While the mainstream is defined by an insistence on method, the heterodoxy is defined by a concern with reality. What is so powerful about the conception, and what seems to have been almost entirely ignored, is what comes next.
The implication of Lawson’s conception is that heterodox economics encompasses all those researchers that desire to study economic phenomena in accordance with our best understanding of how social phenomena exist. What method they decide to use is not a factor in determining whether or not a researcher is heterodox. However, Lawson’s assessment also identifies what specific methodological issues might be impeding heterodox economists from achieving that goal. For Lawson is arguing that in most instances, mathematical modelling of the sort used in economics is inappropriate for studying social phenomena. And he is imploring those heterodox economists who use such methods to pay attention to that probable mismatch.
Lawson’s conception of heterodox economics includes, in the simplest terms, all those economists who are trying to be realistic. This seems relatively uncontentious. However, the conception also shows that methods of mathematical modelling that seem to be used increasingly by heterodox economists are not going to get them any closer to that goal. Indeed, this assessment, while providing a useful definition, also serves, perhaps most importantly, to identify why heterodox economics is not in good shape.Progress in Political Economy
The nature of heterodox economics revisited
Yannick Slade-Caffarel | PhD Candidate at the King's Business School, King's College London, a visiting doctoral student at Sciences Po Paris, and an active member of the Cambridge Social Ontology Group
