Heterodox Economics

Heterodox Economics

Heterodox economics is a school of thought that extends beyond the conventional neoclassical paradigm. These schools include Marxian, socialist, ecological, and feminist economics, among others. Here, we will examine some of the concepts and theories within heterodox economics. If you’re not sure what heterodox economics is, read on. This article will introduce you to some of the major players in the field of economic thought.


The plea for pluralism in economics has gotten stronger since 2007 when ICAPE was founded to bring together the diverse viewpoints of heterodox economists. Since then, however, a counter-attack has emerged, mostly through the use of ranking systems, citation indices, and networks of refereeing. It primarily takes advantage of cumulative effects to marginalize heterodox economists and encourages them to align themselves with mainstream economics.

The aim of this article is to explore the various forms of heterodox economics, and their role as standard bearers or challenges for mainstream thought. It will be of interest to political economists, historical economists, and heterodox economists. The authors, Jerry Courvisanos, Associate Professor of Economics at Federation University Australia, James Doughney, and Alex Millmow, have contributed to this discussion. These authors’ work is a collaboration between two schools of thought in economics.

Political economy

This conference is dedicated to educating the public about political economy and heterodox economics. The goal is to shift the focus of mainstream economics and promote critical analysis. Participants will engage in a variety of workshops, each led by a highly-qualified student. Workshop facilitators are passionate and knowledgeable about their topics. Each workshop is characterized by discussions, open spaces, and provocations. They will be able to broaden their horizons, challenge their perspectives, and explore new ideas.

One important difference between mainstream and radical political economy is that the latter emphasizes structural inequality. It also emphasizes the role of social factors and historical events, while mainstream economic theory largely ignores social, political, and cultural factors. The latter is not ignored, however. Some mainstream literature has attempted to engage with such ideas, but ultimately remain outside the mainstream debate. In general, political economy is more relevant to public policy and social action than traditional economics, and this distinction is useful in understanding how governments can promote social justice.


For those interested in Marx heterodox economics, the first step in establishing the field is to get a foothold in the university, either as a separate department from economics, or in conjunction with other social science disciplines. Political economists can make the case that their study of economics has the potential to enrich a student’s educational experience, while research in the area can get good coverage as it contributes to interdisciplinary studies.

Heterodox economists define their field differently than mainstream economists. For example, Thorstein Veblen suggested that people purchase expensive goods to signal their status to their peers. By acknowledging the role of social factors in purchasing decisions, Veblen challenged a central tenet of mainstream economics, which is that the law of supply and demand is not affected by complex social forces. However, these economic theories are often misunderstood, and many critics of heterodox economics claim that they are only effective when they are applied to real-world problems.


There are several reasons to question the current mainstream approach to economics. One reason is the apparent success of Keynesian economics. In addition to the failure of Keynes’s theory, Marx and socialist economists have adopted many of the core assumptions of mainstream economics. But this doesn’t mean that heterodox economists must abandon their socialist roots. Instead, they can find intellectual justification to defend regulated capitalism. In other words, heterodox economists have political motives too, and the reason for their opposition to capitalism is the same.

While mainstream economists have a variety of political positions, such as criticizing market fundamentalism, the reasons to be a heterodox economist are not as compelling. For one thing, mainstream economists use mainstream techniques and publish in mainstream journals. They also win Nobel Prizes for their work. For that reason, it’s a mistake to consider themselves a keynesian. This approach to economics is an extreme case and is incompatible with mainstream policy.


Heterodox economists are concerned with the well-being of society, the environment, and future generations. This is the opposite of mainstream 20th-century economics, which presented itself as purely value neutral, with no regard for goals or values. The social sciences, after all, are about people, and humans have a complex set of values and goals. Traditional economics has neglected these issues in order to focus on self-interest and maximizing personal profit.

While some claim that Kalecki’s work is more realistic than Keynes’, others point to the similarities between the two. For example, monetary accounting and Marxist analysis of class dynamics, profits, and concentration should be considered in the post-Keynesian synthesis. In addition, Kalecki’s theory should consider the role of oligopolistic markets and wage disparity. The analysis should also address the role of class struggle and conflict.