The explicitly conservative nature of mainstream (“neoclassical”) economics might give the impression that all economists line up on the political spectrum somewhere between the moderately and extremely reactionary. This is especially the case with the vast majority of the profession in North America and Europe supportive of fiscal austerity.
While free market fundamentalism characterizes for the vast majority of economists, there are very important exceptions. I am proud to have been among a growing group of economists that has formed an organization to revive the progressive traditions of the profession, the World Economic Association (see details at http://worldeconomicsassociation.org).
Begun earlier this year with a few hundred founding economists, it now has over 4500 members from over the globe. In the early 1960s I chose economics to study at the University of Texas (Austin) because I wanted to help make the world a better place. It is safe to say that if today a student is so motivated, there is almost no university in the developed world that would make even a pretension to provide such economics training. On the contrary, especially in the English-speaking countries economics departments are dedicated to a dogmatic free market ideology that permits no descent.
In the European Middle Ages the dogmas of the Catholic church enforced daunting barriers to scientific inquiry. The pernicious effect of mainstream (neoclassical) economics is far worse and considerably more powerful ideologically. It is a virus of the mind. Once implanted in the mental processes, it systematically destroys the ability to conduct rational thought. As an intellectual method, it does not render the exoteric into the esoteric (explaining what we observe by what we cannot observe but theoretically infer), which is the function of science. Rather, it renders the complexities of what we observe into ahistorical and anti-social trivia, with its triviality obscured by cabalistic mathematics.
The obviously social nature of human existence is rejected by the neoclassicals in favor of the absurdity that each person is an isolated individual (I recommend that the progressively minded not use the word “individual”, but “people” and “person” in its place). Bereft of the hopes, fears, anxieties and feelings of personal responsibility that make us human. These “individuals” are driven by pure personal greed. The goodness of greed is defined as “rational” behavior. This individualized, irresponsible greed allegedly results in the general welfare. It is difficult to image a doctrine either more vulgar or more flagrantly in the interest of capital.
Adam Smith, who lived in a largely pre-capitalist society dominated by the reactionary vestiges of feudalism, can be forgiven for embracing this defense of raw capitalist greed, but neoclassical economists of the 21st century cannot. During the first half of the 19th century people who identified themselves as political economists actively debated the fundamental questions of capitalist society: distribution, growth and human welfare. They fiercely debated trade policy, monetary policy (including the nature of money), public debt, and regulation of conditions of work.
The re-branding of the discipline and its members, from political economy to “economics” and “economists” (W S Jevons, 1835-1882), marked a major step towards a systematically reactionary and intellectually intolerant dogma. Jevon’s contribution became sacred writ in the next century with the distinction between “positive” and “normative” economics. This distinction is frequently attributed to Milton Friedman, though it can be found at least two decades before his famous article (for example, in the work of the neoclassical founding father and nominal Keynesian, Paul Samuelson).
By the 1950s the professional guidelines were clear. When acting “scientifically”, economists reached conclusions that were “value free”. Being a member of the profession was contingent upon accepting this conclusion. For example, an economist was free to be supportive of trade unions in private life, as long as he/she accepted the theoretical dogma that trade unions caused unemployment and/or inflation. The vast majority of policy-oriented (and usually more progressive) economists accepted these guidelines because they did not appear to weaken the de facto hegemony of the neoclassical Keynesians.
A few committed progressives challenged the intellectually vacuous positive/normative distinction. They sought to shift the profession from its acceptance of the moribund “microfoundations” that were little more than mathematical elaboration of the Jevonian marginalist banalities. These progressives (among the prominent were Joan Robinson and John Kenneth Galbraith) fought a lonely struggle largely ignored within the profession, though of they had considerable influence outside its dogma boundaries.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, as politics in the Anglo Saxon countries shifted decisively to the right, the neoclassical fundamentalists made their move: if the profession accepted the validity of self-adjusting, general equilibrium full employment, wasn’t it time that the true believers took control of the profession? In ideological terms, the subsequent purge of all non-neoclassical tendencies, no matter how mild, closely tracked the Spanish Inquisition.
Like the central purpose of the Inquisition, the consolidation of the Spanish nation state (through purging of Islamic and Jewish influence in Iberia), the neoclassical purpose was to create a reactionary, pseudo-intellectual bastion in defense of capitalism, in its most vulgar and anti-social form. The transformation of the economics profession from a field of intellectual inquiry into a closed, dogmatic servant of the status quo is unprecedented in academia. This transformation would be equivalent to Creationism taking over the field of genetics.
The fundamental mission of the World Economic Association and other heterodox economists (and a mission it is) is to recapture the discipline and re-establish rational inquiry. Experience shows that success in this mission requires a return to a more progressive political context. In the meantime, the WEA seeks to remind, revive and elaborate the proud tradition of progressive economists.
No related posts.
RT @SocialEurope: The new 'World Economic Association'. A new organisation for progressive economists. 
All Content
Sorry to say it but, so what? One of the reasons why a new progressive (left, radical, or whatever we want to call it) thinking is not emerging is reflected in this type of article. OK Mr. Weeks we know already (again) that some (and not many) economist are different and differ from mainstream dogmas. But can you start making clear what you propose/suggest?
If we want to defeat the crisis we need to propose, defend and start urgently working in a completely new political, social and economic model. We need to roll up the sleeves, to stop the bla, bla, bla and to start proposing something concrete, clear and NEW.
This is not anymore Neo-Liberals vs Keynes boys! We need to totally innovate! The world has changed (and it is changing) so much that any alternative to the mainstream madness it is only possible if we think out of the box with lots of creativity.
Mr Vidal,
Try reading some of John Weeks' earlier articles on this site, which are about alternative to neo-liberal orthodoxy.
Again, sorry to say that I have been reading "Unemployment: Too much Regulation or Lack of Demand?" and it is more of the same: a long attack to the totally absurd idea that deregulation creates employment.
And that it is fine for me as I totally concur. But what we should do? What are the concrete progressive policies that we must put in place? …. "The progressive answer to that brutal syllogism is clear: grant employees their rights and use the macroeconomic tools of the public sector to generate the demand that will sustain the full employment that a market economy cannot create on its own." I am quoting the final paragraph of the article" and I ask again: so what? That is not a proposal of any concrete alternative to anything, it is only a beautiful sentence.
IN Europe Each Country has a Different Philosophy on Economics, Politics, Culture,etc. To Say that all of Europe "Again" is in the same category and they all are Neo-Liberal or Fascist or Crony Capitalistic is incorrect. The UK in the late 1970's no longer could keep up with Germany and Japan Economically, Politically nor Socially so yes they went to a Neo-liberal System since they no longer could Thrive on the World Stage because of the systematic Corruption and Non Efficient System the Rich in the Uk, USA, Greece turned inward on their own people and started selling these countries out to the highest bidder or to whoever they owed money or favors too. It is like the Roman Empire as it declined the Elites made deals with the Germanic Tribes(Land, Titles, Armies, Political Favors, etc) basically to save themselves and a little of their wealth and power while selling the Romans into slavery, Serfdom and the eventual breakup of the Empire into smaller entities owned by their new masters from the North. Same things is Happening Germany and other Creditor Countries are Invading the Debtor Nations without a Military force in conquest of these lands. When Nuclear Weapons came into being this became the new/old Warfare…since no Modern, powerful countries can fight one another without total destruction of everything they realized Globalization would be the new/old game. We went back to pre-world war 1 and the world became a chessboard for the Creditor Nations to control and use as they see fit. Like France and Britain did in their top days when their economies and countries were the most powerful. Using Trade, Money, International Organizations these Nations such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria,Netherlands,Belgium,Denmark,Japan,South Korea,Taiwan,Russia, Saudi Arabia became the new Powerhouses and shaped the World. Other Countries like Italy, Spain, France, The UK became Secondary powers..still with some influence..Culturally and Traditionally they also have influence on the world stage)Language, Customs,traditional networks with old allies,etc. still give a country like France in Africa or Quebec or Ghuana some punch or Spain in Latin America Influence but as they still influence their traditional Areas/Colonies around the Globe they themselves are being influence from Germany..hence not only is Germany influencing Spain or France or Italy or The UK they are also influencing Latin America, Africa and so forth. The USA is the World's Largest Debtor and so Europe, Asia and some Middle Eastern Countries have control over it as a Modern Colony. This is Globalization…Just Replace the Word Colonialization.
Germany as a Single Country is probably the most Powerful now in the World and the other Creditor Nations hold much power also.
China is overpopulated, has huge social and environmental problems therefor China is not what is claimed.
Germany's Safety nets are untouched anyone that needs welfare gets it(House, Heat, Food, Clothing, etc) Free College Education, Dual Vocational/Technical Training,Healthcare, Work Councils, Unions, Worker Cooperatives, Co determination, Parental Leave, Maturnity Leave, Day care for the elderly and the children, Nursing Insurance, Law Insurance,etc, etc, etc, etc… Creditor Nations have very high Quality of life standards for their People, Environmental Renewable/Sustainable Policies, Rights/ Freedoms, etc…It is about which countries are doing the proper things and which countries are Corrupted, mis-managed and the like.
The Crisis in the UK and the Cuts to your standards are directly tied to this as is the USA and Greece. IF you decimate your Manufacturing Base, If you are Corrupted, If you run huge Current Account Deficits and sell yourselves to the highest bidder, If you wage war after war, if you have no regulations on power/wealth…then eventually you decline and the rot will not stop until something changes. If no change.. a country can go from being 1st world to a 3rd World Colony of a Creditor Nation or totally become a failed state eventually ceasing to exist.