| Abstract: |
The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics and Democratizing the Economics
Debate: Pluralism and Research Evaluation, two recently published books about
heterodox economics and its role in broader academic and policy discourses,
serve as an antidote to some recent popular narratives equating economics and
economists with policies that are inherently pro-market, anti-regulation, and
based in neoclassical theories. These texts illuminate challenges in current
economic discourse about (1) the place of economic pluralism, (2) the role
economics and economists should play in guiding policy relative to other
social science disciplines, and (3) the consequences of the reliance of
policy-makers on economists that train at the most elite institutions that are
likely to recommend a narrow band of policies informed by a restricted range
of economic theories. The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics, edited by
Tae-Jee Ho, Lynne Chester, and Carlo D’Ippoliti, presents positive visions for
new questions that heterodox economists are researching, alternative
explanations for global economic dynamics, and a counter-narrative to the
notion that economists are bound to propose neoliberal policies based on
neoclassical and new classical economic theories, and that economic analysis
must demonstrate causality using different statistical methodologies to
validate its rigor. Carlo D’Ippoliti’s Democratizing the Economics Debate
examines the dialectical process by which economic rankings prioritize
economic work informed by a narrow range of theories, and serve as a
springboard for economists studying and working at the most elite institutions
to land in powerful government advisory positions. D’Ippoliti highlights the
stakes for governments that continue to hire economic policymakers from these
top-tier programs with limited demonstrated curiosity in theories that might
be considered heterodox, and the benefits for the economics discipline as a
whole for better engagement with pluralist economics writ large. |