Talk:Heterodox economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] First comments

A. This article betrays a POV, namely that mainstream economics theory is inferior because it fails to respect alternative economic theories, which in this case appear to be almost entirely economic theories used to justify liberal progressive policies (e.g. marxism, socialism, environmentalism, etc.) Maybe a POV is inherent in the term, but I think if this were the case, it should be more clearly stated as such.

I have tried to fix that 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

B. Moreover, this article is just poorly written. It's not entirely clear what the subject of any one sentence is. The criticisms of mainstream economics are not coherently stated. I don't think it should be deleted, but it certainly should be rewritten. As it is, I cannot say with certainty that the author even knows what he or she is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.116.2 (talk • contribs)

I have tried to fix that 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] And where does the Austrian school fit into this?

radek

[edit] A first reply

The Austrian School is mostly mainstream, but some parts of it are heterodox; it cannot be completely excluded. A not has been added mentioning that the Austrian Scholl is mostly mainstream. 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rightfuly disagree

I disagree. Exactly which Austrian ideas, other than subjective value theory (which was never wholly Austrian) have made it into the mainstream? If anything, ever since WWII the Austrians and the mainstream have been moving farther and farther apart. It seems like the only reason to exclude the Austrians from the Heterodox category is because, unlike the other schools in that category, they're not left wingers. That's clearly POV. radek 00:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
But who is excluding Austrians ? Also, at the begining of the article it says clearly: "All strands of socialism are heterodox, but not all heterodox schools are necessarily socialist.". Austrian is either fully heterodox or partially heterodox, depending on the sources, but cannot be excluded from being heterodox at all. The History of Economic Thought Website classifies the Austrians into NEOCLASSICAL SCHOOLS (1871-today)/CONTINENTAL NEOCLASSICISM. What is POV about this ?
200.153.161.114 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the most correct description is that Austrian economics is partly within, and partly outside of mainstream economics. According to A Companion to the History of Economic Thought: "Contemporary Austrians straddle heterodoxy and orthodoxy within the economics profession. They offer a heterodox critique of formal theory, but contribute to the policy consensus that has emerge in the past 20 years, that has moved away from state-led development to a more laissez-faire position in international and domestic policy." -- Vision Thing -- 20:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
While there may be a policy consensus between the Austrians and the more pro-free market NEW Classicals, the Austrians most certainly see themselves as heterodox and outside the mainstream. There's like two "Austrian" econ departments in US these days (George Mason and ...?) which is about as many as for other heterodox schools. There are definetly policy proposals put forth by NEW Classicals, like government sponsored worker training (Chicago) or subsidies to education and research (Bob Lucas) that the Austrians would disagree with. They most definetly disagree with the New Keynesian wing of NEO Classical economics. The CEPA website uses its own classification system which DOES NOT map into commonly held notions of "neoclassicism" and "heterodoxy" (read their disclaimer) - and anyway, the Austrians which they classify as "Continental Neoclassicals" are the 19th century once, when Menger and others could have been said to be part of the mainstream. But like I said above, ever since the beginning of 20th century the Austrians have pulled away further and further from away from the mainstream so it's not true of modern day Austrians. For example, every self respecting neoclassical economist takes econometrics and applied empirical work seriously. Austrians reject this out of hand. radek 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with: "Austrian economics is partly within, and partly outside of mainstream economics.. If nobody else disagrees, I think this should be incorporated in the main text 200.153.161.142 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that Austrian Economics are, in several aspects, different from mainstream economics, but I think there's a large bridge to cross before someone can demonstrate that they are clearly heterodox. We shall all agree, I hope, that the core figure of Austrian Economics was Hayek. Well, Hayek's economic ideas not only reached the mainstream, they reached Nobel Prize status: "(...)Hayek showed how monetary expansion, accompanied by lending which exceeded the rate of voluntary saving, could lead to a misallocation of resources, particularly affecting the structure of capital. This type of business cycle theory with links to monetary expansion has fundamental features in common with the postwar monetary discussion. The Academy is of the opinion that von Hayek's analysis of the functional efficiency of different economic systems is one of his most significant contributions to economic research in the broader sense (...)" [1]
Now, most of what is now called "Austrian Economics" is rooted in Hayek's work (which was, in part, based in the work of others such as Mises or Menger, but also Popper or Warren Weaver). If Austrian Economics are still to be discussed in this article, this article must make it clearer that they are not totally heterodox such as or of a nature similar to the other schools discussed (Marxist, feminist and such). --Childhood's End (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Institutional Economics

I personnaly doubt that New Institutional Economics should be classified as heterodox. According to Oliver Favereau, one of the leaders of the (clearly heterodox) "Economie des conventions", it is the new "mainstream" in economics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floressas (talk • contribs)

You are right: "The "New Institutionalist Schools" to refer to the collection of schools of thought that seek to explain political, historical, economic and social institutions such as government, law, markets, firms, social conventions, the family, etc. in terms of Neoclassical economic theory." (The History of Economic Thought Website); removing 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


200.153.161.142, you should sign in. And thanks for your contributions. radek 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous. Will contribute to my capacity. And thanks for your critique, constructive critics are essential for improving an article. Would you care to give a look a Joseph E. Stiglitz ? 200.153.161.140 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, alright, I guess it only matters for protected pages. I looked at Stiglitz's article. It seemed fine though it could use more info on his theoretical contributions (he also did stuff on efficiency wages) and some things could be phrased better. Will try to do something. As an aside, usually he isn't considered a Post-Keynesian economist but a New-Keynesian economist (I know, all these labels are annoying). I guess he did some post-Keynesian type work back in the 60's but he's mostly considered to be in the mainstream these days.radek 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, changing to "New-Keynesian", whatever that means. Joe Stiglitz considers himself "mainstream" and I belive he is also so considered by most mainstream economists. Rather than trying to build a "new economics", Stigltz is trying to fix the old one: this becomes very clear in his Aula Magna, where he declares taht he is proposing a "new paradigma" to (old) economics. On a side note, do you think that the "political intrigues" about Stiglitz leaving the World Bank should occupy so much space in the article ? Did that fact had any influence on Stiglitz's path to the Nobel prize ? I dunno...200.153.161.91 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural difficulties

That's sort of the problem with dividing a discipline into "heterodox" and uh, "orthodox". Stuff that was once outside the mainstream or on a fringe gets incorporated and some received wisdom gets abandoned, so both are always changing. David Colander (a pretty heterodox type of guy) has some good critiques of this artificial division. Still, some folks insist upon it so...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

[edit] Copyright permission?

There has been a recent flurry of Edits for this article from a small number of similar unregistered IP addresses. Citations are given for some of them, but they are not page specific. At least one is verbatim from a copywrited source. It would be easy enough to contact the source to determine if permission was granted for use in this article. For all I know permission was granted. If it was not granted, it should be deleted or appropiately fixed so as not to violate the copyright in accord with Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. Does anyone have information on permission granted to use copyrighted material in this article? If there is no response within 2 days, appropriate action will be taken.

I apologize for the delay in responding. I was overseas and not available via the Net. In any event, I have no objection to this use of my words in Wikipedia (although I realize this may be a moot point due to the delay in responding). sgabriel@mtholyoke.edu
User:200.153.161.91 wrote:
Dear Professor Gabriel;
Some of your words have been used in an article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics#_note-HETTHEORY
"There is no single "heterodox economic theory" as such; there are various different strands of heterodox theories. What they all share, however, is a rejection of the neoclassical orthodoxy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics> as representing the appropriate tool for understanding the workings of economic and social life. The reasons for this rejection may vary. Some heterodox theorists would argue that neoclassical theory is appropriate as a tool under certain limited conditions, such as when there is "perfect" or "near-perfect" competition. Other heterodox theorists would reject neoclassical economic theory altogether, arguing that it is useless as a tool for understanding economic and social life. A small number of theorists argue that all theories are valid so long as they are internally consistent. Still others, less liberal in their conception of theoretical validity, argue that neoclassical theory is a form of ideology or religion, which is grounded in unscientific concepts. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics#_note-HETTHEORY>
The text is credited to you at the footnotes. Do you have any copyright related objection for this use in Wikipedia ? If you answer yes, or fail to answer, the text will be immediately removed from the article.


Other additional material does not have page-specific citations. The additional material as written does not written to satisy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and looks like the work it comes from directly from a POV source. It should certainly satisfy Wikipedia:Copyrights policy. Further much of the additions are written without supplying context, as though written for an audience already conversant with the relevant literature. The additions need fixing to fall within Wikipedia policy. Pege-specific citations are in order for tha edded material. Thanks for your efforts. --Thomasmeeks 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific ? I do not quite understand where exactly the problems are. What is the purpose of this abrupt and not so polite intervention ? Dou you want to improve this article or do you intend to open a confrontation ? What exactly do you mean by "There has been a recent flurry of Edits for this article from a small number of similar unregistered IP addresses." ?? It is obvious that a lot of research effort has been put into this artcile; if it does not suit your particular taste, ideological orientation or religion, (or even Wikipedia"s) please feel free to erase it altogehter. If you wish to improve this article, or Wikipedia in general, just say clearly and specifically what exactly, in your opinion, has to be fixed. 200.153.161.91 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I came across a copied Web paragraph in the article (cited to the credit of the editor). If the copyright holder granted permission for use (customarily indicated in published work by so noting), there is no problem. Otherwise there is (whether willful or not). Suppose there is a copyright violation (or violations). Below the Edit box of the article, there is this:
Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.
Below the Save button of the Edit window there is this:
Content that violates any copyright will be deleted.
If there is a problem in an article, all instances of the problem ought to be fixed, not just one thet is identified. Page specificity can improve the article irrespective of whether there is a copyright violation. Undoing an Edit or series of Edits with a copyright violation is one way to discourage the practice. One reason Wikipedia (for all its obvious limiations) works as well as it does is because of policies editors know will be implemented. I'm not here talking about instances such as described in the next section that are within copyright law. The above was intended to encourage good faith efforts to fix possible problems. --Thomasmeeks (typos fixed)
Verbatim already complies with world copyright laws. If any other involuntary copyright "violation" has been detected by you, kindly point it out clearly, for fixing. 200.153.161.91 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article now lists the copyright for the case I came across. It is customary to state that copyrighted material is used by permission. That was not done in the article. May I ask if permission was granted by the author? If so, there's no problem, but it would clarify to state that permission was granted. Thx for responding. --Thomasmeeks 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
By the author yes, but it is too cumbersome to get it from the trustees of Mount Holyoke College (operators of the website). Rephrased to comply under "Wikipedia:Fair use". 200.153.161.91 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fair use

Text

Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alterations are put in brackets ([added text]). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Example

Original text:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (Wikipedia:Verifiability, 2007)

Quote:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (...) Editors should provide a reliable source for [potentially controversial content] or it may be removed." (Wikipedia:Verifiability, 2007; emphasis in original)

200.153.162.210 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid copyright paranoia

A trend I am observing on Wikipedia is excessive paranoia about copyright infringements. While a certain amount of preventive action is certainly necessary, I strongly oppose simply deleting an entry for "presumed" copyright violations.
Examples:
  • An entry which contains a few copied phrases from individual websites or other sources. Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable.
  • A digitized picture that may be copied from elsewhere, but has in fact been created hundreds of years ago. Sometimes, the companies who have digitized these pictures claim copyright on them, but I find such claims highly dubious.
  • Screenshots of free software applications, and small illustrative screenshots. It should generally be no problem if a screenshot is copied from the official product page.
These are cases where I would generally not delete the entry unless the alleged copyright holder complains. Given Wikipedia's potential liability, after a complaint, immediate action may be necessary, although later correction is possible. But it is not Wikipedians' job to excessively "police" content for copyright infringements, especially when such may not even exist.
In general, when in doubt, do not delete. When "fairly certain", ask the author first in /Talk. The notion of "intellectual property" is dubious at best, and Wikipedia should not support it beyond the limits given by law. Personally, I will restore any entries which I do not see as copyright infringements, and I encourage you to do the same.
"Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable." Not protectable, but taking sentences verbatim, or lengthy unattributed paraphrase, is for better or for worse considered academic dishonesty of the first degree and often punished with the academic equivalent of the death penalty. While I don't think we should delete entire articles that such material is inserted into, it would be extremely bad for the project's credibility to tolerate these to remain.

217.20.118.5 00:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup template added to the article

The Cleanup template at the top of the article was accompanied by the following Edit summary:

Template added: see, e.g. WP:LEAD guidelines as to accessibility, establishing context, length relative to what follows.

--Thomasmeeks 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"("Walrasian economics" refers to the result of the process which has given birth to a formal representation of Smith's notion of invisible hand, along the lines put forward by Léon Walras and encapsulated in the general equilibrium model of Arrow-Debreu)"
I agree completely with the cleanup template, it belongs in this article, for now.--Dwarf Kirlston 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)