Frederic S. Lee (2010), “To be Heterodox or Not: Response to Heterodox Critics and Their Arguments for Assimilation into Mainstream Economics,” a paper translated and published in Revue Française de Socio-Économie (2011/2, n∘8) as “Être ou ne pas hétérodoxe: réponse argumentée aux détracteurs de l’hétérodoxie,” pp. 123–144. Available in French here: https://bit.ly/3NOFFvc
Download the original English version (pdf)
***
To be Heterodox or Not: Response to Heterodox Critics and Their Arguments for Assimilation into Mainstream Economics
by
Professor Frederic S. Lee
Department of Economics
University of Missouri, Kansas City
October 27, 2010
Abstract: Heterodox economics has its critics and their criticisms. Most are friendly comments and analysis directed towards improving heterodox economic theory. The critics and their criticisms that are the concern of this paper are the ones that challenge the existence of heterodox economic theory and the community of heterodox economists as manifested through their graduate programs, conferences, journals, and identity. Yet these critics do not critically engage and find fault with the substantive content of heterodox economics. The critics observe that the academic status quo in economics as manifested in its department and journal rankings, rules of academic engagement, and its institutions and organizations, favor mainstream economics and that it is unlikely to change in the future. Consequently, they argue that heterodox economists can only survive if they become more like mainstream economists. With focus on assimilation, the critics direct their criticisms towards the social characteristics of the heterodox community and to the personal characteristics of heterodox economists. In short, their concerns seem more about preventing heterodox economics from disrupting the status quo. This paper is a response to the critics by showing that there exists a body of heterodox theory; dealing with heterodox economists critiques of mainstream theory and the issue of pseudo-knowledge and the social role of mainstream economics; examining the broad question of quality in terms of research, department and journal rankings, employment, and training; and articulating a heterodox identity that is distinct, has intellectual integrity, and embraces pluralism, followed with the conclusion.
Dr. Tae-Hee Jo 