Heterodox Economics and Political Economy

JAPE's 50th issue had the theme 'The State of Political Economy', signaling time for a stocktaking and pointers to the future. Now 75 and still going strong, a somewhat similar pause for reflection is appropriate for the journal. The theme this time is 'Heterodox Economics'--the diverse currents of economic analysis that offer alternatives and challenges to orthodoxy. Since its inception a coinsistent aim of the journal has been to encourage, develop and apply alternatives to mainstream economics. That is what heterodoxy implies and requires--a vigorous and sustained challenge to the dominant orthodoxy and the exploration of alternative views on how the world actually works. Heterodoxy requires pluralism and challenges monism. Specifically, it confronts the dominant mainstream neoclassical economics with critical alternatives, including various strands of post-Keynesian economics, Marxist economics, institutional economics and analyses from feminist and ecological perspectives. How these and other alternatives to the mainstream are constructed, developed, applied and related to each other requires careful consideration. So do questions of what embracing heterodoxy implies for teaching and broader public education on economic issues. Reflection on these concerns is both appropriate and timely. Six years after the onset of the global financial crisis, when it was widely said that orthodox economic thinking would have to change, it is evident that that any such changes have been far from fundamental. Some would say it looks pretty much like business as usual. This is not just the case in the academy, where the core courses in university economics departments continue to emphasise basic training (some would say indoctrination) in neoclassical economic principles. It is also evident in the realm of economic policy, which continues to be dominated by neoliberal agendas, augmented by the post-GFC politics of austerity. So what should heterodox economists be doing now to continue the challenge to orthodoxy both in theory and practice? This special issue of JAPE contains twelve articles that are directly relevant to these concerns. The opening contribution by Tim Thornton considers the case for heterodoxy and challenges the view that mainstream economics is already heterodox. This is followed by articles looking at particular currents of thought within heterodoxy, such as Geoff Harcourt and Peter Kriesler's consideration of post-Keynesian economics. Takuya Sato's contribution to a recent debate in Marxist economics develops a particular analytical position. Other authors explore what they regard as the most fruitful avenues for further progress in heterodox economics: Gavan Butler looks at negotiations, bargaining and power, while Geoff Dow considers why the legacies of Marx and Keynes should steer us to further considerations of the state and reform in modern capitalism. Then, broadening the array of concerns, come articles on the application of heterodox economic perspectives in particular fields: Therese Jefferson and Diane Austin look at gender and pay and Neil Perry and David Primrose consider the environment and biodiversity. Lynne Chester and Susan Schroeder then present their personal warning against extending the broadening process to include international political economy as it is currently constituted. Rounding out this special issue of the journal is a cluster of articles on how knowledge in heterodox economics can be constructed and disseminated. They deal with a range of concerns about method, epistemology and pedagogy. Stuart Birks identifies general pitfalls in the elisions between economic theory, empirical work and policy analysis. Edward Mariyani-Squire and Margaret Moussa consider the theoretical arguments for pluralism and their potential inconsistencies. Brendan Sheehan and his colleagues at Leeds Beckett University in the UK show how pluralism may actually play out in university teaching. …