<p>This might help: <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/43/3/527/5150014" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/43/3/527/5150014</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Abstract
  This paper revisits the conception of heterodox economics advanced by Tony Lawson in 2006 and critically assesses its reception. I consider the bearing of later contributions—most importantly, his 2013 paper ‘What is this “school” called neoclassical economics’—in which Lawson further develops his analysis of heterodox economics. The goal is to provide additional clarity to the discussion.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T21:51:22.157Z
That's not very insightful unless one knows what Lawson's conception is, and even then, the abstract doesn't say much about it... "Teaser" abstracts are discouraged in science, but either that was impossible to avoid here or the author(s) didn't know any better.
fantastic peace and prosperity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T22:04:03.300Z
The (open access) article explains that Lawson's conception (of orthodoxy) is ‘insistence on mathematical modelling’. That's probably a 3rd (or 4th) def of heterodox I've seen today. See my comments under the question for the others.
fantastic peace and prosperity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T07:52:49.263Z
2019-05-30T07:52:49.263Z
indigo_luc
<p>Among the references in the paper hinted by indigo_luc, there's one <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Mearman, 2011)</a>, which [was apparently the first that] has surveyed some (43) self-styled heterodox economists and applied factor analysis as well as cluster analysis to their ideas:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[The first factor is addressed in the next para.] The second
  factor has high loadings on class, power, labor, gender and (negatively)
  markets. Factor 2 might thus be called a “radical” (or perhaps
  Marxist-feminist) grouping. Factor 3 might be an “Austrian” grouping,
  associating uncertainty, individualism and fallibilism. Factor 4 is
  perhaps a “Post Keynesian” group that stresses money and history.
  Factor 5 suggests an “ecological economics” group that stresses natural
  systems, but also the use of mathematics.</p>
  
  <p>Factor 1 might be called a mainstream factor. Significantly, this
  factor groups rational, equilibrium and scarcity. This may reflect a bias
  within heterodox economics as to what constitutes the mainstream:
  i.e., if heterodox economists associate scarcity, equilibrium and rationality
  with the mainstream, they may reject them more easily. The
  finding also partly supports Davis’ (2009) definition of the mainstream
  in terms of equilibrium, rationality and individualism. However, the
  adoption of individualism by Austrian economists means that the
  adoption of individualism alone cannot be a definition of the mainstream;
  it also complicates the division between mainstream and
  heterodox. Further, the mean scores for “mainstream concepts,”
  although consistently lower than heterodox concepts, are consistently
  non-zero. Also, although there was a significant negative correlation
  between mainstream and heterodox, the correlation coefficient was
  only |0.438|, meaning that many respondents regard themselves
  mainly as clearly defined heterodox economists—yet with an important
  element of mainstream economics thrown in. Heterodox economists
  are a mixture of concepts and influences. An alternative
  interpretation is that heterodox and mainstream are overlapping categories.
  This would be significant given that treatments of mainstream
  and heterodox often treat them as strictly distinct. The other clear
  finding for this group is that in terms of concepts, heterodox economics
  remains a concatenation of ideas (echoing Lee’s (2010) term) and
  groupings of individuals.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As for cluster analysis:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Cluster A, the largest, is
  characterized by a rejection of the label “mainstream” and to some
  extent of mainstream concepts (apart from individuals and markets).
  The second feature of cluster A is an acceptance of the label as
  heterodox and pluralist and a matching acceptance of general heterodox
  concepts such as class, uncertainty, fallibilism, power, money and
  history. It could be argued that this cluster exemplifies the recently
  developing picture of heterodoxy as being non-mainstream but pluralist,
  with a concern for methodological issues. Almost all of the
  female respondents to the survey are in this group, although it is far
  from clear why this would occur.</p>
  
  <p>Cluster B is different, exhibiting
  much stronger rejection of the mainstream and its concepts, maximum
  scores for class and labor and much lower scores than the other
  clusters for uncertainty and fallibilism. Methodologically this group
  scored much higher than cluster A on the need for maths in
  economics. Cluster B seems like a Marxist group and indeed its cluster
  members are self-identified radicals.</p>
  
  <p>Cluster C is different from clusters A and B in that it does not
  reject the label of being mainstream, whilst accepting the labels of
  heterodox and pluralist. This cluster is similar to cluster A but more
  pluralist. The members of this cluster reject the strict distinctions
  between the three categories. Further, although this cluster accepts
  many of the traditional heterodox concepts such as power, labor
  and class, it also accepts mainstream notions such as rational, equilibrium,
  positive, maths and crucially, scarcity. Above, when factor
  analysis was conducted, a factor was extracted that was labeled
  “mainstream” whereas the view of cluster C suggests instead this use
  of mainstream concepts alongside heterodox ones is another exhibition
  of pluralism. Unfortunately these individuals are difficult to
  identify from the information gleaned so it is difficult to draw too
  many conclusions. It should also be noted that in the dendrogram,
  arguably cluster C might have been split into two, so perhaps not
  too much coherence should be expected.</p>
  
  <p>Cluster D is in some ways
  the most interesting cluster because it contains most of the cases
  identified as peripheral. The cluster score for mainstream is similar
  to cluster C, but the score for heterodox is lower. Accordingly,
  scores for core heterodox concepts such as class, power, gender
  and particularly labor are clearly lower than for the other clusters.
  As a corollary, cluster D’s scores for individuals, markets and rational
  are much higher than for the other clusters. Looking at the
  cases who are members of this cluster, they appear to be
  members of underrepresented elements of heterodox thought, such
  as behavioral economics, Austrian economics and American
  institutionalism.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-20T01:27:26.650Z
had the chance to read this fully. great answer.
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T04:15:34.273Z
2019-05-31T04:37:20.113Z
2019-05-31T04:37:20.113Z
fantastic peace and prosperity
<p>I've been reading up a bit on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">heterodox economics</a> as well as watched some of the lectures online and quite frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out whats are the unique features of this school of thought.</p>

<p>Meaning that it seems to me (as of now) one can learn about uncertainty from standard economics textbooks and read up on Marxian economics and seemingly find little to be gained from this approach.Though I could be not very open minded in this regard.</p>

<p>This all being said, what are some of the unique features of heterodox economics that one wouldn't necessarily be exposed otherwise?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T06:18:46.307Z
For starters, it's not a single school.
fantastic peace and prosperity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T06:43:27.687Z
Yes, currently the question is very much like "what are some unique non-apples". It is very broad.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T11:55:43.340Z
This question could remain open and each answer could present a single school. The common denominator of all those schools is simply that they are not neoclassical.
Bayesian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T13:40:20.897Z
@Giskard does that mean hetrodox economics isnt well defined?
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T17:35:15.047Z
It is well-defined in the sense that it is an umbrella term for everything non-mainstream/non-orthodox/non-neoclassical.
Bayesian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T21:54:54.747Z
Regarding @Giskard's comment; according to [Dequech](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/PKE0160-3477300207) "heterodox" has been defined as either outside of neoclassical proper (which would include in heterodoxy, for instance, behavioral economics), or as outside of mainstream as taught in most reputable academia... in the latter case behavioral economics would not be heterodox.
fantastic peace and prosperity
<history-economic-thought><soft-question>
what are some unique features of heterodox economics?
EconJohn
# what are some unique features of heterodox economics?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-30)

I've been reading up a bit on [heterodox economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics) as well as watched some of the lectures online and quite frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out whats are the unique features of this school of thought.

Meaning that it seems to me (as of now) one can learn about uncertainty from standard economics textbooks and read up on Marxian economics and seemingly find little to be gained from this approach.Though I could be not very open minded in this regard.

This all being said, what are some of the unique features of heterodox economics that one wouldn't necessarily be exposed otherwise?

**Tags:** history-economic-thought, soft-question
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: For starters, it's not a single school.  
> **username_2**: Yes, currently the question is very much like "what are some unique non-apples". It is very broad.  
> **username_3**: This question could remain open and each answer could present a single school. The common denominator of all those schools is simply that they are not neoclassical.  
> **username_0**: @Giskard does that mean hetrodox economics isnt well defined?  
> **username_3**: It is well-defined in the sense that it is an umbrella term for everything non-mainstream/non-orthodox/non-neoclassical.  
> **username_1**: Regarding @Giskard's comment; according to [Dequech](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/PKE0160-3477300207) "heterodox" has been defined as either outside of neoclassical proper (which would include in heterodoxy, for instance, behavioral economics), or as outside of mainstream as taught in most reputable academia... in the latter case behavioral economics would not be heterodox.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-05-31. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Among the references in the paper hinted by indigo\_luc, there's one [(Mearman, 2011)](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2011.00774.x), which [was apparently the first that] has surveyed some (43) self-styled heterodox economists and applied factor analysis as well as cluster analysis to their ideas:

> [The first factor is addressed in the next para.] The second
> factor has high loadings on class, power, labor, gender and (negatively)
> markets. Factor 2 might thus be called a “radical” (or perhaps
> Marxist-feminist) grouping. Factor 3 might be an “Austrian” grouping,
> associating uncertainty, individualism and fallibilism. Factor 4 is
> perhaps a “Post Keynesian” group that stresses money and history.
> Factor 5 suggests an “ecological economics” group that stresses natural
> systems, but also the use of mathematics.
>
> Factor 1 might be called a mainstream factor. Significantly, this
> factor groups rational, equilibrium and scarcity. This may reflect a bias
> within heterodox economics as to what constitutes the mainstream:
> i.e., if heterodox economists associate scarcity, equilibrium and rationality
> with the mainstream, they may reject them more easily. The
> finding also partly supports Davis’ (2009) definition of the mainstream
> in terms of equilibrium, rationality and individualism. However, the
> adoption of individualism by Austrian economists means that the
> adoption of individualism alone cannot be a definition of the mainstream;
> it also complicates the division between mainstream and
> heterodox. Further, the mean scores for “mainstream concepts,”
> although consistently lower than heterodox concepts, are consistently
> non-zero. Also, although there was a significant negative correlation
> between mainstream and heterodox, the correlation coefficient was
> only |0.438|, meaning that many respondents regard themselves
> mainly as clearly defined heterodox economists—yet with an important
> element of mainstream economics thrown in. Heterodox economists
> are a mixture of concepts and influences. An alternative
> interpretation is that heterodox and mainstream are overlapping categories.
> This would be significant given that treatments of mainstream
> and heterodox often treat them as strictly distinct. The other clear
> finding for this group is that in terms of concepts, heterodox economics
> remains a concatenation of ideas (echoing Lee’s (2010) term) and
> groupings of individuals.

As for cluster analysis:

> Cluster A, the largest, is
> characterized by a rejection of the label “mainstream” and to some
> extent of mainstream concepts (apart from individuals and markets).
> The second feature of cluster A is an acceptance of the label as
> heterodox and pluralist and a matching acceptance of general heterodox
> concepts such as class, uncertainty, fallibilism, power, money and
> history. It could be argued that this cluster exemplifies the recently
> developing picture of heterodoxy as being non-mainstream but pluralist,
> with a concern for methodological issues. Almost all of the
> female respondents to the survey are in this group, although it is far
> from clear why this would occur.
>
> Cluster B is different, exhibiting
> much stronger rejection of the mainstream and its concepts, maximum
> scores for class and labor and much lower scores than the other
> clusters for uncertainty and fallibilism. Methodologically this group
> scored much higher than cluster A on the need for maths in
> economics. Cluster B seems like a Marxist group and indeed its cluster
> members are self-identified radicals.
>
> Cluster C is different from clusters A and B in that it does not
> reject the label of being mainstream, whilst accepting the labels of
> heterodox and pluralist. This cluster is similar to cluster A but more
> pluralist. The members of this cluster reject the strict distinctions
> between the three categories. Further, although this cluster accepts
> many of the traditional heterodox concepts such as power, labor
> and class, it also accepts mainstream notions such as rational, equilibrium,
> positive, maths and crucially, scarcity. Above, when factor
> analysis was conducted, a factor was extracted that was labeled
> “mainstream” whereas the view of cluster C suggests instead this use
> of mainstream concepts alongside heterodox ones is another exhibition
> of pluralism. Unfortunately these individuals are difficult to
> identify from the information gleaned so it is difficult to draw too
> many conclusions. It should also be noted that in the dendrogram,
> arguably cluster C might have been split into two, so perhaps not
> too much coherence should be expected.
>
> Cluster D is in some ways
> the most interesting cluster because it contains most of the cases
> identified as peripheral. The cluster score for mainstream is similar
> to cluster C, but the score for heterodox is lower. Accordingly,
> scores for core heterodox concepts such as class, power, gender
> and particularly labor are clearly lower than for the other clusters.
> As a corollary, cluster D’s scores for individuals, markets and rational
> are much higher than for the other clusters. Looking at the
> cases who are members of this cluster, they appear to be
> members of underrepresented elements of heterodox thought, such
> as behavioral economics, Austrian economics and American
> institutionalism.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: had the chance to read this fully. great answer.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-05-30. Score: -1

This might help: <https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/43/3/527/5150014>

> Abstract
> This paper revisits the conception of heterodox economics advanced by Tony Lawson in 2006 and critically assesses its reception. I consider the bearing of later contributions—most importantly, his 2013 paper ‘What is this “school” called neoclassical economics’—in which Lawson further develops his analysis of heterodox economics. The goal is to provide additional clarity to the discussion.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: That's not very insightful unless one knows what Lawson's conception is, and even then, the abstract doesn't say much about it... "Teaser" abstracts are discouraged in science, but either that was impossible to avoid here or the author(s) didn't know any better.  
> **username_1**: The (open access) article explains that Lawson's conception (of orthodoxy) is ‘insistence on mathematical modelling’. That's probably a 3rd (or 4th) def of heterodox I've seen today. See my comments under the question for the others.  

---

