Pluralist Economics as a Democratizing Force: A Review Essay about The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics and Democratizing the Economics Debate: Pluralism and Research Evaluation

The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics and Democratizing the Economics Debate: Pluralism and Research Evaluation, two recently published books about heterodox economics and its role in broader academic and policy discourses, serve as an antidote to some recent popular narratives equating economics and economists with policies that are inherently pro-market, anti-regulation, and based in neoclassical theories. These texts illuminate challenges in current economic discourse about (1) the place of economic pluralism, (2) the role economics and economists should play in guiding policy relative to other social science disciplines, and (3) the consequences of the reliance of policy-makers on economists that train at the most elite institutions that are likely to recommend a narrow band of policies informed by a restricted range of economic theories. The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics, edited by Tae-Jee Ho, Lynne Chester, and Carlo D’Ippoliti, presents positive visions for new questions that heterodox economists are researching, alternative explanations for global economic dynamics, and a counter-narrative to the notion that economists are bound to propose neoliberal policies based on neoclassical and new classical economic theories, and that economic analysis must demonstrate causality using different statistical methodologies to validate its rigor. Carlo D’Ippoliti’s Democratizing the Economics Debate examines the dialectical process by which economic rankings prioritize economic work informed by a narrow range of theories, and serve as a springboard for economists studying and working at the most elite institutions to land in powerful government advisory positions. D’Ippoliti highlights the stakes for governments that continue to hire economic policymakers from these top-tier programs with limited demonstrated curiosity in theories that might be considered heterodox, and the benefits for the economics discipline as a whole for better engagement with pluralist economics writ large.

The Position of Heterodox Economics in Economic Science

In economic science dominate orthodox economics (mainstream economics respectively neoclassical economics). Despite its numerous intellectual failures, orthodox economics continue to prevail in teaching at universities. A certain alternative to orthodox economics is heterodox economics, which consists of three groups of theoretical approaches, represented by the Left-wing heterodoxy and Neo-Austrian school (we include them together in the Old heterodoxy) and the New heterodoxy. The objective of this article is to define the differences between orthodox economics and heterodox economics, to find common features of individual heterodox approaches and identify substantial differences between them and also highlight the relevance of these heterodox approaches from the point of view of the challenges we are facing today. A common characteristic of heterodoxy is the rejection of orthodoxy, especially its research methods. Heterodox economists reject the axiom that individuals are always rational, the concept of ‘homo economicus’, the application of a formal-deductive approach, the use of mathematical methods in cases that are not appropriate for this, and access from a closed system position. Heterodoxy is a very diverse theoretical tradition, and there are differences not only between the Left-wing heterodoxy, Neo-Austrian school and New heterodoxy, but also within these heterodox groups. They differ on specific topics they deal with and proposed solutions to socio-economic problems.