Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:49 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The definition of heterodox economics presented by Pat Gunning was more
or less put together by me. What Professor Gunning fails to recognize
is that the definition of heterodox economics has two components: one
which refers to the economists that make up the community of heterodox
economics and the second which refers to the development of a heterodox
economic theory that is necessarily not entirely coincidental with any
one of the theoretical approaches associated with a sub-group that makes
up the community. In any case, the importance of choice theory among
the heterodox approaches varies widely; and it is certainly clear that
for many of the approaches choice theory is not very important.
Moreover, the theoretical content of choice theory for many approaches
is decidedly non-mainstream--and Professor Gunning seems to ignore that
point. By insisting that economics is and has always been defined in
terms of choice theory suggests an ahistorical understanding economics
as well as cleansing alternative approaches to economic theorizing from
economics. In particular, Professor Gunning (and others) find it
necessary to insist that I and other heterodox economists must adhere to
his conception of choice theory and that choice theory must the
fundamental basis of our theorizing. Instead of insisting that all
economists must be homogeneous in their approach to theorizing about the
economy, why not be more tolerant and recognize that economics is a
contested, changing discipline? If this road is taken then it becomes
possible to examine economics historically--that is to have a history of
economics. This would have the additional benefit of making the history
of economics/economic thought very important (even essential) for the
study and learning of contemporary economic theory, whether it be
mainstream or heterodox. This is perhaps a more important topic to
discuss on the HES listserve than whether economics past and present has
simply been ground in mainstream choice theory.
Frederic S. Lee
|
|
|