Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/277464 
Authors: 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Citation: 
[Journal:] European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (EJEEP) [ISSN:] 2052-7772 [Volume:] 17 [Issue:] 1 [Year:] 2020 [Pages:] 9-18
Publisher: 
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Abstract: 
Geoffrey Hodgson has recently published a book where he wonders why heterodox economics seems to thrive while at the same time losing ground within the most prestigious universities. Although Hodgson considers himself to be a heterodox economist, he complains about the way heterodoxy has been defined by some of its most active thinkers, in particular Frederic Lee and Tony Lawson. Hodgson believes that heterodox economics should be defined neither by a left-leaning ideology nor by critical realism. He argues that too much energy has been devoted to the study of macroeconomics by the Marxist and post-Keynesian brands of heterodox economics, as they left aside what he believes to be the crucial issue of microeconomic behaviour which can be found in behavioural and evolutionary economics. Hodgson further argues that what he considers to be the decline in the impact of heterodox economics is partly due to a lack of quality control. The paper outlines and comments on these various assertions.
Subjects: 
post-Keynesian economics
heterodox economics
formalism
ideology
JEL: 
B40
B50
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.