Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics

  title={Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics},
  author={David C. Colander and Richard P. F. Holt and J. Barkley Rosser},
  journal={Journal of Post Keynesian Economics},
  pages={303 - 312}
We attempt to clarify divisions made by us in previous work (Colander et al., 2004a; 2004b) between "orthodox, mainstream, and heterodox" in economics, following useful remarks in Dequech (2007-8), whom we thank. We also provide specific advice for heterodox economists—namely, worry less about methodology, focus on being economists first and heterodox economists second, and prepare ideas to leave the incubator of heterodoxy to enter the mainstream economic debate. 
How to win friends and (possibly) influence mainstream economists
In the paper "Conversation or Monologue: On Advising Heterodox Economists," we are taken to task by Matías Vernengo on a number of issues made in Colander, Holt, and Rosser (2004b; 2007-8). In this
Perspectives for Post-Keynesian Economics
The paper reviews and assesses the negative and positive advice which has been offered by various fellow economists to heterodox economists in general, and Post-Keynesian economists in particular, in
Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Pluralism: Suggestions for an “Inside-the-Mainstream” Heterodoxy
David Colander has been writing about economic methodology for over 30 years, but he goes out of his way to emphasize that he does not see himself as a methodologist. His pragmatic methodology is
Conversation or monologue? on advising heterodox economists
This paper suggests that heterodox economists should not think of themselves as economists first, and only secondarily as heterodox, and must emphasize methodological issues, in particular the
Rejoinder to Methodology...?! Why? Some Methodological Aspects of the Controversy between Mainstream Economics and Institutionalism by Peter Galbács
This question, and the rejoinder itself, were inspired by the article of Péter Galbács, in which he claims that the reason mainstream and heterodox economics2 cannot converge their perspectives is
Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis
We explore the differences between mainstream and heterodox economists based on the responses to a questionnaire from a representative sample of Italian economists. Using different defini- tions for
Economics fit for the Queen: a pessimistic assessment of its prospects
The widespread failure of economists to predict the 2008 credit crunch and subsequent Global Financial Crisis led Her Majesty the Queen to ask what had gone wrong. She received very different
Robbins on Economic Generalizations and Reality in the Light of Modern Econometrics
This paper examines Lionel Robbins' critical attitude towards formal empirical work from the standpoint of modern econometrics. It argues that his attitude towards empirical work rested on
Diaspora of economists and Russian economics: In search of common ground
The article summarizes the results of a survey of 77 representatives of the Russian diaspora of academic economists (RDAE) carried out in the summer of 2017. Its main purpose was to find out the
  • Fabio Masini
  • Economics
    Journal of the History of Economic Thought
  • 2009
The aim of this paper is to systematically enquire into the relationship Robbins sets in his writings - prior to the Essay and further brought out in several subsequent works - between 'economic


The changing face of mainstream economics
This article argues that economics is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in its method, away from neoclassical economics and into something new. Although that something new has not been fully
The nature of heterodox economics
Heterodoxy serves as an umbrella term to cover the coming together of separate projects or traditions. In answering the question, 'what distinguishes heterodoxy from the orthodoxy?', the author
The Death of Neoclassical Economics
The term “neoclassical economics” was born in 1900; in this paper I am proposing economist-assisted terminasia; by the powers vested in me as president of the History of Economics Society, I hereby
Austrian economics at the cutting edge
Austrian economists today have a valuable opportunity to rejoin the mainstream of the economics profession. As Colander, Holt, and Rosser have argued, neoclassical orthodoxy is no long mainstream.
Live and Dead Issues in the Methodology of Economics
1. The purpose of this note is a very humble one; it is an attempt to eliminate certain causes of unnecessary confusion. In the last ten years much has been written both by professional economists
Characterizing Institutional and Heterodox Economics—A Reply to Tony Lawson
Lawson (2005) attempts to distinguish between heterodox and mainstream approaches in terms of their ontological presuppositions. By contrast he claims that different heterodox approaches are
Post Walrasian Macroeconomics and Heterodoxy : Thinking Outside the Heterodox Box
As an historian of recent economic thought, I find classifications useful for students who need a quick entrée into a debate, or for nonspecialists who want a quick and dirty summary of the main
The turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism?
This paper investigates whether since the 1980s neoclassical economics has been in the process of being supplanted as the dominant research programme in economics by a collection of competing
The Coming of Keynesianism to America: Conversations with the Founders of Keynesian Economics
A selection of interviews with the founders of Keynesian economics, this book offers the reader a sense of what the Keynesian revolution was and how it spread. An introductory essay presents the
What do we know about Macroeconomics that Fisher and Wicksell did not
The answer to the question in the title is: A lot. In this essay, I argue that the history of macroeconomics during the 20th century can be divided in three epochs: Pre 1940. A period of exploration,