Since Mason Gaffney mentioned political economy specifically along with the interesting quote from (his?) article, I thought of sharing with the list my 'letter to editor' of NYTimes that I sent yesterday and which may or may never see the printed page. 
 
"As reported  in his "Making Economics Relevant Again" (February 29, 2008), David Leonhardt's survey results would be very encouraging, if they forecast a definite trend in the making of economists. But the education they receive, particularly at higher levels, is still narrowly technical and devoid of context. It would be pertinent to ask the leaders in the field why they are satisfied with the highly mathematized discipline, which has lost all claim to be called a proper social science in its current incarnation, if in the process the trained Ph. D.s are not favored for good jobs.
 
If self-interest is what drives the person of standard economic theory, why doesn't the profession relinquish its tight hold on the abstractions in pursuit of its own interest? There are rich heterodox sub-disciplines thriving in the field. For example, feminist economics is credited with analyses and policy prescriptions that have been successfully used by international agencies in their efforts to improve the lives of girls and women all over the world. Mainstream economics needs to expand its field of vision to incorporate such work in its body in order to make it relevant and useful. The gate keepers of doctoral programs may need refresher courses in the political economy of the Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill."
 
Sumitra Shah