Who do heterodox economists think they are?

This paper attempts to engage with the established debate on the nature of heterodox economics. However, it starts from the position that previous attempts to classify and identify heterodox economics have been biased towards a priori definition. The paper aims to inform the discussion of the nature of heterodoxy with some empirical analysis. The paper examines survey data collected from a small/medium-sized sample of AHE members on the core concepts in economics. The paper applies factor analysis to the data. It also applies principles of biological taxonomy, and thence cluster analysis to the problem. The paper finds that within the self-identified community of self-identified heterodox economists there is little agreement as to whether members are pluralist, or what their attitude is to the mainstream. Indeed, there is little agreement on any core concepts or principles. The paper argues that there is little structure to heterodox economics beyond that provided by pre-existing (or constituent) schools of thought. Based on this study, heterodox economics appears a complex web of interacting individuals and as a group is a fuzzy set. These results would lead us to question further strict distinctions between heterodox, mainstream and pluralist economists.heterodox economics, survey, factor analysis, cluster analysis

What is this thing called ‘heterodox economics’?

This paper conducts a type of meta-analysis of a sample of commentaries on heterodox economics, also drawing on biological literature and other treatments of classification. The paper contrasts what might be called a ‘classical’ category with a ‘modern’ category and then analyses treatments of HE as a category. It is argued that though HE appears to be a complex object – and that authors recognise this – HE as a category is most often classical even though modern would appear more appropriate. That this is the case may reflect choices of levels of abstraction which in turn reflect instrumental purposes of influencing the reality of Economics. While arguments for the rejection of HE as a category are too strong, current treatments of HE are perhaps not careful enough in recognising its provisional and fluid nature. The paper considers these issues in turn.heterodox economics, taxonomy, complexity, meta-analysis

Rhetorical Dualism and the Orthodox/Heterdox Distinction in Economics

This paper attempts to combine elements of the approaches of two influential economists, Sheila Dow and Deirdre McCloskey and expands on previous work (2005) on Dow’s concept of dualism. A concept of rhetorical dualism is developed: dualism (defined variously) engaged in for a rhetorical purpose. It is argued by way of example case studies that rhetorical dualism is a significant feature of economics and that several influential authors have engaged in it. Further rhetorical dualism is shown to be prevalent in the current orthodox/heterodox distinction, and in the arguments of heterodox economists; but also that this distinction and type of distinction are unhelpful.Rhetoric; dualism; heterodox economics

Critical Realism in Economics and Open-Systems Ontology: A Critique

This paper examines the treatment of ontology offered by Critical Realism. Three main criticisms are made of the Critical Realist treatment of open systems. It is argued that Critical Realism, particularly in the project in economics emanating from Cambridge, UK, tends to define systems in terms of events. This is shown to be problematic. The exemplar of a closed system provided by Critical Realism of the solar system is shown to be flawed in that it is not closed according to the closure conditions identified by Critical Realism. Second, the negativity of the definitions adopted is problematic for heterodox traditions attempting to build positive programs. The dualism of the definitions is also inconsistent with Dow’s approach. This has ramifications for the coherence of Post Keynesianism. Third, the definitions tend to polarize open and closed systems and ignore the degrees of openness evident in reality. This polarization of systems leads to polarized methodology and unsustainable arguments to reject so-called closed-systems methods.open systems, closed systems, Critical Realism, Post-Keynesianism, dualism

Methodological Triangulation at the Bank of England:An Investigation

This paper investigates the extent to which triangulation takes place within the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) process at the Bank of England. Triangulation is at its most basic, the mixing of two or more methods, investigators, theories, methodologies or data in a single investigation. More specifically, we argue for triangulation as a commitment in research design to the mixing of methods in the act of inference. The paper argues that there are many motivations for triangulation as well as types of triangulation. It is argued that there is evidence of extensive triangulation of different types within the MPC process. However, there is very little theoretical triangulation present; raising concerns about pluralism. Also, it is argued that the triangulation which occurs is mainly undertaken for pragmatic reasons and does not reflect other, coherent ontological and epistemological positions.

Students’ perceptions of economics:Identifying demand for further study

Most university departments aspire to increase their quantity of students. The objective of this empirical study is to ascertain whether it is possible to identify students who would demand more economics study. Using data on student perceptions of economics and the application of logistic regression, K-means clustering, ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD statistical techniques we reveal distinct clusters of students, including a small cluster of students who appear to be more open to further study.Students; Demand for economics

Student Participation in Sporting Activities

Given that many universities spend large sums of money supplying sports facilities for student use, comparatively little is known about the factors that influence the quantity of student sporting participation. This paper presents evidence which suggests that the quantity of student sports participation is adversely affected by greater hours of work and increased by greater sports literacy and the decision to augment social capital. Effective investment in sports facilities by Universities would meet students’ demands and not simply increase the range of sports facilities available to students.Sport; Participation; Time; Social capital; Students

Pluralism, heterodoxy, and the rhetoric of distinction

The paper addresses the arguments made by Frederic Lee on heterodoxy and pluralism. It argues that the definitions of mainstream and heterodox, and consequently the differences between them, are highly problematic. Specifically it challenges Lee's characterizations of mainstream and heterodox economics as noncomparable. Attempts to contrast them starkly are part of a rhetoric of distinction which may be problematic. Thus, Lee's concept of intellectual pluralism may be weaker than it seems, because it is based on distinction and its tolerance, rather than an embrace of diversity. Further, both theoretical and intellectual pluralism may be based on wider epistemological and ontological grounds and thus Lee's distinction between them may also be problematic. Sheila Dow's structured pluralism may be a more productive way of embracing difference. © 2011 Union for Radical Political Economics

How should economics curricula be evaluated?

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This paper explores the evaluation of economics curricula. It argues that the dominant approach in economics education, experimentalism, has serious limitations which render it an unsuitable evaluation method in some cases. The arguments against experimentalism are practical, ethical and also rest on a view of the world as a complex, open system in which contexts are unique and generalised regularities are unlikely. In such an environment, as often found in educational contexts, alternative methods are advisable, at least as part of a suite of approaches in a realistic, case-based, mixed-methods approach to evaluation. Thus, economics curricula should be evaluated using a method or set of methods most appropriate to the particular object case. As such, there is no single answer to the question posed

Does pluralism in economics education make better educated, happier students? A qualitative analysis.

This paper contributes to the debate on pluralism in the Economics curriculum. Here pluralism means a diversity of theoretical perspectives. One set of pedagogical arguments for pluralism are those found in ‘liberal’ philosophy of education. To this end, the first part of the paper presents arguments for pluralism based on ‘liberal’ pedagogical arguments. The paper also notes more instrumental arguments for pluralism; and barriers to such an approach. Finally, the paper considers new primary evidence from focus groups on student perceptions of economics. This evidence shows support for the arguments that a pluralist curriculum is popular and develops cognitive capacities of criticism, comparison and analysis – exactly those argued for in (liberal) pedagogical discussion – as well as judgement, understanding and writing skills. However, pluralism as a teaching strategy may be more difficult for those delivering it.Students; pedagogy, pluralism, perceptions, focus groups