Criticism Of Heterodox Theory

Heterodox economics has its friendly and not-so-friendly critics. Most of the criticisms are friendly comments and analysis directed towards improving heterodox economic theory. But this is more or less normal scientific discourse where criticism is part of the process of building scientific knowledge. These friendly critics and their criticisms are, however, not the ones with which this article is concerned. Rather the critics and their criticisms that are addressed in this article are those that challenge the existence of heterodox economic theory and the community of heterodox economists as manifested through their graduate programs, conferences, journals and identity. The most outspoken recognized critic is David Colander, followed by his

Either argument implies that heterodox theory is Review of Political Economy, not theoretically distinct relative to mainstream theory and that it is necessary for heterodox economists to become more like mainstream economists if they want to survive. Yet it is curious that these critics of heterodox economics do not actually focus on its theoretical conception of economics as an area of study, on its ontological and methodological foundations, on its methods of economic analysis, on its theoretical arguments, or on its policy prescriptions. In short, they do not critically engage and find fault with the substantive content of heterodox economics, leaving open the possibility that it is a sound, coherent and accurate and thus a legitimate scientific alternative to mainstream theory.1 Not willing to explicitly acknowledge this possibility, the critics just ignore it and assume that heterodox theory is commensurable with mainstream theory to at least some

Among the social characteristics variously attributed to the heterodox community are: insufficient knowledge of mainstream theory; refusing to engage with the mainstream and court mainstream allies; the inferiority of heterodox graduate programs because almost all of them do not teach the most-up-to-date mainstream theory qua models and econometric practices, leaving their students poorly trained relative to students in mainstream programs (Colander, 2010, pp. 40–41); and hurting the feelings and sensitivities of mainstream economists by criticizing their theories and advocating pluralism. The counterproductive personal traits sometimes attributed to heterodox economists include complaining too much about the injustices committed by the mainstream (Colander, 2010, p. 45), and adopting the heterodox identity because of a contrarian tendency to distinguish oneself from mainstream economists (also see, Colander, 2009a, 2009b; Colander et al., 2010; Fontana & Gerrard, 2006). It is true that heterodox economists do engage in critical analysis of mainstream economics and its organizational, institutional and exclusionary