Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:22:28.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progress in Heterodox Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Roger E. Backhouse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is great variety within contemporary economics. As Coats (2000) points out, not only are there several schools of thought that would conventionally be labeled “heterodox,” there are numerous economists whose work is in a significant sense unorthodox or unconventional. How, then, can a dividing line be drawn between dissent within orthodoxy and dissent from orthodoxy? The suggestion I make here is that a heterodox school of thought has to satisfy three criteria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 149 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Backhouse, Roger E. 1985. A History of Modern Economic Analysis. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1997. Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cheltenham and Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1998. “If Mathematics Is Informal, Perhaps We Should Accept That Economics Is Informal Too.” Economic Journal 108: 148–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1999. “Austrian Economics and the Mainstream: A View from the Boundary.” Paper presented as the Hayek Memorial Lecture at the 5th Austrian Scholars Conference at the Mises Institute, Auburn University.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1983. “A Methodological Appraisal of Radical Economics.” In Coats, A. W., ed., Methodological Controversies in Economics: Essays in Honour of T.W. Hutchison. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Reprinted in Economic Theories: True or False? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1990.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1999. “The Formalist Revolution Or What Happened to Orthodox Economics After World War II?” In Backhouse, Roger E. and Creedy, John, eds., From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm: Essays in Honour of D.P. O'Brien. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Coats, A. W. 2000. “The Progress of Heterodox Economics”. In Garrouste, P. and Ionnides, , eds., Evolution and Path-dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Laidler, David. 1999. Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R.G. and Lancaster, K. 1956. “The General Theory of the Second Best.” Review of Economic Studies 24 (1): 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum, Bennett T. 1986. “On Real and Sticky Price Theories of the Business Cycle.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 18: 398–414.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley Clair. 1969. Types of Economic Theory. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. and Rutherford, Malcolm. 1998. “American Economics: the Character of the Transformation.” In From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism, Annual Supplement to History of Political Economy, vol. 30. Durham and London: Duke University Press, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Malcolm. 1997. “American Institutionalism and the History of Economics”. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 19 (Fall): 178–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, Karen I. 1994. Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1998. “Axiomatisches Missverständniss.” Economic Journal 108: 1837–47.Google Scholar