As promised to @g_m_hodgson & @ingridharvold I got myself a copy of Hodgson’s book e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/is-th…. It’s hard 2 do justice in a thread to the many arguments he makes, but I’ll try to engage. 1/
Among other things, a) Hodgson correctly points out that lack of raison d’etre 4 hetecon may be responsible 4 its marginalization. I also agree that b) agreement on a “core” among hetecons would be desirable. He also notes c) general neglect of micro (I’ll return 2 this). 2/
Reviewing various attempts at self-definition of heterodoxy, Hodgson looks at the late Fred Lee’s “political” project of gathering anti-capitalist economists under the heterodox umbrella as prone to failure; & Tony Lawson’s dichotomy b/w “open” and “closed” systems... 3/
...that leads to defining heterodoxy as the refusal to self-confine into closed systems & consequently rejection of “ontologically inappropriate” formalism. This also has problems since Neo-institutionalists would fall into heterodoxy by this definition. 4/
Hodgson then: a) makes various plugs 4 #evolutionary economics à la Nelson-Winter as a good unifying candidate that however never rose 2 the occasion; b) proposes “rejection of Max U” as a unifying principle; c) outlines several possible strategies for hetecon to gain ground. 5/
Let me say upfront that I agree with many points raised in the book. A) admittedly 4 many old school folks like me the appeal of #hetecon was that it provided an alternative 2 usual thinking on, say, efficiency-equity trade offs, status-quo bias, “blaming the victims”... 6/
...& my interest in studying at @TheNewSchool was largely politically motivated. But I soon realized that B) lots of #mainstream econ is quite progressive, ie centered on mkt failures even w/o questioning “scarcity, rationality, equilibrium & methodological individualism”... 7/
... & C) this is similar 2 the Lange-Lerner project of demonstrating viability of socialism within the dominant paradigm. Incidentally, the argument about the dismissal by Cambridge UK of the socialist calculation debate is 1 of the most compelling in the book, esp. given...8/
...that studying Micro at @NSSRNews with Duncan Foley & Ali Khan (Hopkins) made me understand Arrow-Debreu GE as largely a response to Lange-Lerner. But I digress.

What follows = personal & partial reflection: I don’t claim 2 speak 4 all non-mainstream econs; 9/
To give just one example, #feminist Econ provides a deep critique of value theory, both micro (@NFolbre) & macro (@SSeguino6, @BraunsteinFE). Other schools have emphasized different problematic aspects of mainstream economics. #Ecological Econ, #horizontalists, come 2 mind 10/
Also, full disclosure, I have been saying repeatedly that I struggle with the label “heterodox” even though I appreciate its community-building purpose. So I am sure my thoughts will upset someone, and apologize in advance. 11/
My disagreement with G. Hodgson (GH) focuses on the relation b/w #micro & #macro, which 2 me is central 2 how contemporary econs understand #policy.

GH’s correct that to understand “heterodoxy” 1 must start in 1960s Cambridge UK. But Cambridge *wasn’t* only macro 12/
Case in point: Cambridge system of “prices of production” (PoP) provides a *micro* theory of value that is alternative (not complementary as argued by GH) 2 Walrasian GE: it takes 1 distributive variable as given -> doesn’t imply market clearing. Oh, and no aggregation issue. 13/
Here’s the first element of what I consider a reasonable description of “heterodox” (alternative, dissident, use ur favorite adjective, I still haven’t found mine): the rejection of the marginal theory of distribution. GH doesn’t pay much attention to this point, crucial 2 me 14/
However, the PoP system misses i) a theory of demand; ii) a theory of the determinants of the distributive variable; iii) an account of capital deepening as a dynamic process. In #Neoclassical Econ, i) Max U; ii) w=MPL; iii) f’’(k) <0 (ii & iii not required in Walrasian GE) 15/
Of course, Keynes provided i). The Post-Keynesians (PK) linked i) and ii). Yes, these are macro answers. An under appreciated point among hetecons is that micro-2-macro models w/ incomplete markets -> reduced forms that are isomorphic to PK with similar policy implications 16/
As for ii), a key point coming from Classical Political Economy (& the PoP system) is distributive conflict, under-emphasized in #Neoclassical Econ. I keep going back to Goodwin (1967) 4 a macro account. “Conflicting claims” models of inflation also address distribution. 17/
These macro accounts of distribution implicitly or explicitly refer to “bargaining.” Thus, I always found it odd that hetecon overlooked available bargaining theories (yes, mainstream). It is very easy to show that the Nash (1950) product can be used to obtain... 18/
... a “Classical conventional wage share” in the language of @GrowthDist to close the labor market w/o full employment. 1 can cook up rent-seeking games 2 the purpose. Digging deeper into, say, capital-labor bargaining Can be used to give precise meaning to “institutions.” 19/
As for iii), if 1 takes Cambridge seriously, there is then the famous “quantity of capital” problem. (Baqaee and Farhi have a JEEA forthcoming that revisits the aggregate production function issue and encompasses Garegnani 1970 as a special case.) How to explain K-deepening? 20/
With biased technical change. @tmichl69 (1999, 2002) has shown that labor-saving, capital-using tech change traces a path that looks like an aggregate prod. function but is really the “fossil” record of past technology. No Cambridge issue & yet again basically a micro theory. 21/
This, however, pertains to transitional dynamics and not balanced growth. For the latter, one can look at the implications of Kennedy (EJ1964) for “heterodox” growth models. See Foley, JEBO2003; Julius, MECA2005. Again, only scratching the surface here. 22/
The point is that there is considerable attention to micro issues and the way they translate into macro implications in current alternative approaches. None of these has necessarily ideological motivations: they take Cambridge seriously and cumulatively build on it. 23/
Importantly, & gearing up 2 conclusion, most people that GH overlooks (including scholars I cited above) do not fit either Lee’s or Lawson’s definition of heterodoxy. And yet are heterodox because critical of fundamental standard assumptions & relegated to lower-tier journals.24/
& so to me (& similar but not identical to @NakedKeynes) hetecon involves rejection of marginal distribution theory in favor of institutions, effective demand (or coordination failures), & conflict-driven capital deepening. Again partial definition, but hopefully constructive.N/N
PS. I think the debate on strategies is very important, & will return to it later.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daniele Tavani (he/him/his)

Daniele Tavani (he/him/his) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @danieletavani

Apr 27, 2021
Joan Robinson was “probably the best economist alive” in Paul Samuelson’s own words.

@zachdcarter rightfully celebrated her work on monopolistic competition (without which there wouldn’t be new trade theory nor endogenous growth theory) & #monpsony.

Dismissing her work...
...on #capital theory is wrong-headed, because it has fundamental implications for the theory of #distribution.

She realized that there is no “quantity of capital” independent of prices in a world with heterogeneous capital goods.

The existence of...
...such quantity of capital is *crucial* for the #neoclassical theory of distribution, which rests fundamentally on the possibility that price movements will ensure that f’(k) = r.

This “closes” the Solow growth model: the real wage will be determined residually: w = y-f’(k)k..
Read 8 tweets
Apr 25, 2021
*Bad take* alert here. Neoclassical growth theory rests fundamentally on the f'(k) = r profit-max condition. There is no real wage without this, since w = f(k)-f'(k)k because of constant returns to scale in production. If the former falls, theory of distribution is bust. 1/
Imo, the issue with Cambridge UK is not that they highlighted the issues with neoclassical growth & distribution (the muddle) but that they stopped there, w/o developing a coherent alternative on capital deepening, innovation, determinants of distribution, convergence, etc. 2/
There are contemporary, some of them old but still alive scholars who have been taking on these issues, training younger folks 2 press on. Lance Taylor, Krugman's first mentor, is one of them. Duncan Foley revived Charles Kennedy's theory of induced technical progress... 3/
Read 7 tweets
Jun 5, 2019
John Maynard #Keynes was born on June 5, 1883, and died too early. Here's a few thoughts on why I keep circling back to him, & why his work forces 2 rethink the way we do & teach #economics, esp. #micro. I am sure this (partial) thread will upset someone: apologies in advance. 1/
#Keynes understood that #macroeconomics is about emergent properties: aggregate outcomes that don't make sense 2 the individuals populating the economy. The logic, e.g., of the #IncomeExpenditure model is that an economy can coordinate along any point on the 45-degree line.. 2/
and that, accordingly, we should expect economies to operate with slack. Then you have the #ParadoxofThrift and all that. He also talked about the #ParadoxofCosts when he discusses redistribution to lower income people who have higher propensity to consume... 3/
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(