RE: Het. economics and reform policy

trond: that is an interesting and very difficult question. i think it is impossible and
usually dangerous to attempt to infer motives. but along the lines of what warren posted, i
would say that what has surprised me more than anything in the past 7+ years
during which bill, warren and i (and there are a number of others, but still a
very small minority) have been promoting employment policies is the response
of heterodox economists (and especially post keynesians). it is a very simple, knee
jerk, negative response, bringing out the old hoary arguments of crowding out,
inflation, exchange rate depreciation, government waste, and so on that one
would expect of right wing free market libertarians. almost without exception the
responses are negative. rather than saying, hey this might be an idea worth pursuing,
let me see if i can try to understand and then try to advance the arguments just a bit
the overwhelming response from "left" "heterodox" has been to reject the ideas
using the oldest, tiredest, silliest, anti-worker neoclassical arguments. i am not objecting
to criticism per se, but there has been almost no attempt by heterodox economists to
offer helpful criticism to advance the proposals. this is not quite the point you are making--
which i take to be simply that heterodox economists engage in too much internal debate
and too little policy research, but i do think it is related.
randy

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Trond Andresen [mailto:trond.andresen@itk.ntnu.no]
        Sent: Wed 3/12/2003 8:36 AM
        To: she_forum@adam.itk.ntnu.no
        Cc:
        Subject: [HE] 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
        
        _______________________________________________
        SHE_Forum mailing list
        SHE_Forum@mail.itk.ntnu.no
        http://www.itk.ntnu.no/mailman/listinfo/she_forum
        
Received on Fri Mar 14 09:23:59 2003