A Plea for Pluralism

IF 0.3 Q4 ECONOMICS Journal of Philosophical Economics Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.46298/jpe.10886
Stephen Marglin
{"title":"A Plea for Pluralism","authors":"Stephen Marglin","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mainstream economics is one way of understanding how the economy works, but mainstream economists argue much more: that mainstream economics is the onlyway of understanding the economy. Mainstream economists should embrace pluralism for reasons suggested by John Stuart Mill: as a guard against the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny that fortifies itself against doubt not by reason but by power; even if the majority is right and the doubters wrong, engaging with doubt is a way to strengthen correct arguments; and, most likely, according to Mill, there is partial truth on the side of heterodoxy as well as on the orthodox side. The two elements of the power of mainstream economists are related: the police power over what is and what is not published in the major journals, and the role of publication in these journals in the tenure process. Pluralism is not an issue of concern to academics only. Economists of all stripes may try to construct the economy in the image of their theories, but for some time the mainstream has had the upper hand, just as it does in the academy. The push to deregulate the economy, which began in the United States during the Carter presidency, had its full flowering in the financial crisis of 2008.What will it take to allow heterodoxy into the academy? If history is any guide, innovations in economics take root when they are allied to successful political movements. One case in point is the symbiosis between Keynes’s General Theory and the New Deal and social democracy. Another is the resurgence of pre-Keynesian theory dressed up in the high-tech mathematics of New Classical theory and the coming to power of the apostles of neoliberalism in the 1980s. It’s a good bet that for a new economics to take hold in this century, it will do so in partnership, however tacit, with a new politics.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mainstream economics is one way of understanding how the economy works, but mainstream economists argue much more: that mainstream economics is the onlyway of understanding the economy. Mainstream economists should embrace pluralism for reasons suggested by John Stuart Mill: as a guard against the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny that fortifies itself against doubt not by reason but by power; even if the majority is right and the doubters wrong, engaging with doubt is a way to strengthen correct arguments; and, most likely, according to Mill, there is partial truth on the side of heterodoxy as well as on the orthodox side. The two elements of the power of mainstream economists are related: the police power over what is and what is not published in the major journals, and the role of publication in these journals in the tenure process. Pluralism is not an issue of concern to academics only. Economists of all stripes may try to construct the economy in the image of their theories, but for some time the mainstream has had the upper hand, just as it does in the academy. The push to deregulate the economy, which began in the United States during the Carter presidency, had its full flowering in the financial crisis of 2008.What will it take to allow heterodoxy into the academy? If history is any guide, innovations in economics take root when they are allied to successful political movements. One case in point is the symbiosis between Keynes’s General Theory and the New Deal and social democracy. Another is the resurgence of pre-Keynesian theory dressed up in the high-tech mathematics of New Classical theory and the coming to power of the apostles of neoliberalism in the 1980s. It’s a good bet that for a new economics to take hold in this century, it will do so in partnership, however tacit, with a new politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
呼吁多元化
主流经济学是理解经济如何运行的一种方式,但主流经济学家争论的更多:主流经济学是理解经济的唯一方式。主流经济学家应该拥护多元主义,原因正如约翰•斯图尔特•密尔(John Stuart Mill)所提出的:作为对多数人暴政的一种防范,这种暴政不是通过理性,而是通过权力来抵御怀疑;即使大多数人是对的,怀疑者是错的,参与怀疑也是加强正确论点的一种方式;根据密尔的说法,最有可能的是,异端和正统都有部分真理。主流经济学家权力的两个要素是相关的:对主要期刊发表什么和不发表什么的监管权力,以及在这些期刊上发表的文章在任期过程中的作用。多元主义不仅仅是学术界关心的问题。各种各样的经济学家可能试图按照他们的理论来构建经济,但在一段时间里,主流占据了上风,就像在学术界一样。放松经济管制的努力始于卡特总统任期内的美国,在2008年金融危机期间达到了顶峰。怎样才能允许异端进入学术界?如果以史为鉴的话,经济学的创新只有与成功的政治运动相结合才能生根发芽。一个恰当的例子是凯恩斯的《通论》与新政和社会民主主义之间的共生关系。另一个是披着新古典理论高科技数学外衣的前凯恩斯主义理论的复兴,以及20世纪80年代新自由主义信徒的掌权。我们可以很有把握地说,要想在本世纪形成一种新的经济学,它将与一种新的政治合作,无论这种合作是多么默契。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊最新文献
Perspectives on interpersonal utility comparisons: an analysis of selected models Review of Jon D. Erickson, The Progress Illusion: Reclaiming Our Future from the Fairytale of Economics, Washington, DC, Island Press, 2022, xx + 252 pp., hb, ISBN 978-1-64-283252-5 Lesen und Interpretieren der Wirtschaftsphilosophie von Ibn Khaldun Review of Șerban Oana, Cultural Capital and Creative Communication: (Anti-)Modern and (Non-)Eurocentric Perspectives Scarcity Concept in the contemporary mainstream economic science: an analysis of its ontological and epistemological ambiguity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1