Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:28:32.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospects for the Progress of Heterodox Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Sheila C. Dow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What are the prospects for progress in heterodox economics? The question posed for this roundtable discussion raises a wide range of important issues, for heterodox economics and for economics as a whole. In order to clarify some of these issues, this contribution approaches the question from a practical point of view: what strategy would promote the progress of heterodox economics?

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 157 - 170
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, R. E. 1988. “The Value of Post Keynesian Economics.” Bulletin of Economic Research 40 (1): 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. 1998. “If Mathematics Is Informal, Then Perhaps We Should Accept That Economics Must Be Informal Too.” Economic Journal 108 (451): 1848–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. 2000. “Progress in Heterodox Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (06): 149–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bank of England. 1999. Economic Models at the Bank of England. London: Bank of England.Google Scholar
Blanchard, O. and Fischer, S.. 1989. Lectures in Macroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1980. The Methodology of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caldwell, B. J. 1989. “Post-Keynesian Methodology: An Assessment.” Review of Political Economy 1 (1): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coats, A. W. 2000. “The Progress of Heterodox Economics.” In Garrouste, P. and Ioannides, S., eds., Evolution and Path-dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Chick, V. 1998. “On Knowing One's Place: The Role of Formalism in Economics.” Economic Journal 108 (451): 1859–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, S. C. 1990. “Beyond Dualism.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 14 (2): 143–58.Google Scholar
Dow, S. C. 1997a. “Mainstream Economic Methodology.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 21 (1): 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, S. C. 1997b. “Methodological Pluralism and Pluralism of Method.” In Salanti, A. and Screpanti, E., eds., Pluralism in Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 89–99.Google Scholar
Goodhart, C. A. E. 1999. “Central Bankers and Uncertainty.” Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 39 (1): 102–14.Google Scholar
Hahn, F. H. 1973. On the Notion of Equilibrium in Economics. Inaugural lecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, F. H. 1983. Money and Inflation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. 1999. Evolution and Institutions. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1973. A Treatise on Probability. Collected Writings, vol. VIII. London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. 1998. “Two Cheers for Formalism.” Economic Journal 108 (451): 1829–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, T. 1994. “Why Are So Many Economists So Opposed to Methodology?” Journal of Economic Methodology 1 (1): 105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, T. 1997. Economics and Reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loasby, B.J. 1991. Equilibrium and Evolution: An Exploration of Connecting Principles in Economics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. 1983. “The Rhetoric of Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 21 (06): 482–517.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. S. 1990. Seven Schools of Thought in Macroeconomics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. 1985. General Equilibrium Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar