A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century (Routledge Advances in Heterodox Economics)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Economics is a contested academic discipline between neoclassical economics and a collection of alternative approaches, such as Marxism-radical economics, Institutional economics, Post Keynesian economics, and others, that can collectively be called heterodox economics. Because of the dominance of neoclassical economics, the existence of the alternative approaches is generally not known. This book is concerned with the community history of heterodox economics, seen primarily through the eyes of Marxian-radical economics and Post Keynesian economics.
Throughout the 20th century neoclassical economists in conjunction with state and university power have attacked heterodox economists and tried to cleanse them from the academy. Professor Lee, his groundbreaking new title discusses issues including the contested landscape of American economics in the 1970s, the emergence and establishment of Post Keynesian economics in the US and the development of heterodox economics in Britain from 1970 to 1996.
'Fred Lee is an international treasure to heterodox economics, and this book is a treasure chest for heterodox economists, carefully laying out where we have come from and what we are up against. It is imperative reading for all of those concerned to offer alternatives to an intellectually bankrupt and intolerant mainstream.' -- Ben Fine (SOAS, University of London, UK)
'Fred Lee has his finger on the pulse of heterodox economics. This book will be of interest to anyone concerned with heterodox economics, its history, and its future. In documenting some of the little-known history of heterodox economics in the 20th century, Fred Lee has created a valuable work that fills a major gap in the literature.' -- Geoffrey Schneider (Bucknell University, USA)
'Fred Lee is a passionate and tireless proponent of heterodox economics, both in his organizational and scholarly activities. In this book the two sets of activities come together. Lee provides an excellent discussion of the history of heterodox economics in context of the organizations and networks of the economics discipline.' -- Wilfred Dolfsma (Utrecht University, the Netherlands)
'For decades, Lee has been meticulously documenting the marginalization and even exclusion of heterodox economics in the US and the UK. At last, he has put together his long-awaited, encyclopedic survey of the field. However, this book reads well, not like a dry encyclopedia. Lee adds color by introducing his reader to many of the scholars in order to give a context to their work. ... This book deserves the widest possible circulation. ... Highly recommended. -- CHOICE, M. Perelman (California State University)
funds research that interest groups say is quality which is a good example of rent-acquiring behavior of an interest group vis-à-vis government. Part III Heterodox economics at the beginning of the twenty-ﬁrst century 10 The emergence of heterodox economics, 1990–2006 As noted in Chapter 1, heterodox economic theory consists of a theoretical critique of neoclassical economic theory as well as a theoretical alternative to it. Moreover, it was pointed out that the theory was composed of a
are dependent on each other for the production of scientiﬁc knowledge. Thus, the criteria for a community of heterodox economists to exist is that individual heterodox economists must see themselves as supporting a diﬀerentiated body of theory that is largely an antithetical alternative to neoclassical economic theory and partake in social networks and institutions that are outside those which make up the community of neoclasscial economists—see Chapter 10.16 How strong or weak the community is,
the hires from the 1970s onwards were nearly all neoclassical economists from top programs: so that by 2002, 82 percent of the faculty had doctoral degrees from top programs including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Cornell, Columbia, Brown, Chicago, UC-Berkeley, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Wisconsin, Michigan, and MIT. Hence, the Texas graduate program ceased to have any signiﬁcant heterodox content by the 1980s; and at the same time the ranking of Texas went from
Post Keynesian articles and communications. Finally, from 1984 to 1995 a total of twenty Post Keynesians were invited or elected to be on the editorial boards of the JEI, ROSE, and RRPE—see Appendix A.12, column N. The open, pluralistic attitude of AFEE, ASE, and URPE was reciprocated by Post Keynesians. Of the eighty-ﬁve of the highly active Post Keynesians for the period 1978 to 1995, twenty-ﬁve were members of AFEE, nine of ASE, and seventeen of URPE, while thirty-nine, eighteen, and
attributes of labor college classes, such as emphasis on social and economic issues, while local authorities prevented the NCLC from using state school rooms for classes and restricted or prevented the use of Plebs textbooks in their adult education classes. Moreover, the business community and the WEA promoted the use of university extra-mural classes in Marshallian economics to attack and “snuﬀ out” the Marxian economic classes of the local labor colleges. Faced with such a broad and sustained