This post is an indirect reply to the previous post. Without a doubt, mainstream economics is a very narrow discipline. Many smart people realize this, and that is why there does exist a long tradition of dissenting economists. Editors Philip Arestes and Malcolm Sawyer collect many of these biographies in their book, “A Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists” (2000). The editors are sympathetic to the project of undermining neoclassical hegemony, and so the biographers are free to express their unrestrained views. A short overview from a book review by Robert Prasch of Middlebury College:
In light of the interests of the editors, the post-Keynesian (Davidson, Eichner, Kalecki, Keynes, Minsky, Robinson), Marxist (Baran, Dobb, Hilferding, Sweezy) and neo-Ricardian (Garegnani, Pasinetti, Sraffa) schools are prominently featured. It was also a pleasure to find some of the more interesting figures who have worked in development economics over the years (Amin, Frank, Furtado, Prebisch, Singer), along with several important figures who contributed to the Institutionalist school (Ayers, Commons, Galbraith, Means, Samuels). In addition, many of the people associated with the founding years of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) are featured here (Bowles, Gordon, Gintis, Reich, Weisskopf).
Although it is biased towards the left-leaning dissenters, this bibliographic dictionary still seems to be a valuable resources to those interested in learning about modern economists who have sought to broaden the economic conversation.
“Although it is biased towards the left-leaning dissenters,”
Neoliberalism is indisputably rightist, and New Keynesianism is considered “leftist,” I don’t know what dissenters would not be more left-leaning, other than Austrian/Libertarians. Is there some natural center, or is this a matter of perception depending on the location of the Overton window?
I agree with Tom’s comments on the Overton window- no need to include token Hayekians for “balance”- Hayek has had plenty of influence in the mainstream.
The dictionary is cool, and appears to be relatively complete on Google Books.
No discussion of dissenting economists would be complete without mention of Warren Mosler, Randall Wray and Bill Mitchell, who helped modify the idea of Chartalism Wray calls this modification, Neo-Chartalism, as unlike nearly every other economic hypothesis, it accents the unique aspects of monetarily sovereign nations.
.
I myself began to offer hypotheses in neo-Chartalism back in 1995, including interest rate control over inflation, and the sufficiency of local taxes to create demand for money.
.
Neo-Chartalism stands as a bulwark against destructive anti-deficit philosophies, and provides the only cogent preventions and solutions to recessions.
.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
By the way, you invite signatures on your petition.
.
The Notre Dame web site says: “The Department of Economics is a neoclassical economics department . . . “and “Our research mission is to perform frontier research . . .”
Because the tenets of Neoclassical economics (rationality, maximization and full information) are obsolete, a commitment to frontier research would preclude a commitment to neoclassical economics.
In short, the Department has determined the answers before students have conducted the “frontier” research.
Assuming this policy was determined at the highest levels, I suggest that Notre Dame close its Economics Department. Education requires an open mind and seemingly the Economics Department is run by people whose minds are closed. Such “education” does more harm than good.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com