Abstract
The Comment on Wrenn’s article “What is Heterodox Economics?” suggests that the inability of heterodox economists to define their field arises from an as yet unrecognized and different metaphysical foundation than that of orthodox economics.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Excluding the catch-all description of not being orthodox or neoclassical.
Bhaskar (1997) develops the idea of Generalized Conceptual Schemes (GCS) which arise from metaphysical positions. Within a GCS there can arise competing paradigms, but there may also arise competing GCS’s.
References
Becker, C. L. (1991). The heavenly city of the eighteenth-century philosophers. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bhaskar, R. (1997). A realist theory of science. London: Verso.
Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books.
Goodwin, C. D. (1980). Toward a theory of the history of economics. History of Political Economy, 12(4), 610–619.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: the collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wrenn, M. V. (2007). What is heterodox economics? Conversations with historians of economic thought. Forum for Social Economics, 36(2), 97–108.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meador, D.M. Comment on “What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought”. For Soc Econ 38, 71–73 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12143-008-9019-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12143-008-9019-4