Thread by @ingridharvold

First of all, I've got to say I welcome @g_m_hodgson putting the debate about heterodox econ & strategies to strengthen it on the agenda. I look forward to his book! But after having read this taster (et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/2019/06/…), I have 4 points I'd like to raise & discuss. 1/18

1. I don't see it as a "paradox" that hetecon didn't take over after the 08-crisis. Rather, it's a natural consequence of gatekeeping role of mainstream Econ depts & successful paradigm maintenance on their part. Hetecon has risen to prominence in other spheres tho. 2/18

2. I don't understand Hodgson's complaint that hetecon is not "sufficiently cumulative". How can we pass our PhD exams, pass peer review or engage with our peers if we don't reference relevant literature? The fact that it's common to go "back" to Keynes or Marx doesn't mean..3/18

..hetecon's dont have to also engage with more current research. Am I missing something? Are there sub-pockets w/in heterodox econ where it's acceptable to not either build on or engage with more recent lit.? Almost every hetecon topic has a community associated with it, no? 4/18

Ex of hetecon research communities that are very clearly engaging in cumulative research: those working on entropy centered around @TheNewSchool, or on social provisioning and subordinate financialization associated with @SOASEconomics. What are others? 5/18

What are the "incentives" to engage in cumulative research that allegedly exist in the mainstream but not in heterodoxy? Honest question. 6/18

3. The "widely-perceived problems of quality control" argument needs unpacking. Yes, the mainstream is always going to throw the "lack of rigor" argument our way. Is there a lack of rigor, and if there is, why is that so? 7/18

I agree with Hodgson that in some cases the quality control could be stricter (e.g. for conferences). But I wouldn't expect the raising of the bar to suddenly mean hetecon will start being accepted in the mainstream.... 8/18

... Believing that would be a naive understanding of why we are excluded in the first place (as I argue with @cacrisalves here
developingeconomics.org/2019/05/08/why…). 9/18

Next, why is the quality low in some areas? Some journals have low standards, some have high standards. I agree with Hodgson on this. But isn't it the same in the mainstream? It's not like ALL mainstream journals have high standards... 10/18

Also, marginalized research communities are more likely to have weaker institutions and fewer resources, so is there a chicken and egg problem here? 11/18

"If everything is ripped apart critically, and then rivalled by some new and short-lived alternative, over and over again, then sciences cannot build cumulatively."

This is not my impression of what's going on in hetecon. What do other people in the community think?

12/18

4. I agree that there's a lack of consensus re. what hetecon means (this is what @cacrisalves & I try to tackle). But I have two issues with the conclusions Hodgson draws from this:

a) Is this really the root of the problem? Many disciplines do not have clear definitions. 13/18

b) Hodgson argues that the lack of definition means that it must be "leftist ideology" that "binds people together". But does the fact that hetecons currently do not agree on/identify a clear definition of hetecon mean that there aren't common principles? 14/18

Indeed that is precisely what @cacrisalves and I do in our piece. Would love @g_m_hodgson's feedback on it. He also himself admits that not all hetecons are lefties, so I don't know if he fully agrees with his own conclusion either. 15/18 (link again: developingeconomics.org/2019/05/08/why…)

In my own experience, I haven't seen left ideology as a "glue" for the communities I've been a part of. The more common political "glue" tends to be the opposition to the mainstream, but as I argue with Carolina, I don't believe this is what *defines* our community. 16/18

Then Hodgson makes the argument that because it is left-wing ideology that binds us together, "cumulative scientific progress becomes even more difficult". I don't see how the latter follows logically from the former. 17/18

Finally, I would agree that there is a lack of common strategy on behalf of the heterodox community. So I really do think @g_m_hodgson's book will be important to start the debate about this. I'm particularly interested in reading his 8 strategic proposals! 18/18

Would love people's thoughts on all of this @_Ayoze_ @JWMason1 @NathanTankus @JoMicheII @farwasial @hannahbargawi @floretta_voice @cacrisalves @devikadutt @ImkoTjado @danielle_guizzo @ysladecaffarel