Het. economics and reform policy

An issue inspired by the recent debate between Bill/Warren/Randy and
Tony/Peter (have I forgotten someone?):

To me it seems that the heterodox (progressive, whatever) camp is divided in
an additonal sense (to what has emerged during the recent debate): Some are
employing heterodox theory to support the development and dissemination
of economic reform proposals. Others use their research/theory as a basis
for critique against mainstream economics, with much less emphasis on
proposing specific reforms. (A sad example of the latter -- IMO -- is never
ending seminarism in some marxist circles around "value theory".)

I suppose that some will reply that this is a biased description of
the situation, and that distinctions are not that clear. But it is my
impression that it is so, based on among other things following the Post
Keynesian Thought maling list since 1996. With a background from left-wing
political activism in Norway over 30 years, I feel that heterodox
(progressive) economists and similar are too busy with talking to/with their
own crowd and criticising neoliberalism, without putting forward alternative
and specific economic proposals.

If I am right, why is it so?

Trond Andresen
Received on Wed Mar 12 15:37:51 2003