| Description |
The state of the economics discipline has been in crisis for decades, and the shortcomings of mainstream economic theorizing brought to general attention. However, orthodox policy advice still dominates in policy-making arenas, and heterodox economists are too readily dismissed in an age that can properly be called the return of "vulgar economics." It will be argued that the heterodox "challenge" to the current economic climate must be two-pronged, involving both a sound critique of mainstream economics in terms of internal consistency and empirical evaluation of policy outcomes, and offer a clear, cogent foundation from which a multitude of political viewpoints and heterodox theories can proceed. This dissertation first takes up the latter charge by pointing to one such broadly unifying foundation already evident in much of the heterodox literature, specifically in the Marxist and Veblenian Institutionalist schools of thought. Once clarified, this dissertation then begins the work of the first task by critically examining orthodox economic theory, particularly in development policy making and advice. Finally, a call is made for recognition of commonality already underpinning the various heterodox views of economic life. It is suggested that future research incorporates the Institutionalism - as outlined here - into the Classical-Keynesian framework, so that it is firmly rooted within an existing theoretical structure capable of encompassing differing particular economic viewpoints. It is argued that this would bring into clear focus the heterodox position that sees the study of power relations as the basis for sound economic analysis and policy-making. |
