ABSTRACT
Introduction Most observers would agree that a healthy field of study needs diversity and a vibrant and open market for ideas. Thus, it would seem that calls for pluralism in economics, such as have been made by self-described heterodox economists, would be welcomed by the mainstream economics profession. They haven’t been; the calls have been essentially ignored by the mainstream, leading some heterodox economists to argue that the mainstream of economics is unpluralistic, closed-minded, and ideologically biased. In turn, heterodox calls for pluralism are seen by many in the mainstream as simply calls for the mainstream to listen to the heterodox economist’s particular point of view, and not as true calls for pluralism. Because it fails to achieve the desired ends, I find the rhetoric of pluralism unhelpful. Heterodox calls for pluralism do not increase openness or foster communication between heterodox and mainstream economists because such calls suggest that mainstream economists somehow do not favor openness to alternative views, and that the reason why mainstream economists are not open to heterodox ideas is because mainstream economists are closed-minded. Seeing the mainstream’s rejection of their ideas as due to the mainstream’s closedmindedness may make heterodox economists feel better, but it is not a way to open up dialog between mainstream and heterodoxy. Some mainstream economists may indeed be closed-minded, just as some heterodox economists are. But that’s life. Other mainstream economists are open-minded, and, in my view, it is toward those open-minded economists that heterodox economists should be directing their arguments. It is time for heterodox groups to move beyond the rhetoric of pluralism. One can debate endlessly whether the mainstream of the profession is pluralistic. In some ways it is, and in other ways it isn’t. For heterodox groups to dwell on ways in which the profession is unpluralistic doesn’t gain them anything in terms of furthering their views with those mainstream economists who are open to change. While I agree with heterodox critics that mainstream economics has entrenched views, and has developed structures to protect those views, I do not
see this as unusual or something unique to the field of economics. It is simply how the real world works. The heterodox groups with which I am familiar have as entrenched views as does the mainstream, and oftentimes the institutional protections are stronger within heterodox groups than they are within mainstream groups. So, in my view, it makes little sense to rail against such structures that naturally develop within any ongoing system. In this chapter I advocate an alternative strategy – what might be called an “inside-the-mainstream” heterodoxy. As opposed to emphasizing the nonpluralistic aspects of the mainstream, this strategy emphasizes opening up dialog with that part of the mainstream that is open to change. As we discuss in Colander et al. (2004) this part of the mainstream is much larger than is often portrayed by heterodox economists. Mainstream economics is not neoclassical and cannot usefully be seen as a monolithic group with a single “orthodox” view. Instead it is a complex adaptive system of many competing views – views often as diverse as those held by heterodox economists. The mainstream is characterized by multiple layers of distinctions and gray areas of understanding about scope, method, and interpretation of results. At any one time, one view in the mainstream may be dominant, but that dominance does not necessarily reflect an entrenched orthodoxy, and it is not necessarily the view of all in the mainstream; it simply represents the way the intellectual forces play out at this particular time. Because of the multifacetedness of the mainstream, it is not beliefs that separate mainstream from heterodoxy; it is attitude and willingness to compete within a given set of rules and institutional structures. Mainstream economists are willing to compete within those rules; heterodox economists aren’t. Because mainstream economists are limited by implicit and explicit institutional norms and rules, their beliefs, their research, and their teaching, all may differ (Colander 2005a). For example, just because one works on general equilibrium models does not mean that one accepts that general equilibrium is an acceptable description of the economy. Similarly, just because one works on game theory does not mean that one believes most people are perfectly rational. Research and beliefs can differ. Mainstream researchers’ decisions about the subject matter they will study, the methods they use, and what they teach are part of a complicated set of practical, strategic decisions that do not necessarily reflect their deep views about how the economy works or what are interesting questions. Because the mainstream has highly restrictive limitations on method and scope, for them, many ideas and issues are outside the purview of economics. But in the best of the mainstream economists, underneath any seeming orthodoxy is often an openness to ideas and a desire to see economics progress and consider these difficult issues. But to be open to any one else’s ideas about such questions, these open-minded mainstream economists must be convinced that the person raising the questions understands the reasoning that led mainstream economics to avoid that question and to follow a more traditional mainstream approach. In my view too many heterodox economists begin with the premise that mainstream economists don’t understand the problems and limitations with
“orthodox” mainstream arguments, and that it is the heterodox economist’s job to point them out. That approach stops dialog. Such heterodox economists have little chance of communicating with open-minded mainstream economists since, almost by definition, that heterodox critic has not recognized the deep understanding of the issues that these open-minded mainstream economist have, or at least think they have. Communication fails, natural allies are kept apart, and entrenched views are reinforced rather than attacked. The alternative strategy for heterodox economists that I support is a strategy built on opening lines of communication. It does not emphasize distinctions between heterodoxy and mainstream but rather deemphasizes them. It attempts to establish lines of communication among all economists. I suggest that young heterodox-leaning future economists will be more effective critics if they follow this alternative strategy.
