Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T14:51:33.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Suggestion for Clarifying the Study of Dissent in Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Roger E. Backhouse
Roger E. Backhouse
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The answer to this question might seem obvious: like Everest, dissent and controversy are there. However, for most academic economists, dissent is negligible and controversy is far less important than it is commonly made out to be. To draw attention to disagreements between economists is to offer a distorted picture of what economics is about. Instead, they argue, the focus of attention should be on the enormous extent to which economists agree. From this perspective, dissent and controversy are not worth much attention. Another justification for studying controversy is that it is exciting. James Tobin once argued (explaining the appeal of Keynesian economics) that when you are young you like theoretical controversy: you like hearing about the good guys and the bad guys, and the idea of being on the side of progressive thought and against an encrusted orthodoxy. Similarly, historians are interested in dissent and controversy in much the same way that writers of thrillers are more interested in neighborhoods where murders happen than in ones where everyone just watches TV all day! What these answers have in common is that they associate controversy and dissent with the pathology of the subject. Disagreement is something to be avoided and which reflects badly on the profession. The most famous representative of this view was probably Alfred Marshall. In his attempt to establish economics as a science that carried authority with the public, he studiously refrained (most of the time) from entering into controversy, and he sought to reconcile within his own work divergent trends that were tearing apart the subject in other countries.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 261 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Backhouse, R. E. 2000. “Progress in Heterodox Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (02): 149–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benassy, J.-P. 2003. The Macroeconomics of Imperfect Competition and Nonclearing Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1990. John Maynard Keynes: Life, Legacy, Ideas. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. 1993. “How Economists Modify Propositions.” In Henderson, W., Dudley-Evans, T. and Backhouse, R., eds., Economics and Language. London: Routledge, pp. 153–69.Google Scholar
Chang, H. J. 2001. Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank: The Rebel Within. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
Coats, A. W. B. 2000. “Opening Remarks.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (02): 145–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Collins, H. 1991. “The Meaning of Replication and the Science of Economics.” History of Political Economy 23 (01): 123–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. & Pinch, T. 1993. The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. K. 1969. The New Industrial State. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1939. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hildenbrand, W. 1994. Market Demand. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobson, J. A. 1938. Confessions ofan Economic Heretic. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hoover, K. D. 2001. The Methodology of Empirical Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, T. W. 1978. On Revolutions and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E. 1998. The English Nation: The Great Myth. Stroud, UK: Sutton Publishing.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
King, J. E. 1988. Economic Exiles. London: MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. E. 2002. A History of Post Keynesian Economics Since 1936. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kirman, A. P. 1993. “Whom or What Does the Representative Agent Represent?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 6 (2): 117–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, F. S. 2002. “The Association for Heterodox Economics: Past, Present and Future.” Journal of Australian Political Economy 50: 29–42.Google Scholar
Lee, F. S. 2003. “To be a Heterodox Economist: The Contested Landscape of American Economics Circa 1970.” Paper presented to History of Economics Society, Duke University, June 2003.Google Scholar
Mauskopf, S. H. 1990. “Marginal Science.” In Olby, R. C., Cantor, G. N., Christie, J. R. R. and Hodge, M. J. S., eds., Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. S. & Rutherford, M. 1998. “American Economics: The Character of the Transformation.” In Morgan, M. S. and Rutherford, M., eds., From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, G. 1989. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J. R. 1990. “Orthodoxies, Critiques and Alternatives.” In Olby, R. C., Cantor, G. N., Christie, J. R. R. and Hodge, M. J. S., eds., Companion to the History ofModern Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Vaughn, K. 1994. Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, R. 1979. On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge. University of Keele: Sociological Review Monograph 27.Google Scholar