published analysis of undergraduate heterodox economics curricula. It highlights the creative structures characterizing some of the English‐speaking world's best programs and demonstrates that the curricula in most programs lack required courses in heterodox economics. The paper also provides examples of intentionally heterodox programs that may serve as models for others to emulate.

The purpose of this paper is to present, for the first time, a case for ranking heterodox journals and departments.

The first section of the article briefly delineates the intellectual and social organization of heterodox economics as a social system of scientific activity. This background is then used to argue the case for ranking heterodox journals (section two) and heterodox departments (section three). An example of ranking journals that promote the development of heterodox theory, is not a zero‐sum game, and does not invite invidious comparisons is delineated in the fourth section. The final section summarizes the case for rankings.

There are two central issues facing heterodox economics: one is the development of a coherent, integrated economic theory that explains the social provisioning process; and the second is the making of economic departments that contribute to the development of heterodox theory and policy, and the training of heterodox economists. A case can be made for ranking journals and departments that deal with the two issues.

An example of ranking journals that promote the development of heterodox theory, is not a zero‐sum game, and does not invite invidious comparisons is delineated.

This paper seeks to study how the democratization of the diffusion of research through the internet could have helped non‐traditional fields of research.

The specific case the authors approach is heterodox economics as its pre‐prints are disseminated through NEP, the e‐mail alert service of RePEc.

Comparing heterodox and mainstream papers, the authors find that the heterodox are quite systematically more downloaded, and particularly so when considering downloads per subscriber.

The authors conclude that the internet definitely helps heterodox research, also because other researchers get exposed to it. But there is still room for more participation by heterodox researchers.

The paper shows how RePEc and NEP try to pursue democracy and help in the dissemination of research. It also shows how heterodox communities can benefit and have benefited from this system, because they need new ways for disseminating research.

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.

The emergence and maturation of the social sciences is an important component of the expansion of institutions of higher learning in the 20th century. The discipline of Political Economy, increasingly institutionalized in various Canadian universities in the early decades of the century, secured a Chair at the University of Manitoba in 1909. After 1914, its title became “Political Economy and Political Science” and the department subsequently served “as the great mother department to which were attached newer social science disciplines until it was deemed appropriate to let them launch out on their own” (Pentland, 1977, p. 3). Political Science became independent in 1948, Geography in 1951, and Sociology and Anthropology in 1962 (p. 4). Agricultural Economics, which was taught in the Manitoba Agricultural College, became its own department when the college joined the university in 1924. In the 1930s, Agricultural Economics was absorbed into Department of Political Economy. However, according to Pentland (pp. 4–5) it was not until the late 1940s that agricultural economics became a significant “sub-department.” It subsequently separated itself from Political Economy and, in 1954, became an independent department in the Faculty of Agriculture (p. 5). The result of these disciplinary developments was that the faculty of the Department of Political Economy had, from time to time, members whose expertise lay outside the increasingly well-defined terrain of economics. Despite this, however, they did not seem to have any long-lasting direct impact on shaping and defining the curricula in Economics. Since these other disciplines left and became independent when they had reached a certain size or degree of influence, Economics was left to define and pursue its own agenda unencumbered by the needs of these former associates.

This brief paper seeks to identify three potential threats to the future of heterodox economics in Australia.

The paper provides a case study of three potential threats to the future of heterodox economics in Australia.

The first comes from funding uncertainties, given the fiscal conservatism of the new federal government. The second emanates from attempts by the élite “group of eight” institutions to secure all (or almost all) of the available research funding for themselves. The third relates to the research assessment exercises currently being undertaken both by the federal government and by the management of individual universities. It is concluded that the future is very far from clear.

The paper provides a case study of three potential threats to the future of heterodox economics in Australia.