Heterodox economics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:15, 1 December 2024

Heterodox economics is a broad, relative term referring to schools of economic thought which are not commonly perceived as belonging to mainstream economics. There is no absolute definition of what constitutes heterodox economic thought, as it is defined in constrast to the most prominent, influential or popular schools of thought in a given time and place.^[1]

Groups typically classed as heterodox in current discourse include the Austrian, ecological,^{[note 1]} Marxist-historical, post-autistic, and modern monetary approaches.^[2]^[3]^[4]

Four frames of analysis have been highlighted for their importance to heterodox thought: history, natural systems, uncertainty, and power.^[5]

History

In the mid-19th century, such thinkers as Auguste Comte, Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin and Karl Marx made early critiques of orthodox economy.^[6] A number of heterodox schools of economic thought challenged the dominance of neoclassical economics after the neoclassical revolution of the 1870s. In addition to socialist critics of capitalism, heterodox schools in this period included advocates of various forms of mercantilism, such as the American School dissenters from neoclassical methodology such as the historical school, and advocates of unorthodox monetary theories such as social credit.

Physical scientists and biologists were the first individuals to use energy flows to explain social and economic development. Joseph Henry, an American physicist and first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, remarked that the "fundamental principle of political economy is that the physical labor of man can only be ameliorated by… the transformation of matter from a crude state to an artificial condition...by expending what is called power or energy."^[7]^[8]

The rise, and absorption into the mainstream of Keynesian economics, which appeared to provide a more coherent policy response to unemployment than unorthodox monetary or trade policies, contributed to the decline of interest in these schools.

After 1945, the neoclassical synthesis of Keynesian and neoclassical economics resulted in a clearly defined mainstream position based on a division of the field into microeconomics (generally neoclassical but with a newly developed theory of market failure) and macroeconomics (divided between Keynesian and monetarist views on such issues as the role of monetary policy). Austrians and post-Keynesians who dissented from this synthesis emerged as clearly defined heterodox schools. In addition, the Marxist and institutionalist schools remained active but with limited acceptance or credibility.^[9]

Up to 1980 the most notable themes of heterodox economics in its various forms included:

rejection of the atomistic individual conception in favor of a socially embedded individual conception;
emphasis on time as an irreversible historical process;
reasoning in terms of mutual influences between individuals and social structures.

From approximately 1980 mainstream economics has been significantly influenced by a number of new research programs, including behavioral economics, complexity economics, evolutionary economics, experimental economics, and neuroeconomics. One key development has been an epistemic turn away from theory towards an empirically driven approach focused centrally on questions of causal inference.^[10] As a consequence, some heterodox economists, such as John B. Davis, proposed that the definition of heterodox economics has to be adapted to this new, more complex reality:^[11]

...heterodox economics post-1980 is a complex structure, being composed out of two broadly different kinds of heterodox work, each internally differentiated with a number of research programs having different historical origins and orientations: the traditional left heterodoxy familiar to most and the 'new heterodoxy' resulting from other science imports.^[11]

Rejection of neoclassical economics

Heterodox economics is not a school of thought in its own right, but rather an umbrella term for a set of various, diverse schools of economic thought. Despite their diversity, heterodox schools often consider neoclassical economics to be a flawed or invalid approach to understanding economics.^[12] The reasons behind this rejection may vary. Some of the elements commonly found in heterodox critiques are listed below.

Criticism of the neoclassical model of individual behavior

One of the most broadly accepted principles of neoclassical economics is the assumption of the "rationality of economic agents". Indeed, for a number of economists, the notion of rational maximizing behavior is taken to be synonymous with economic behavior (Hirshleifer 1984). When some economists' studies do not embrace the rationality assumption, they are seen as placing the analyses outside the boundaries of the Neoclassical economics discipline (Landsberg 1989, 596). Neoclassical economics begins with the a priori assumptions that agents are rational and that they seek to maximize their individual utility (or profits) subject to environmental constraints. These assumptions provide the backbone for rational choice theory.

Many heterodox schools are critical of the homo economicus model of human behavior used in the standard neoclassical model. A typical version of the critique is that of Satya Gabriel:^[13]^{[self-published source?]}

Neoclassical economic theory is grounded in a particular conception of human psychology, agency or decision-making. It is assumed that all human beings make economic decisions so as to maximize pleasure or utility. Some heterodox theories reject this basic assumption of neoclassical theory, arguing for alternative understandings of how economic decisions are made and/or how human psychology works. It is possible to accept the notion that humans are pleasure seeking machines, yet reject the idea that economic decisions are governed by such pleasure seeking. Human beings may, for example, be unable to make choices consistent with pleasure maximization due to social constraints and/or coercion. Humans may also be unable to correctly assess the choice points that are most likely to lead to maximum pleasure, even if they are unconstrained (except in budgetary terms) in making such choices. And it is also possible that the notion of pleasure seeking is itself a meaningless assumption because it is either impossible to test or too general to refute. Economic theories that reject the basic assumption of economic decisions as the outcome of pleasure maximization are heterodox.

Shiozawa emphasizes that economic agents act in a complex world and therefore impossible for them to attain maximal utility point. They instead behave as if there are a repertories of many ready made rules, one of which they chose according to relevant situation.^[14]

Criticism of the neoclassical model of market equilibrium

In microeconomic theory, cost-minimization by consumers and by firms implies the existence of supply and demand correspondences for which market clearing equilibrium prices exist, if there are large numbers of consumers and producers. Under convexity assumptions or under some marginal-cost pricing rules, each equilibrium will be Pareto efficient: In large economies, non-convexity also leads to quasi-equilibria that are nearly efficient.

However, the concept of market equilibrium has been criticized by Austrians, post-Keynesians and others, who object to applications of microeconomic theory to real-world markets, when such markets are not usefully approximated by microeconomic models. Heterodox economists assert that micro-economic models rarely capture reality.

Mainstream microeconomics may be defined in terms of optimization and equilibrium, following the approaches of Paul Samuelson and Hal Varian. On the other hand, heterodox economics may be labeled as falling into the nexus of institutions, history, and social structure.^[4]^[15]

Most recent developments

Over the past two decades,^[when?] the intellectual agendas of heterodox economists have taken a decidedly pluralist turn. Leading heterodox thinkers have moved beyond the established paradigms of Austrian, Feminist, Institutional-Evolutionary, Marxian, Post Keynesian, Radical, Social, and Sraffian economics—opening up new lines of analysis, criticism, and dialogue among dissenting schools of thought. This cross-fertilization of ideas is creating a new generation of scholarship in which novel combinations of heterodox ideas are being brought to bear on important contemporary and historical problems, such as socially grounded reconstructions of the individual in economic theory; the goals and tools of economic measurement and professional ethics; the complexities of policymaking in today's global political economy; and innovative connections among formerly separate theoretical traditions (Marxian, Austrian, feminist, ecological, Sraffian, institutionalist, and post-Keynesian) (for a review of post-Keynesian economics, see Lavoie (1992); Rochon (1999)).

David Colander, an advocate of complexity economics, argues that the ideas of heterodox economists are now being discussed in the mainstream without mention of the heterodox economists, because the tools to analyze institutions, uncertainty, and other factors have now been developed by the mainstream. He suggests that heterodox economists should embrace rigorous mathematics and attempt to work from within the mainstream, rather than treating it as an enemy.^[16]

Some schools of heterodox economic thought have also taken a transdisciplinary approach. Thermoeconomics is based on the claim that human economic processes are governed by the second law of thermodynamics. The posited relationship between economic theory, energy and entropy, has been extended further by systems scientists to explain the role of energy in biological evolution in terms of such economic criteria as productivity, efficiency, and especially the costs and benefits of the various mechanisms for capturing and utilizing available energy to build biomass and do work.^[17]^[18]

Various student movements have emerged in response to the exclusion of heterodox economics in the curricula of most economics degrees. The International Student Initiative for Pluralist Economics was set up as an umbrella network for various smaller university groups such as Rethinking Economics to promote pluralism in economics, including more heterodox approaches.

Fields of heterodox economic thought

American Institutionalist School
Austrian economics #^[19]
Binary economics
Bioeconomics
Buddhist economics
Complexity economics
Co-operative economics
Distributism
Ecological economics §
Evolutionary economics # § (partly within mainstream economics)
Econophysics
Feminist economics # §
Freiwirtschaft
Georgism
Gift-based economics
Green Economics
Humanistic economics
Innovation Economics
Institutional economics # §
Islamic economics
Marxian economics #
Mutualism
Neuroeconomics
Participatory economics
Political Economy
Post-Keynesian economics § including Modern Monetary Theory and Circuitism
Post scarcity
Pluralism in economics
Resource-based economics – not to be confused with a resource-based economy
Real-world economics
Sharing economics
Socialist economics #
Social economics (partially heterodox usage)
Sraffian economics #
Technocracy (Energy Accounting)
Thermoeconomics
Mouvement Anti-Utilitariste dans les Sciences Sociales

# Listed in Journal of Economic Literature codes scrolled to at JEL: B5 – Current Heterodox Approaches.

§ Listed in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics^[20]

Some schools in the social sciences aim to promote certain perspectives: classical and modern political economy; economic sociology and anthropology; gender and racial issues in economics; and so on.

Notable heterodox economists

Notes

^ Not to be confused with environmental economics.

References

^ Dequench, David (2007) "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics", Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2), 279-302 [1]
^ Frederic S. Lee, 2008. "heterodox economics," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, v. 4, pp. 2–65. Abstract. Archived 2016-12-23 at the Wayback Machine
^ Cohn, Steve (2003). "Common Ground Critiques of Neoclassical Principles Texts". Post-Autistic Economics Review (18, article 3). Archived from the original on 2019-08-27. Retrieved 2010-10-06.
^ ^a ^b Lawson, T. (2005). "The nature of heterodox economics" (PDF). Cambridge Journal of Economics. 30 (4): 483–505. doi:10.1093/cje/bei093. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2010-03-30.
^ Mearman, Andrew (2011). "Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?" American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(2): 480–510 Archived 2016-03-05 at the Wayback Machine.
^ Crozier 1906, pp. 115–116.
^ Cutler J. Cleveland, "Biophysical economics" Archived 2012-02-05 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopedia of Earth, Last updated: September 14, 2006.
^ Eric Zencey, 2009. "Mr. Soddy’s Ecological Economy",] The New York Times, April 12, p. WK 9. Archived 2017-02-28 at the Wayback Machine
^ In 1962, Paul Samuelson (who would later win the Nobel Prize in economics) wrote: "From the viewpoint of pure economic theory, Karl Marx can be regarded as a minor post-Ricardian." Paul Samuelson (1962). “Economists and History of Ideas,” The American Economic Review, March 1962
^ Angrist, Joshua D; Pischke, Jörn-Steffen (2010-05-01). "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 24 (2): 3–30. doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.3. hdl:1721.1/54195. ISSN 0895-3309.
^ ^a ^b Davis, John B. (2006). "The Nature of Heterodox Economics" (PDF). Post-Autistic Economics Review (40): 23–30. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-03-03. Retrieved 2007-05-06.
^ Lee, Frederic (September 16, 2011). A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging Mainstream Views in the 21st Century (Reprint ed.). Routledge. pp. 7–9. ISBN 978-0415681971.
^ Satya J. Gabriel 2003. "Introduction to Heterodox Economic Theory." (blog), June 4, [2] Archived 2016-06-30 at the Wayback Machine Satya J. Gabriel is a Professor of Economics at Mount Holyoke College
^ Shiozawa, Y. 2004 Evolutionary Economics in the 21st Century: A Manifest, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 1(1): 5–47.
^ Dow, S. C. (2000). "Prospects for the Progress in Heterodox Economics" (PDF). Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 22 (2): 157–70. doi:10.1080/10427710050025367. hdl:1893/24906. S2CID 3238380. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-12-02. Retrieved 2019-09-19.
^ David Colander, 2007. Pluralism and Heterodox Economics: Suggestions for an “Inside the Mainstream” Heterodoxy Archived 2015-06-30 at the Wayback Machine
^ Corning, Peter A.; Kline, Stephen J. (1998). "Thermodynamics, information and life revisited, Part II: 'Thermoeconomics' and 'Control information'". Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 15 (6): 453–82. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199811/12)15:6<453::AID-SRES201>3.0.CO;2-U.
^ Peter A. Corning. 2002. “Thermoeconomics – Beyond the Second Law Archived 2008-09-22 at the Wayback Machine” – source: www.complexsystems.org
^ 2003. A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22573-0 p. 452
^ 2nd Edition, v. 8, Appendix IV, p. 856, searchable by clicking (the JEL classification codes JEL:) radio button B5, B52, or B59, then the Search button (or Update Search Results button) at http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/search_results?edition=all&field=content&q=&topicid=B5 Archived 2013-05-28 at the Wayback Machine.

External links

[2] Not to be confused with environmental economics.

[Dequech2007-1] Dequench, David (2007) "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics", Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2), 279-302 [1]

[Lee2008-3] Frederic S. Lee, 2008. "heterodox economics," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, v. 4, pp. 2–65. Abstract. Archived 2016-12-23 at the Wayback Machine

[4] Cohn, Steve (2003). "Common Ground Critiques of Neoclassical Principles Texts". Post-Autistic Economics Review (18, article 3). Archived from the original on 2019-08-27. Retrieved 2010-10-06.

[LAWSON-5] Lawson, T. (2005). "The nature of heterodox economics" (PDF). Cambridge Journal of Economics. 30 (4): 483–505. doi:10.1093/cje/bei093. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2010-03-30.

[6] Mearman, Andrew (2011). "Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?" American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(2): 480–510 Archived 2016-03-05 at the Wayback Machine.

[FOOTNOTECrozier1906115–116-7] Crozier 1906, pp. 115–116.

[8] Cutler J. Cleveland, "Biophysical economics" Archived 2012-02-05 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopedia of Earth, Last updated: September 14, 2006.

[9] Eric Zencey, 2009. "Mr. Soddy’s Ecological Economy",] The New York Times, April 12, p. WK 9. Archived 2017-02-28 at the Wayback Machine

[10] In 1962, Paul Samuelson (who would later win the Nobel Prize in economics) wrote: "From the viewpoint of pure economic theory, Karl Marx can be regarded as a minor post-Ricardian." Paul Samuelson (1962). “Economists and History of Ideas,” The American Economic Review, March 1962

[11] Angrist, Joshua D; Pischke, Jörn-Steffen (2010-05-01). "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 24 (2): 3–30. doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.3. hdl:1721.1/54195. ISSN 0895-3309.

[DAVIS-12] Davis, John B. (2006). "The Nature of Heterodox Economics" (PDF). Post-Autistic Economics Review (40): 23–30. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-03-03. Retrieved 2007-05-06.

[13] Lee, Frederic (September 16, 2011). A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging Mainstream Views in the 21st Century (Reprint ed.). Routledge. pp. 7–9. ISBN 978-0415681971.

[HETTHEORY-14] Satya J. Gabriel 2003. "Introduction to Heterodox Economic Theory." (blog), June 4, [2] Archived 2016-06-30 at the Wayback Machine Satya J. Gabriel is a Professor of Economics at Mount Holyoke College

[15] Shiozawa, Y. 2004 Evolutionary Economics in the 21st Century: A Manifest, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 1(1): 5–47.

[DOW-16] Dow, S. C. (2000). "Prospects for the Progress in Heterodox Economics" (PDF). Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 22 (2): 157–70. doi:10.1080/10427710050025367. hdl:1893/24906. S2CID 3238380. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-12-02. Retrieved 2019-09-19.

[17] David Colander, 2007. Pluralism and Heterodox Economics: Suggestions for an “Inside the Mainstream” Heterodoxy Archived 2015-06-30 at the Wayback Machine

[18] Corning, Peter A.; Kline, Stephen J. (1998). "Thermodynamics, information and life revisited, Part II: 'Thermoeconomics' and 'Control information'". Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 15 (6): 453–82. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199811/12)15:6<453::AID-SRES201>3.0.CO;2-U.

[19] Peter A. Corning. 2002. “Thermoeconomics – Beyond the Second Law Archived 2008-09-22 at the Wayback Machine” – source: www.complexsystems.org

[20] 2003. A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22573-0 p. 452

[21] 2nd Edition, v. 8, Appendix IV, p. 856, searchable by clicking (the JEL classification codes JEL:) radio button B5, B52, or B59, then the Search button (or Update Search Results button) at http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/search_results?edition=all&field=content&q=&topicid=B5 Archived 2013-05-28 at the Wayback Machine.

[1]

[note 1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Short description|Economic theories that contrast with orthodox schools of economic thought}}
+{{Short description|Rare, unpopular or uninfluential schools of economic thought}}
 {{Economics sidebar|history}}
 [[File:Heterodox3.png|thumb|Heterodox economics family tree.]]
+'''Heterodox economics''' is a broad, relative term referring to schools of economic thought which are not commonly perceived as belonging to [[mainstream economics]]. There is no absolute definition of what constitutes heterodox economic thought, as it is defined in constrast to the most prominent, influential or popular schools of thought in a given time and place.<ref name="Dequech2007">Dequench, David (2007) "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics", ''Journal of Post Keynesian Economics'', 30 (2), 279-302 [http://www.economiacomportamental.org/wp-content/themes/simplecorp/library/pdf/dequech-2007.pdf]</ref>
-'''Heterodox economics''' is any economic thought or theory that contrasts with [[orthodox economics|orthodox]] [[schools of economic thought]], or that may be beyond [[neoclassical economics]].<ref>Fred E. Foldvary, ed., 1996. ''Beyond Neoclassical Economics: Heterodox Approaches to Economic Theory'', Edward Elgar. Description and contents [http://www.barnesandnoble.com/enwiki/w/beyond-neoclassical-economics-fred-e-foldvary/1001678359?ean=9781858983950#product-commentaries-1 B&N.com links] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131213105950/http://www.barnesandnoble.com/enwiki/w/beyond-neoclassical-economics-fred-e-foldvary/1001678359?ean=9781858983950#product-commentaries-1 |date=2013-12-13 }}.</ref><ref name="Lee2008">Frederic S. Lee, 2008. "heterodox economics," ''[[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics]]'',  2nd Edition, v. 4, pp. 2–65. [http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_H000175&q=heterodox%20economics&topicid=&result_number=1  Abstract.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223063940/http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_H000175 |date=2016-12-23 }}</ref> These include [[institutional economics|institutional]], [[evolutionary economics|evolutionary]], [[Feminist economics|feminist]],<ref>In the order listed at [[JEL classification codes#B. History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches|JEL classification codes § B. History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches]], JEL: B5 – Current Heterodox Approaches.</ref> [[social economics|social]], [[Post-Keynesian economics|post-Keynesian]] (not to be confused with [[New Keynesian]]),<ref name="Lee2008" /> [[Ecological economics|ecological]], [[Austrian School|Austrian]], [[Humanistic economics|humanistic]], [[Complexity economics|complexity]], [[Marxian economics|Marxian]], [[Socialist economics|socialist]], [[Anarchist economics|anarchist]] and [[modern monetary theory]] economics.<ref name=LAWSON>{{cite journal |last1=Lawson |pages=483–505 |first1=T. |volume=30 |year=2005 |title=The nature of heterodox economics |journal=Cambridge Journal of Economics |doi=10.1093/cje/bei093 |url=http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/papers/lawson_on_heterdoxy.pdf |issue=4 |access-date=2010-03-30 |archive-date=2011-09-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928021126/http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/papers/lawson_on_heterdoxy.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
+Groups typically classed as heterodox in current discourse include the [[Austrian school of economics|Austrian]], [[Ecological economics|ecological]],{{NoteTag|Not to be confused with [[environmental economics]].}} [[Marxian economics|Marxist]]-[[Historical school of economics|historical]], [[Post-autistic economics|post-autistic]], and [[modern monetary theory|modern monetary]] approaches.<ref name="Lee2008">Frederic S. Lee, 2008. "heterodox economics," ''[[The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics]]'',  2nd Edition, v. 4, pp. 2–65. [http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_H000175&q=heterodox%20economics&topicid=&result_number=1 Abstract.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223063940/http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_H000175|date=2016-12-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Steve |last1=Cohn |year=2003 |title=Common Ground Critiques of Neoclassical Principles Texts |journal=Post-Autistic Economics Review |issue=18, article 3 |url=http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/heterodoxeconomics/Cohn18.htm |access-date=2010-10-06 |archive-date=2019-08-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190827093723/http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/heterodoxeconomics/Cohn18.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="LAWSON">{{cite journal |last1=Lawson |pages=483–505 |first1=T. |volume=30 |year=2005 |title=The nature of heterodox economics |journal=Cambridge Journal of Economics |doi=10.1093/cje/bei093 |url=http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/papers/lawson_on_heterdoxy.pdf |issue=4 |access-date=2010-03-30 |archive-date=2011-09-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928021126/http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/papers/lawson_on_heterdoxy.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
-Economics may be called ''[[Orthodoxy#Critical uses|orthodox]]'' or ''conventional'' economics by its critics.<ref name="Barry">C. Barry, 1998. ''Political-economy: A comparative approach''. Westport, CT: Praeger.{{Page needed|date=November 2010}}</ref> Alternatively, mainstream economics deals with the "rationality–individualism–equilibrium nexus" and heterodox economics is more "radical" in dealing with the "institutions–history–social structure nexus".<ref>John B. Davis (2006). "Heterodox Economics, the Fragmentation of the Mainstream, and Embedded Individual Analysis", in ''Future Directions in Heterodox Economics'', p. [https://books.google.com/books?id=VVmBSpZV07AC&pg=PA57=false 57] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206155814/https://books.google.com/books?id=VVmBSpZV07AC&pg=PA57=false |date=2022-12-06 }}. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.</ref>
+Four frames of analysis have been highlighted for their importance to heterodox thought: history, natural systems, uncertainty, and power.<ref>Mearman, Andrew (2011). "Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?" ''[[American Journal of Economics and Sociology]],'' 70(2): [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x/full 480–510] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305100240/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x/full |date=2016-03-05 }}.</ref>
-A 2008 review documented several prominent groups of heterodox economists since at least the 1990s as working together with a resulting increase in coherence across different constituents.<ref name="Lee2008"/> Along these lines, the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE) does not define "heterodox economics" and has avoided defining its scope. ICAPE defines its mission as "promoting [[pluralism in economics]]."
+== History ==
-In defining a common ground in the "critical commentary", one writer described fellow heterodox economists as trying  to do three things: (1) identify shared ideas that generate a pattern of heterodox critique across topics and chapters of introductory macro texts; (2) give special attention to ideas that link methodological differences to policy differences; and (3) characterize the common ground in ways that permit distinct paradigms to develop common differences with textbook economics in different ways.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Steve |last1=Cohn |year=2003 |title=Common Ground Critiques of Neoclassical Principles Texts |journal=Post-Autistic Economics Review |issue=18, article 3 |url=http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/heterodoxeconomics/Cohn18.htm |access-date=2010-10-06 |archive-date=2019-08-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190827093723/http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/heterodoxeconomics/Cohn18.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
+In the mid-19th century, such thinkers as [[Auguste Comte]], [[Thomas Carlyle]], [[John Ruskin]] and [[Karl Marx]] made early critiques of orthodox economy.{{Sfn|Crozier|1906|pp=115–116}} A number of heterodox schools of economic thought challenged the dominance of [[neoclassical economics]] after the neoclassical revolution of the 1870s. In addition to socialist critics of capitalism, heterodox schools in this period included advocates of various forms of [[mercantilism]], such as the [[American School (economics)|American School]] dissenters from neoclassical [[methodology]] such as the [[Historical school of economics|historical school]], and advocates of unorthodox monetary theories such as [[social credit]].
-One study suggests four key factors as important to the study of economics by self-identified heterodox economists: history, natural systems, uncertainty, and power.<ref>Mearman, Andrew (2011). "Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?" ''[[American Journal of Economics and Sociology]],'' 70(2): [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x/full 480–510] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305100240/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x/full |date=2016-03-05 }}.</ref>
-==History==
-In the mid-19th century, such thinkers as [[Auguste Comte]], [[Thomas Carlyle]], [[John Ruskin]] and [[Karl Marx]] made early critiques of orthodox economy.{{Sfn|Crozier|1906|pp=115–116}} A number of heterodox schools of economic thought challenged the dominance of [[neoclassical economics]] after the neoclassical revolution of the 1870s. In addition to socialist critics of capitalism, heterodox schools in this period included advocates of various forms of [[mercantilism]], such as the [[American School (economics)|American School]] dissenters from neoclassical [[methodology]] such as the [[Historical school of economics|historical school]], and advocates of unorthodox monetary theories such as [[Social credit]]. Other heterodox schools active before and during the [[Great Depression]] included [[Technocracy]] and [[Georgism]].
 Physical scientists and biologists were the first individuals to use energy flows to explain social and economic development. [[Joseph Henry]], an American physicist and first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, remarked that the "fundamental principle of political economy is that the physical labor of man can only be ameliorated by… the transformation of matter from a crude state to an artificial condition...by expending what is called power or energy."<ref>Cutler J. Cleveland, [http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics "Biophysical economics"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205201658/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics |date=2012-02-05 }}, ''Encyclopedia of Earth'', Last updated: September 14, 2006.</ref><ref>Eric Zencey, 2009. "Mr. Soddy’s Ecological Economy",] ''The New York Times'', April 12, [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?_r=1&ref=opinion p. WK 9.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228212119/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html?_r=1 |date=2017-02-28 }}</ref>
-The rise, and absorption into the mainstream of [[Keynesian economics]], which appeared to provide a more coherent policy response to [[unemployment]] than unorthodox monetary or trade policies contributed to the decline of interest in these schools.
+The rise, and absorption into the mainstream of [[Keynesian economics]], which appeared to provide a more coherent policy response to [[unemployment]] than unorthodox monetary or trade policies, contributed to the decline of interest in these schools.
 After 1945, the [[neoclassical synthesis]] of Keynesian and neoclassical economics resulted in a clearly defined mainstream position based on a division of the field into microeconomics (generally neoclassical but with a newly developed theory of [[market failure]]) and macroeconomics (divided between Keynesian and monetarist views on such issues as the role of monetary policy).  Austrians and post-Keynesians who dissented from this synthesis emerged as clearly defined heterodox schools. In addition, the Marxist and institutionalist schools remained active but with limited acceptance or credibility.<ref>In 1962, [[Paul Samuelson]] (who would later win the Nobel Prize in economics) wrote: "From the viewpoint of pure economic theory, Karl Marx can be regarded as a minor post-[[David Ricardo|Ricardian]]." Paul Samuelson (1962). “Economists and History of Ideas,” The American Economic Review,  March 1962</ref>
@@ Line 27: / Line 23: @@
 # reasoning in terms of mutual influences between individuals and social structures.
-From approximately 1980 [[mainstream economics]] has been significantly influenced by a number of new research programs, including  [[behavioral economics]], [[complexity economics]], [[evolutionary economics]], [[experimental economics]], and [[neuroeconomics]]. One key development has been an epistemic turn away from theory towards an empirically driven approach focused centrally on questions of causal inference.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Angrist|first1=Joshua D|last2=Pischke|first2=Jörn-Steffen|date=2010-05-01|title=The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|language=en|volume=24|issue=2|pages=3–30|doi=10.1257/jep.24.2.3|issn=0895-3309|doi-access=free|hdl=1721.1/54195|hdl-access=free}}</ref> As a consequence, some heterodox economists, such as John B. Davis, proposed that the definition of heterodox economics has to be adapted to this new, more complex reality:<ref name=DAVIS>{{cite journal |first1=John B. |last1=Davis |year=2006 |title=The Nature of Heterodox Economics |journal=Post-Autistic Economics Review |issue=40 |pages=23–30 |url=http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue40/Davis40.pdf |access-date=2007-05-06 |archive-date=2019-03-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190303145816/http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue40/Davis40.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
+From approximately 1980 [[mainstream economics]] has been significantly influenced by a number of new research programs, including [[behavioral economics]], [[complexity economics]], [[evolutionary economics]], [[experimental economics]], and [[neuroeconomics]]. One key development has been an epistemic turn away from theory towards an empirically driven approach focused centrally on questions of [[causal inference]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Angrist|first1=Joshua D|last2=Pischke|first2=Jörn-Steffen|date=2010-05-01|title=The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|language=en|volume=24|issue=2|pages=3–30|doi=10.1257/jep.24.2.3|issn=0895-3309|doi-access=free|hdl=1721.1/54195|hdl-access=free}}</ref> As a consequence, some heterodox economists, such as John B. Davis, proposed that the definition of heterodox economics has to be adapted to this new, more complex reality:<ref name=DAVIS>{{cite journal |first1=John B. |last1=Davis |year=2006 |title=The Nature of Heterodox Economics |journal=Post-Autistic Economics Review |issue=40 |pages=23–30 |url=http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue40/Davis40.pdf |access-date=2007-05-06 |archive-date=2019-03-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190303145816/http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue40/Davis40.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
 ::...heterodox economics post-1980 is a complex structure, being composed out of two broadly different kinds of heterodox work, each internally differentiated with a number of research programs having different historical origins and orientations: the traditional left heterodoxy familiar to most and the 'new heterodoxy' resulting from other science imports.<ref name=DAVIS/>
-==Rejection of neoclassical economics==
+== Rejection of neoclassical economics ==
 {{See also|Neoclassical economics#Criticisms}}
-There is no single "heterodox economic theory"; there are many different "heterodox theories" in existence. What they all share, however, is a rejection of the [[Neoclassical economics|neoclassical orthodoxy]] as representing the appropriate tool for understanding the workings of economic and social life.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lee|first1=Frederic|title=A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging Mainstream Views in the 21st Century|date=September 16, 2011|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0415681971|pages=7–9|edition=Reprint}}</ref> The reasons for this rejection may vary. Some of the elements commonly found in heterodox critiques are listed below.
+Heterodox economics is not a school of thought in its own right, but rather an umbrella term for a set of various, diverse schools of economic thought. Despite their diversity, heterodox schools often consider [[neoclassical economics]] to be a flawed or invalid approach to understanding economics.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lee|first1=Frederic|title=A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging Mainstream Views in the 21st Century|date=September 16, 2011|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0415681971|pages=7–9|edition=Reprint}}</ref> The reasons behind this rejection may vary. Some of the elements commonly found in heterodox critiques are listed below.
-===Criticism of the neoclassical model of individual behavior===
+=== Criticism of the neoclassical model of individual behavior ===
 One of the most broadly accepted principles of neoclassical economics is the assumption of the "rationality of economic agents". Indeed, for a number of economists, the notion of rational maximizing behavior is taken to be synonymous with economic behavior (Hirshleifer 1984). When some economists' studies do not embrace the rationality assumption, they are seen as placing the analyses outside the boundaries of the Neoclassical economics discipline (Landsberg 1989, 596). Neoclassical economics begins with the ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' assumptions that agents are [[rationality|rational]] and that they seek to maximize their [[Methodological individualism|individual]] [[utility]] (or [[Profit (economics)|profits]]) subject to environmental constraints. These assumptions provide the backbone for [[rational choice theory]].
@@ Line 41: / Line 37: @@
 <blockquote>Neoclassical economic theory is grounded in a particular conception of human psychology, agency or decision-making.  It is assumed that all human beings make economic decisions so as to maximize pleasure or utility.  Some heterodox theories reject this basic assumption of neoclassical theory, arguing for alternative understandings of how economic decisions are made and/or how human psychology works.  It is possible to accept the notion that humans are pleasure seeking machines, yet reject the idea that economic decisions are governed by such pleasure seeking.  Human beings may, for example, be unable to make choices consistent with pleasure maximization due to social constraints and/or coercion.  Humans may also be unable to correctly assess the choice points that are most likely to lead to maximum pleasure, even if they are unconstrained (except in budgetary terms) in making such choices.  And it is also possible that the notion of pleasure seeking is itself a meaningless assumption because it is either impossible to test or too general to refute.  Economic theories that reject the basic assumption of economic decisions as the outcome of pleasure maximization are heterodox.</blockquote>
-Shiozawa emphasizes that economic agents act in a complex world and therefore impossible for them to attain maximal utility point. They instead behave as if there are a repertories of many ready made rules, one of which they chose according to relevant situation.<ref>Shiozawa, Y. 2004 Evolutinary Economics in the 21st Century: A Manifest, ''Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review'', '''1'''(1): 5–47.</ref>
+Shiozawa emphasizes that economic agents act in a complex world and therefore impossible for them to attain maximal utility point. They instead behave as if there are a repertories of many ready made rules, one of which they chose according to relevant situation.<ref>Shiozawa, Y. 2004 Evolutionary Economics in the 21st Century: A Manifest, ''Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review'', '''1'''(1): 5–47.</ref>
-===Criticism of the neoclassical model of market equilibrium===
+=== Criticism of the neoclassical model of market equilibrium ===
 In microeconomic theory, cost-minimization by consumers and by firms implies the existence of [[supply and demand]] correspondences for which [[market clearing]] [[Economic equilibrium|equilibrium]] prices exist, if there are large numbers of consumers and producers. Under convexity assumptions or under some marginal-cost pricing rules, each equilibrium will be [[Pareto efficiency|Pareto efficient]]: In large economies, non-convexity also leads to quasi-equilibria that are nearly efficient.
@@ Line 50: / Line 46: @@
 Mainstream microeconomics may be defined in terms of optimization and equilibrium, following the approaches of [[Paul Samuelson]] and [[Hal Varian]]. On the other hand, heterodox economics may be labeled as falling into the [[wikt:nexus|nexus]] of institutions, history, and social structure.<ref name=LAWSON/><ref name=DOW>{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/10427710050025367 |first1=S. C. |last1=Dow |year=2000 |title=Prospects for the Progress in Heterodox Economics |journal=Journal of the History of Economic Thought |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=157–70 |hdl=1893/24906 |s2cid=3238380 |url=http://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/24906/1/2000%20prospects%20for%20hetecon%20in%20JHET.pdf |hdl-access=free |access-date=2019-09-19 |archive-date=2022-12-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221202211818/https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/24906/1/2000%20prospects%20for%20hetecon%20in%20JHET.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
-==Most recent developments==
+== Most recent developments ==
 Over the past two decades,{{when|date=August 2022}} the intellectual agendas of heterodox economists have taken a decidedly [[Epistemological pluralism|pluralist]] turn. Leading heterodox thinkers have moved beyond the established paradigms of Austrian, Feminist, Institutional-Evolutionary, Marxian, Post Keynesian, Radical, Social, and Sraffian economics—opening up new lines of analysis, criticism, and dialogue among dissenting schools of thought. This cross-fertilization of ideas is creating a new generation of scholarship in which novel combinations of heterodox ideas are being brought to bear on important contemporary and historical problems, such as socially grounded reconstructions of the individual in economic theory; the goals and tools of economic measurement and professional ethics; the complexities of policymaking in today's global political economy; and innovative connections among formerly separate theoretical traditions (Marxian, Austrian, feminist, ecological, Sraffian, institutionalist, and post-Keynesian) (for a review of post-Keynesian economics, see Lavoie (1992); Rochon (1999)).
 [[David Colander]], an advocate of [[complexity economics]], argues that the ideas of heterodox economists are now being discussed in the mainstream without mention of the heterodox economists, because the tools to analyze institutions, uncertainty, and other factors have now been developed by the mainstream. He suggests that heterodox economists should embrace rigorous mathematics and attempt to work from within the mainstream, rather than treating it as an enemy.<ref>David Colander, 2007. [https://ideas.repec.org/p/mdl/mdlpap/0724.html Pluralism and Heterodox Economics: Suggestions for an “Inside the Mainstream” Heterodoxy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150630034826/https://ideas.repec.org/p/mdl/mdlpap/0724.html |date=2015-06-30 }}</ref>
-Some schools of heterodox economic thought have also taken a transdisciplinary approach. [[Thermoeconomics]] is based on the claim that human economic processes are governed by the [[second law of thermodynamics]]. The posited relationship between economic theory, [[energy]] and [[entropy]], has been extended further by [[systems scientist]]s to explain the role of [[energy]] in [[biological evolution]] in terms of such economic criteria as [[productivity]], [[Economic efficiency|efficiency]], and especially the costs and benefits of the various mechanisms for capturing and utilizing available energy to build biomass and do work.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Corning |first1=Peter A. |last2=Kline |first2=Stephen J. |title=Thermodynamics, information and life revisited, Part II: 'Thermoeconomics' and 'Control information' |journal=Systems Research and Behavioral Science |volume=15 |pages=453–82 |year=1998 |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199811/12)15:6<453::AID-SRES201>3.0.CO;2-U |issue=6}}</ref><ref>Peter A. Corning. 2002. “[http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/thermoec.html Thermoeconomics – Beyond the Second Law] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080922072349/http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/thermoec.html |date=2008-09-22 }}” – source: www.complexsystems.org</ref>
+Some schools of heterodox economic thought have also taken a transdisciplinary approach. [[Thermoeconomics]] is based on the claim that human economic processes are governed by the [[second law of thermodynamics]]. The posited relationship between economic theory, [[energy]] and [[entropy]], has been extended further by [[systems scientist]]s to explain the role of energy in [[biological evolution]] in terms of such economic criteria as [[productivity]], [[Economic efficiency|efficiency]], and especially the costs and benefits of the various mechanisms for capturing and utilizing available energy to build biomass and do work.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Corning |first1=Peter A. |last2=Kline |first2=Stephen J. |title=Thermodynamics, information and life revisited, Part II: 'Thermoeconomics' and 'Control information' |journal=Systems Research and Behavioral Science |volume=15 |pages=453–82 |year=1998 |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199811/12)15:6<453::AID-SRES201>3.0.CO;2-U |issue=6}}</ref><ref>Peter A. Corning. 2002. “[http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/thermoec.html Thermoeconomics – Beyond the Second Law] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080922072349/http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/thermoec.html |date=2008-09-22 }}” – source: www.complexsystems.org</ref>
 Various student movements have emerged in response to the exclusion of heterodox economics in the curricula of most economics degrees. The [[International Student Initiative for Pluralist Economics]] was set up as an umbrella network for various smaller university groups such as [[Rethinking Economics]] to promote pluralism in economics, including more heterodox approaches.
-==Fields of heterodox economic thought==
+== Fields of heterodox economic thought ==
 {{cols|colwidth=18em}}
 * [[Institutionalist political economy|American Institutionalist School]]
@@ Line 107: / Line 103: @@
 Some schools in the social sciences aim to promote certain perspectives: classical and modern [[political economy]]; [[economic sociology]] and [[economic anthropology|anthropology]]; gender and racial issues in economics; and so on.
-===Notable heterodox economists===
+=== Notable heterodox economists ===
 {{cols|colwidth=18em}}
 * [[Alfred Eichner]]
@@ Line 115: / Line 111: @@
 * [[Bernard Lonergan]]
 * [[Bill Mitchell (economist)|Bill Mitchell]]
+* [[Bryan Caplan]]
 * [[Carlota Perez]]
 * [[Carolina Cristina Alves|Carolina Alves]]
@@ Line 180: / Line 177: @@
 {{colend}}
-==See also==
+== See also ==
 {{div col|colwidth=18em}}
 * [[Association for Evolutionary Economics]]
+* [[Chinese economic reform]]
 * [[Degrowth]]
 * [[EAEPE]]
@@ Line 196: / Line 194: @@
 {{div col end}}
-==References==
+== Notes ==
+{{reflist|group=note}}
+== References ==
 {{Reflist}}
-==Further reading==
+== Further reading ==
-===Articles===
+=== Articles ===
-* {{cite journal |last1= Bauer |first1= L. |last2= Matis |first2= H.|year = 1988 |title = From moral to political economy: The Genesis of social sciences. |journal = History of European Ideas |volume = 9 |issue = 2 |pages = 125-143 |url = }}
+* {{cite journal |last1= Bauer |first1= L. |last2= Matis |first2= H.|year = 1988 |title = From moral to political economy: The Genesis of social sciences. |journal = History of European Ideas |volume = 9 |issue = 2 |pages = 125–143 |doi= 10.1016/0191-6599(88)90035-6 |url = }}
-* {{cite journal |last1= Dequech |first1= David |year = 2007 |title = Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics |journal = Journal of Post Keynesian Economics |volume = 30 |issue = 2 |pages = 279–302 |url = }}
+* {{cite journal |last1= Dequech |first1= David |year = 2007 |title = Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics |journal = Journal of Post Keynesian Economics |volume = 30 |issue = 2 |pages = 279–302 |doi= 10.2753/PKE0160-3477300207 |s2cid= 153773877 |url = }}
-* {{cite journal |last1= Flaherty |first1= Diane |year = 1987 |title = Radical political economy |journal = The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics |volume = 4 |issue =  |pages = 36-39 |url = }}
+* {{cite journal |last1= Flaherty |first1= Diane |year = 1987 |title = Radical political economy |journal = The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics |volume = 4 |issue =  |pages = 36–39 |url = }}
-* {{cite journal |last1= Lee |first1= Frederic. S. |year = 2008 |title = Heterodox economics |journal = The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics |volume = 2 |issue =  |pages = |url =http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_H000175&q=heterodox%20economics&topicid=&result_number=1 }}
+* {{cite journal |last1= Lee |first1= Frederic. S. |year = 2008 |title = Heterodox economics |journal = The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics |volume = 2 |issue =  |pages = 1–7|doi= 10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2487-1 |isbn= 978-1-349-95121-5 |url =http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_H000175&q=heterodox%20economics&topicid=&result_number=1 }}
-===Books===
+=== Books ===
 * Jo, Tae-Hee, Chester, Lynne, and D'Ippoliti. eds. 2017. [https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Heterodox-Economics/Jo-Chester-DIppoliti/p/book/9781138899940 ''The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics'']. London and New York: Routledge. {{ISBN|978-1138899940}}.
 * {{Cite book |last=Crozier |first=John Beattie |url=https://archive.org/details/wheelofwealthbei00croz |title=The Wheel of Wealth: Being a Reconstruction of the Science and Art of Political Economy on the Lines of Modern Evolution |publisher=Longmans, Green & Co. |year=1906 |location=London}}
@@ Line 217: / Line 218: @@
 *  Davis, John, ed., 2003. [https://books.google.com/books?id=XnHERR2uQ1MC&dq=heterodox+economics+book  ''The Theory of the Individual in Economics: Identity and Value.''] Routledge.  {{ISBN|0415202191}}
 *  Fullbrook, Edward, 2004. [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-17616611_ITM  editor. ''A Guide to What’s Wrong with Economics.''  London: Anthem Press, November ] {{ISBN|1843311488}} -->
-* Harvey, John T. and Garnett Jr., Robert F., ed., 2007. [http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=171896   ''Future Directions for Heterodox Economics'', Series Advances in Heterodox Economics, The University of Michigan Press.] {{ISBN|978-0472032471}}
+* Harvey, John T. and Garnett Jr., Robert F., ed., 2007. [http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=171896   ''Future Directions for Heterodox Economics'', Series Advances in Heterodox Economics, The University of Michigan Press.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004041459/http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=171896 |date=2012-10-04 }} {{ISBN|978-0472032471}}
 *[https://www.amazon.com/Every-Economics-Student-Doesnt-Principles/dp/0765639238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541813026&sr=8-1&keywords=What+Every+Economics+Student+Needs+to+Know '' What Every Economics Student Needs to Know.'']. Routledge 2014. {{ISBN|9780765639233}}
 <!-- *  Lavoie, M., 1992. ''Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Principles'', Aldershot: Edward Elgar. -->
@@ Line 231: / Line 232: @@
 * [[Foundations of Real-World Economics]]: What Every Economics Student Needs to Know, 2nd edition, Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge: 2019.
-===Articles, conferences, papers===
+=== Articles, conferences, papers ===
 * Lavoie, Marc, 2006. [https://web.archive.org/web/20120111143131/http://www.journal-intervention.org/seiten/englisch/download/Lavoie_Intervention_Vol_3_No_1_2006.pdf  ''Do Heterodox Theories Have Anything in Common? A Post-Keynesian Point of View.'']
 * Lawson, Tony, 2006.  "The Nature of Heterodox Economics," ''Cambridge Journal of Economics'', 30(4), pp.&nbsp;483–505. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070926134829/http://www.bresserpereira.org.br/Terceiros/05.5.Heterodox_Economics.pdf Pre-publication copy.]
-===Journals===
+=== Journals ===
 *  [https://web.archive.org/web/20141108144005/https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/eier ''Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review'']
 *  ''Journal of Institutional Economics''
@@ Line 243: / Line 244: @@
 *  [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/rrp ''Review of Radical Political Economy'']
-==External links==
+== External links ==
 * [http://hetecon.net/ Association for Heterodox Economics]
 * [http://www.heterodoxnews.com/ Heterodox Economics Newsletter]

v t e Economics
Theoretical	Microeconomics Decision theory Price theory Game theory Contract theory Mechanism design Macroeconomics Mathematical economics Complexity economics Computational economics Agent-based computational economics Behavioral economics Pluralism in economics
Empirical	Econometrics Economic statistics Experimental economics Economic history
Applied	Agricultural Behavioral Business Cultural Democracy Demographic Development Digitization Ecological Education Engineering Environmental Evolutionary Expeditionary Feminist Financial Geographical Happiness Health Historical Humanistic Industrial organization Information Institutional Knowledge Labour Law Managerial Monetary Natural resource Organizational Participation Personnel Planning Policy Public Public choice / Social choice theory Regional Rural Service Socio Sociological Solidarity Statistics Urban Welfare
Schools (history)	Attention Mainstream Heterodox American (National) Ancient thought Anarchist Mutualism Austrian Behavioral Buddhist Chartalism Modern monetary theory Chicago Classical Critique of political economy Democratic Disequilibrium Ecological Evolutionary Feminist Georgism Happiness Historical Humanistic Institutional Keynesian Neo- (neoclassical–Keynesian synthesis) New Post- Circuitism Malthusianism Marginalism Marxian Neo- Mercantilism Mixed Neoclassical Lausanne New classical Real business-cycle theory New institutional Physiocracy Socialist Stockholm Supply-side Thermo
Economists	de Mandeville Quesnay Smith Malthus Say Ricardo von Thünen List Bastiat Cournot Mill Gossen Marx Walras Jevons George Menger Marshall Edgeworth Clark Pareto von Böhm-Bawerk von Wieser Veblen Fisher Pigou Heckscher von Mises Schumpeter Keynes Knight Polanyi Frisch Sraffa Myrdal Hayek Kalecki Röpke Kuznets Tinbergen Robinson von Neumann Hicks Lange Leontief Galbraith Koopmans Schumacher Friedman Samuelson Simon Buchanan Arrow Baumol Solow Rothbard Greenspan Sowell Becker Ostrom Sen Lucas Stiglitz Thaler Hoppe Krugman Piketty more
Lists	Glossary Economists Publications (journals) Schools
Category Index Lists Outline Publications Business portal