To Be or not Be Heterodox: Response to Heterodox Critics and Their Arguments

Coinciding with the community-building, community-emerging process of heterodox economists was the emergence of heterodox critics. Initially the critics concentrated on the issue of pluralism, especially that heterodox economics cannot really be distinct from mainstream economics, that the former cannot be an alternative to the latter. The arguments of the critics evolved to advocating that heterodox economists should become more like mainstream economists; then, their arguments evolved even further to challenging the existence of heterodox economic theory and the community of heterodox economists as manifested through their graduate programs, conferences, journals, and identity. This paper is a response to the critics by showing that there exists a body of heterodox theory; dealing with heterodox economists critiques of mainstream theory and the issue of pseudo-knowledge and the social role of mainstream economics; examining the broad question of quality in terms of research, department and journal rankings, employment, and training; and articulating a heterodox identity that is distinct, has intellectual integrity, and embraces pluralism.