I do agree that pluralism (in terms of approaches,  issues and methodologies) is the key issue for economics to survive both in terms of students and public recognition; unfortunately, most economists tend to close the borders instead of considering "openess" as a necessary strategy to keep economics relevant.

I do agree that pluralism (in terms of approaches,  issues and methodologies) is the key issue for economics to survive both in terms of students and public recognition; unfortunately, most economists tend to close the borders instead of considering "openess" as a necessary strategy to keep economics relevant.

Dear @Stefano, thanks for sharing this question. I was not aware that Association for Heterodox Economics exists! 

THE EMERGENCE OF HETERODOX ECONOMICS, 1990 - 2006 by Frederic S. Lee is very good reading about!

In Serbia, Management studies have overcame the Economic studies. I do agree with You, economics should have more varieties in order to survive!

http://hetecon.net/division.php?page=about&side=history_of_heterodox_economics

Interesting discussion and a bloom picture of Economics department in many universities both side of the Atlantic. I do agree we need to teach the diversity and the analytical power that Economics offer and how it is relevant in a business program. Its true the latter program have more job opportunities than the former and from where comes number of students enroll to this program, however, Without Economics, we cant think of Business or Management. Its like without Physics there is no electrical engineering or computer science.

@Ljubomir Jacić  Thank you to remind the book by Frederic S. Lee. 

http://heterodoxnews.com/leefs/

We have to teach heterodox approach to economics because it is closer to the best we can achieve when we try to describe such kind of processes. The usual Optimization technique can be applied mainly for non living and thinking beings. But I don't believe that such a course will be promoted by any Department...

I would say that mainstream economics is not really following political ideology. Rather, it is following scientific ideology. The great problem with mainstream today is the obsession with measurement. Today, faced with the inability of economists to interpret the economic phenomena of our time, we cannot but acknowledge that this is the outcome of the abandonment of self-awareness. Most economists have given up questioning the purposes and the means of their scientific work, seeking refuge on a second line: algebraic analysis of functional relationships. Economics has become econometrics . The result is the formulation of economic theories that are apparently “exact” but nevertheless not true. Not everything that can be proven mathematically is also logically valid. Faced with the difficult economic situation we are experiencing, it is worrying to see that economists are no longer able to say anything sensible, particularly and precisely those who are responsible for economic and monetary policies.This is the outcome achieved by believing that the method of natural sciences, founded precisely on the discovery of universally valid functional relationships, can be applied to economics. This is the result of relegating the question of methodology to a kind of scientific itching for minor intellectuals and meticulous scholars with a mania for philosophy. scientific evolution has ignored two fundamental characteristics of human action, i.e. unpredictability and freedom. These aspects impose serious limits on possibilities for theorising and prediction in the sphere of economics. The desire to apply the methods of natural sciences to human sciences generates the perverse effect of identifying presumed functional relationships of a mathematical nature.

Yet this is not possible: it is, as defined by Hayek, an abuse of reason . This faulty belief gave rise to the theoretical artifice of general equilibrium theory, a constructivist tool that is actually rather pointless for economists having a sincere interest in reality . Economists are faced by qualitatively very well defined elements: man and reality. They should be inspired by these elements, should – I would add – allow themselves to be astonished by what happens. The essence of an economist’s work lies in observation of reality, without seeking to put it in a cage. Observation of reality helps identify certain dynamic trends that represent constants in human action. For example, as we have seen, the human action has a finalistic nature. That is not to say, as in the rationalist terms of the general equilibrium theory, that every subject maximizes units of utility in accordance with mathematical models. This is not what happens in reality. It is true , however, as a dynamic trend, that man acts to achieve goals , to achieve desires. This sees the onset of relationships with the surroundings, people, things and complex society in general. Economists may certainly analyse everything that individuals do within the dynamics of enterprise in the search to attain their objectives.

This definition may seem extraneous to more familiar concepts in economics such as prices, interest rates, profit and loss, etc. But this is not the case. As we will see later, when defining their goals, people also choose the means for achieving them. In doing so, the attainment of other goals is waived and this becomes the cost of the action. If the goal is reached within the desired terms, and the satisfaction achieved is superior to the waiver, then the outcome is positive. Prices, in numerical terms, are merely a brief representation of subjective assessments and their variegated universe. In the course of their actions, individuals meet each other and, unconsciously, their assessments of ends and means meet in turn and start an unending journey of mediation. The market comes into being as a spontaneous institution, a place for relationships, where the individual choice over means and ends is challenged through inter-relationships. The system of prices emerges in this process the mediated (objective) result of the combination of subjective assessments. This system of values allows those involved make rational economic calculations and verify, over time, whether they are attaining their goals or not.

It is possible to study these dynamics but without any pretence of planning and inclusion of attitudes within strict and formal models. Explanations are possible, only they must be of a qualitative nature.

In conclusion, the business of the economic scientist is possible if the search functional relations is replaced by the desire to really understand how reality works, abandoning every constructivist temptation determined by pseudo-scientific dazzle or the possibility of perfect planning. Being economists requires an impressive capacity for observation and great love for people and their freedom of action. This must be associated with the immense humility that is the characteristic of men who have become wise.

Not so much to add to Carmelo Ferlito's word.

Only one point I strongly disagree : the "scientific ideology". Science, at least in the popperian apporoach I adopt, is the neverending search for mistakes, errors, omissions and the neverending trial to overcome them.

The blind faith in measurement is definetly non scientific. Tolemaic astronomy was right with "measure". Euclide geometry. Or, more impressive in my opinion, Newton's mechanics. Those sciences invented concepts and built previsions of facts which became measurable only after such creativity impulse.

I guess such creativity exists among economists. Nevertheless, the publish or perish dilemma, tied with the peer-review system (which is effective, on paper) make conformism arise as the optimal strategy from the individual, economic point of view.

And, despite of differences, all of economists are ... economists.

@Stefano, thanks for the leefs! In memory of Frederic Lee!

Heterodox economic thought needs a transdisciplinary approach and embrace rigorous mathematics of (deterministic) chaos for a complete revision of the behavior of complexities, the theory of crashes, the theory of risk and needs to give up all that pseudo-scientific crap like the EMH. It will take time and effort.  So you can still be pioneers, it is a chance, perhaps one in the history, to take the new train to better understanding of the present, better predictions of the future and some changes in the history are waiting to be done as well. There is a lot to be done, I know it because a lot has already been done, discovered and implemented. The only problem is those dissipative forces.      

Some news on the issue: The Canadian Association of University Teachers released its investigatory-committee report, they have " said the economics department traditionally had a reputation of making room for both mainstream and heterodox views in hiring and in its curriculum -- in lay language, heterodox professors think outside the box..."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-ms-faculty-of-economics-ripped-290169081.html

http://www.thecarillon.com/provincial/National-university-teacher-association-lashes-out-at-U-of-Ms-economics-department-290121171.html

Taleb tells everyone to avoid attending orthodox economics classes and says that economics will fail us and blow us up as being based on notions of naive optimization, and is poorly mathematized. 

An economist would find it inefficient to maintain two lungs and two kidneys. If we gave Mother Nature to economists, it would dispense with individual kidneys since we do not need them all the time, it would be more "efficient" if we sold ours and used a central kidney on a time-share basis. You could also lend your eyes at night since you do not need them to dream. 

I agree with Ljubomir that Management studies have overcome the Economic studies in some countries, I think that is self-evident ,as if we silently agreed to a one and only one valid approach, while almost every idea in conventional economics fails under the modification of some assumptions. 

The most grotesque assumption is that we can still use tools that failed, ignore large deviations and encourage the building of a lot of risk that ignores large deviations. In other words we are forbidden to state that we are sitting on a barrel of dynamite. Let the poor public die unaware.

Mother Nature does not like overspecialization and limiting freedom. At the moment efforts are made not to talk about cracks in one spot or another to percolate through the entire economics. One of the purposes of of religion and tradition has been to enforce interdicts - to protect people againts their own epistemic arrogance. Both are being tried to be eradicated from societies. 

.

@Claudio Pirrone May I ask what is the role of ideology in Popper's view?

Does Karl Popper conceive  ideology as a pseudo-scientific system? Does he, for example, conceive Marxism as a pseudo-science that essentially lacks the requisite rational methodology? 

If the answers to the previous questions are yes, then my reply is that "ideology" cannot be reduced to a pseudo-scientific system.  An ideology constitutes or implies a philosophical and social viewpoint in the sphere of economic theory. For example, Dobb (1973) highlights the fact that the distinction between pure analysis of the economic process and our vision of it, which is unavoidably influenced by ideology, can only be maintained by circumscribing the former to a «formal framework of economic statement». What he means by “economic theory”, however, is a «substantial statement about the real relations of economic society» (Dobb (1973), p. 36). Focusing attention on the real relations that characterise society therefore means moving outside a purely logical and analytical sphere to adopt a philosophical and social viewpoint.

Regarding the importance of pluralism in economics, something is happening in France. See http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/petition-pour-le-pluralisme-maintenant/

I find that it is a petition about pluralism in economics, but my French is not so good dear @Stefano! Do you have some English link!?

Here you will find an English translation

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/tribune-orlean-le-monde-26-janvier-2015les-economistes-egalement-ont-besoin-de-concurrence/

"Several major figures in the social sciences asked the French government to guarantee pluralism in all institutions engaged in research and teaching in economics. Without this pluralism, our country cannot possibly engage in informed and rigorous democratic debate. The objective at that time was to draw lessons from the 2008 financial crisis, which had demonstrated how counterproductive economic thinking characterised by excessive uniformity and an overweening self-confidence could be. Today, however, we have to acknowledge that these lessons have not been heeded: nothing has changed, either in research programmes or in teaching. This is due to the monopoly position that so-called ‘mainstream’ approaches occupy today."

Thanks @Stefano, I find this may be fine: "...Minister, at a time when pluralism is so widely proclaimed, we urge you to see your project through to completion. Give the freedom to express heterodox ideas in economics a chance and establish the new ‘Economics and Society’ section!" Was there any response by Minister?

@Ljubomir They are asking for a support by means of the petition you may sign at the link

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/petition-pour-le-pluralisme-maintenant/

At the moment there is not an official answer by Minister.

I have done dear @Stefano with pleasure! This is from cite, I do expect confirmation mail! Funny, there is no Serbia, but Yugoslavia!

Pétition pour le pluralisme, maintenant !

Merci, Jacic.

Vous allez recevoir un mail de confirmation. Votre signature sera ajoutée après validation de ce mail.

Thanks, Jacic.

we sent you a confirmation email. Your signature will be added after confirmation!

In my modest opinion orthodox approach is an effect of dominant politcal ideology based on uncontrolled capitalism. An ideology that is often guided by national and internatinal lobbies. A simple example is the Reinhard and Rogoff's study on relationship among growth and debt. In fact, a single "sabotaged"/errneous study has been able to justify austerity politics around the world.

Since we are not able to formulate & deliver so many answers to the common economic questions/problems, an heterodox approach seems to become (at least to me) a proper and legitimate to cope with the obvious conflict between episteme and doxa . 

I also would like to mention an international STUDENT initiative for pluralism in economics. The "open letter" hits pretty much the spot. See the link below. 

http://www.isipe.net/open-letter/

Sometimes what now is called heterodox, tomorrow could be the modern scientific truth, so we have to leave room for all competitive theories and not teach just fixed point theorem and its applications in general equilibrium models.

I think modern, or mainstream, economic taught lack of mathematics. Foundations of economics as science are old, students are learning obsolete stuff and live in rapidly developing chaotic world. Imagine a world where firms analyze their performance using multivariate approach, data-mining techniques, etc. Based on that analysis they develop models of a firm and its surroundings. Test their decisions in virtual environment, optimize their performance using mathematical optimization and/or AI techniques.

Well, we live in that world. All of these techniques exist, and they are pretty good understood. Only the biggest corporations are doing their business this way, why shouldn't small ones too. So, what's the problem with the mainstream economics? Why are they using obsolete knowledge? Why they are rejecting this knowledge, and keep saying you cannot calculate everything? People like to blame different models for crises. The problem is when model used in practice stops being valid due to change in conditions. An economist should have sufficient knowledge to see when model stops being valid. Models aren't wrong, if they are done properly, people using wrong or old models are wrong.

I don't think we need a new heterodox theory, just, for start, rewriting some old theories in a way suitable for a time we live in. A lots of conceptual basics of mainstream economic theory can be generalized as n-dimensional problems and our computers can do calculations for us, we just need to learn how to use them.

As Toni Beverin wrote: "An economist should have sufficient knowledge to see when model stops being valid." The problem is that "An economist does not have sufficient knowledge to see when model stops being valid" or "An economist believes in models that are not relevant and/or not choerent" (See for examples the famous Cambridge capital controversy). Why? I suppose because education in economics is not pluralist. This is the main reason beacuase we need to teach heterodox economics too. 

Regarding the Cambridge capital controversy I strongly reccomend the paper by Andres Lazzarini http://pendientedemigracion.ucm.es/centros/cont/descargas/documento18933.pdf

Strongly agree with Stefano Lucarelli.

I agree with you Stefano!

Economists need interdisciplinary knowledge and charismatic qualities, specifically exceptional powers of understanding the impact on societies, nations and individuals who will never be granted second lives. What does it mean to be a responsible and decent economist? When we give an answer, it should immediately reverberate in response to the original question posted here. Is it not symptomatic that deafness and blindness occur among certain mainstream protagonists? They are arrogant, but do not know enough to understand how much they get things wrong. There is no typical failure and no typical success. They may be able to predict the occurrence of a war but they will never be able to gauge its effects. Most statistical education is based on asymptotic, Platonic properties, suitable for casinos, but we live in the real world which rarely resembles the asymptote. Mathematical statistics assumes structures similar to the closed structures of games, typically with a priori known probability. In real life we do not observe probability distributions, we just observe events. The presence of complexity degrades predictability with old tools.

The mainstream economics has acquired a lot of religious features. It allows taking only certain assumptions, advocates the use of only certain tools and focuses on certain issues/subjects. Whoever ventures to break those three points is bound to be stigmatized eternally.

Yogi Berra said that In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is. Power seems to go to those, like bankers, corporate executives and politicians who steal a free option from society. A Yiddish proverb says: Provide for the worst, the best can take care of itself. Most economic theories live in a world parallel to the evidence. Ultra-sophisticated financial innovations are so complex that even the financiars couldn't begin to understand them. The message of leaving these things to the professionals means that democratic oversight of financial markets was simply  inconceivable.

Maybe we stand on the brink of epochal changes. Yet time and again we consider crashes anecdotal. No lawyer would invoke an N=1 argument in defense of a person, saying "he only killed once". Any honest scientific profession would say what do we do with such evidence. The economics and financial establishment just ignored it. We need to teach heterodox economics. Some economists should also have guts to refuse teaching some "theories". Charlatanism, by any scientific norm and ethical metric, should be eradicated.     

This question was discussed three years ago. I posed a question which is closely related to this question. There are 18 question followers. I hope all of them will be interested in my question too.

What is happening in your country with regard to the economics education?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_happening_in_your_country_with_regard_to_the_economics_education