@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario Thanks Dina! I think our differences are becoming more clear, after having established some agreement. I'll try to tease them out even further and clarify some aspects I think you may have misunderstood. Okay, here goes, this will be a long one. 1/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario I’ll categorize my response into the following areas of debate: 1) the state of the field today, 2) methodology, 3) ideology, 4) policy, and 5) strategy.
1) The state of the field today
You do agree that science benefits when different viewpoints are taken into account. 2/n
1) The state of the field today
You do agree that science benefits when different viewpoints are taken into account. 2/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario Despite this initial agreement, we seem to lead to diverging conclusions regarding the state of mainstream development economics. I never made the argument that dev econ is *particularly* bad, but I don't think it is any better than Econ more generally. 3/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario I think you misunderstood my comment when you said the current winners focus an area that “has most taken into account other perspectives and approaches,” because the examples you gave had to do with other disciplines and working in the environments they study. 4/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario The above is not my critique (or anyone else’s, I think?). Interdisciplinarity is not the same as being inclusive of a plurality of theories and methodologies from the SAME field. To complicate things further, there are many different ways of being “interdisciplinary”. 5/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario I think this misunderstanding comes from a common perception among mainstream economists that heterodox economics isn’t really economics, and that one can become more “critical” (or even “heterodox”) by being interdisciplinary. 6/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario I wrote a blog post with @cacrisalves about this earlier this year, because we found ourselves responding to the same misunderstandings about heterodox economics over and over again. It might be of interest: developingeconomics.org/2019/05/08/why… 7/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves You mention all the "critical takes" on this year’s Nobel. I think there are roughly two families of critiques. The critiques from the inside which narrowly focus on methods (e.g. Corey’s) and the critiques from the “outside” which focuses on deeper epistemological problems. 8/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves The latter is largely ignored by the mainstream (except you). Indeed, many mainstream dev econs unfollowed me on Twitter after I wrote the critical OpenDemocracy piece we are currently discussing. 9/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves I also think you misunderstood my argument against the focus on poverty. I agree that "development" as a term has many problematic, colonial connotations. What I contrast to “poverty” is “structural transformation”. 10/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves We have moved from focusing on the conditions that produce poverty, to focusing on alleviating poverty by tackling symptoms. This is a shift from “development [the field] as structural transformation” to “development as poverty alleviation”. I apologize if that wasn’t clear. 11/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves Okay, moving to 2) methodology. While there is indeed pluralism at the level of method, as you point out, there isn’t a plurality of methodologies (meta-methodological level). To understand this difference, we need to delve into economic methodology. 12/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves I’ll link to one Sheila Dow paper here (but there are many on this topic!). Maybe @Cacrisalves or @danielle_guizzo have more to add? ceeol.com/search/article… 13/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves @danielle_guizzo On external validity. The problem with RCT that lack of external validity is that they do not take us far. With other methods, for example qualitative, we at least have a richer understanding about *why* a certain outcome came about, not just the effects... 14/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario @cacrisalves @danielle_guizzo ... so we can more easily evaluate whether outcomes are likely to be similar in other contexts. @N_Kabeer has done some interesting work comparing approaches that you might find helpful. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10… 15/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer Now, let’s move on to 3) Ideology. You argue that “more robust empirical evidence can make a difference in the face of such ideological/non-empirical assertions.” So, you believe that empirics can be totally free from ideology? 16/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer We are academics after all, we must be aware of the extent to which theory, priors and assumptions guide our empirical work. As the tweet that prompted this thread (Bandiera’s piece) demonstrates, the work of the laureates is not purely “empirical”. 17/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer So I don't think empirical work can "protect us" from ideology, because it can't be ideology-free. For a more open and inclusive field, I would prefer it if scholars were more open about the theoretical foundations of their work, in addition to... 18/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer ... including work that has different theoretical foundations. I recommend @Econ_Marshall’s piece in the @BostonReview for another take on this issue: Empiricism Alone Won’t Save Us bostonreview.net/forum/economic… 19/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer The op-ed you linked to by Duflo and Banerjee kind of proves my point. There are lots of “empirical” economists evaluating whether people are really driven by incentives in the way homo economicus is assumed to operate. 20/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer If this is so important (which I also think it is!), why not also welcome research that takes other starting points than the current mainstream? For example, Post-Keynesian, Institutionalist and Feminist economists have lots to say on these topics. 21/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer However, this kind of economics has long been marginalized from the mainstream, which instead is left empirically measuring and trying to explain the deficits of neoclassical Econ. 22/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer Moving on to 4) Policy, where I only have a short point.
Of course, working with organizations to produce research to inform policy is fine. I apologize if you thought that I was against that. 23/n
Of course, working with organizations to produce research to inform policy is fine. I apologize if you thought that I was against that. 23/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer ...What I find problematic is that the kind of research that is currently acceptable as evidence has narrowed. Why can’t we allow for exploration of questions of minimum wage and welfare payments with a plurality of theoretical and methodological starting points? 24/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer ... It will likely broaden our horizons and enrich the debates about these policies!
Now on to the final area: 5) Strategy.
25/n
Now on to the final area: 5) Strategy.
25/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer You present the hetecon community with 2 strategies:
a) Develop alternative perspectives outside the mainstream
or
b) Try to add the methods to the Econ toolbox to change the canon.
I don't think this is a real choice (or a correct representation of the dilemmas). 26/n
a) Develop alternative perspectives outside the mainstream
or
b) Try to add the methods to the Econ toolbox to change the canon.
I don't think this is a real choice (or a correct representation of the dilemmas). 26/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer The work we do is openly marginalized by the mainstream of the field (invalidating option b).
It seems absurd to argue that not publishing in Econ journals means we do want to (or try to) change the mainstream Econ canon. Many of us make efforts to change the canon.
27/n
It seems absurd to argue that not publishing in Econ journals means we do want to (or try to) change the mainstream Econ canon. Many of us make efforts to change the canon.
27/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer Option b is just not possible to most of us (unless we radically change our research focus, and interests!). We try to change the field through other avenues, though. But it is not easy.
28/n
28/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer E.g. I started a blog that makes critical (usually heterodox) development economics ideas accessible to students, policy-makers, academics and the public (@criticaldev). 29/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @CriticalDev Across heterodoxy, you have a lot of initiatives that try actively to change economics, including @reteachingeconomics, @rebuildingmacro (where many hetecons are engaged), and @rethinkingconomcis - to name a few. 30/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @CriticalDev So say that us hetecons must just not be interested in changing the canon because we don’t try to publish in Econ journals is baffling. 31/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @CriticalDev I personally don’t believe changing mainstream economics from “within” is the most effective strategy tho. But there are a lot of hetecons that do try to take that route. For example, @DanieleTavani is a friend who tries to take this route. What do you think Daniele?
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @CriticalDev @danieletavani I think what’s important to acknowledge is that the mainstream of economics is not an open marketplace of ideas (@Terry_Hathaway). If I started sending my heterodox papers to mainstream journals, I would not be changing the field. I would be getting a lot of desk rejections. 33/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @CriticalDev @danieletavani @Terry_Hathaway The fact that we are not publishing in mainstream journals is not because we do not want to change economics. It is because we do. But we want to change it radically, not at the edges. 34/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer You say that we can engage with the mainstream so that our methods can perhaps become a part of the econ “toolbox”. Again, I think you misunderstand. We are not talking about methodological tools, but about completely different theoretical & epistemological starting points. 34/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer These cannot be boiled down to tools. In other disciplines (such as Politics, Sociology, and Geography), competing theories, methodologies and epistemologies co-exist. Economics is the outlier in the social sciences and I think this is highly problematic (do you agree?). 35/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer Now to citation practices, since you mentioned it. Hetecons overwhelmingly cite mainstreamers. More than they cite each other! While mainstreamers don't cite hetecons. This is well documented. 36/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer E.g. Fourcade and others showed how insular mainstream Econ is (aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…), while Kappeller’s work shows how heterodox economists actually tend to cite mainstream economists more than we even cite ourselves (pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3af5/65306818c…). 37/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer Again, I think this idea that you keep bringing up that if only we were to be more open to each other, cite each other more, etc, then somehow the discipline will change - seems entirely abstracted from the entrenched power structures in the field. 38/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer I am happy we are having this engagement, but in no way do I think that this exchange will open up space for heterodox economic research within the mainstream. Though it might raise some awareness about it. 39/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer A related point is your critique of Andrew's citation practices. He writes an well-researched piece on structuralist Econ and dependency theory, and your response to why it won’t have an impact on the mainstream is that he doesn’t cite enough mainstream literature? 40/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer Again, totally abstracted from the power dimensions and hierarchies of the field. As Kapeller's work I linked to above demonstrates, the problem cannot lie in the lack of mainstream citations in heterodox scholarship. 41/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer While I liked @sebacampanario’s piece a lot, I don’t agree with the conclusion that you quote, because it presents the conflict as being between “big” and “small” questions. 42/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario Well, I agree with him (and you) that we need both sets of questions, but there are other ways of approaching questions that are also needed if we are to find solutions to major systemic crises. 43/n
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @sebacampanario In my view, our aim needs to be to open the Econ field to these alternative approaches. Very happy to further discuss strategy and other points.
Thanks for the engagement. I invite anyone else to jump in and join the conversation if they have points to add.
44/44
Thanks for the engagement. I invite anyone else to jump in and join the conversation if they have points to add.
44/44
@DinaPomeranz @AndrewM_Fischer @CriticalDev Okay I totally messed up that tweet, typing to quickly...meant to tag @ReteachEcon, @rethinkecon and @RebuildMacro :-)
Messed up the threading. This one should come here.
