Hi, I have been wanting to comment on the issue that economics as a   
theory of choice is narrow. This issue was raised by at least two   
contributors, including Frederic Lee. I finally am in a more permanent   
location where I can do this.  
  
There is no doubt that many people who call themselves economists and   
who are in the profession, as it were, would regard themselves as   
outside of a group that defined itself exclusively as students of choice   
and who called economics a theory or logic of choice. Recall that by   
this I mean people who interpret behavior and its manifestations, such   
as GDP numbers, by building images or models of the choices that cause   
(or that can be inferred to cause) such behavior or manifestations. Such   
"theory-of-choicers," as I define them, do not deny that constraints on   
choice come from all sorts of places, but they insist that when one   
describes behavior and its manifestations solely in terms of these   
constraints and disregard the choosing character of people who behave,   
one is outside the realm of economics.  
  
I have two questions about those who call themselves economists but who   
would regard themselves outside the group of "theory of choicers." The   
first is whether such people really do study ONLY non-choice behavior   
and its manifestations. I am not aware of any who do. So perhaps someone   
would give an example.  
  
The second is whether, if such people do exist, they regard the study of   
constraints as part of economics.  
  
I am not writing here about the words people use. It seems to me that   
many people who use the word economics to refer to only the study of   
what I have called constraints on choice are merely trying to advertise   
the particular constraints they are studying and not to present an   
alternative to economics as a theory of choice. Others are advertising   
their desire to see "theory-of-choicers" study the causes of choice   
itself. If this is wrong, I'd like somebody to give me an example.  
  
It seems to me that the term "heterodox economics" does not accurately   
capture any of the ideas I am expressing here, since it presumably   
refers to everything that it is not mainstream economics. In fact, to   
speak of heterodox economics, it seems to me, is to drop out of the   
discussion entirely.  
  
Pat Gunning,