The first is that we are wrong to suggest that the mainstream is no longer limited to a restrictive orthodoxy of beliefs and assumptions that discourages dissenting voices. In developing his argument, Vernengo claims that our characterization of a cutting edge branch of the mainstream that does not hold to a neoclassical orthodoxy is misleading. Although he states that he accepts our characterization of the economics profession as a complex adaptive system, with many competing views, he sees the cutting edge (...) as a sham. He argues that the true role of the cutting edge is to allow the mainstream to “sound reasonable when talking about reality, while orthodoxy provides authority to the cutting edge.” He calls this an “organized hypocrisy” and calls us naive about the sociology of the economics profession. Because of this naiveté on our part he believes that we are giving bad advice to advocate that heterodox economists should think of themselves as economists first and heterodox economists second. (shrink)
This article argues that the neoclassical era in economics has ended and is being replaced by a new era. What best characterizes the new era is its acceptance that the economy is complex, and thus that it might be called the complexity era. The complexity era has not arrived through a revolution. Instead, it has evolved out of the many strains of neoclassical work, along with work done by less orthodox mainstream and heterodox economists. It is only in its beginning (...) stages. The article discusses the work that is forming the foundation of the complexity era, and how that work will likely change the way in which we understand economic phenomena and the economics profession. (shrink)
This book is about the economics profession, or more precisely, the process by which economic thinking changes. We believe that this process is important because economics is currently at a turning point; it is changing from a static approach to understanding, in which deductive reasoning is the key method used, to a complexity approach to understanding, in which inductive and deductive methods are used simultaneously, and the full complexity of the system is acknowledged and dealt with. The change is ongoing (...) and has many levels and dimensions, most of which have not coalesced to the degree that they have reached the lay public. But anyone involved in economic research recognizes the changes, although they do not necessarily understand how they all fit together. (shrink)
We attempt to clarify divisions made by us in previous work (Colander et al., 2004a,b) between “orthodox, mainstream, and heterodox” in economics, following very useful remarks in Dequech (2007-08), whom we thank. We also provide specific advice for heterodox economists, namely: worry less about methodology, focus on being economists first and heterodox economists second, and prepare ideas to leave the incubator of heterodoxy to enter the mainstream economic debate.
This book is about the economics profession, or more precisely, the cutting edge of the economics profession. Economics is currently at a turning point; it is changing from a static approach to understanding, in which deductive reasoning is the key method used, to a complexity approach to understanding, in which inductive and deductive methods are used simultaneously, and the full complexity of the system is acknowledged and dealt with. The change is just beginning, but the groundwork is currently being laid. (...) This book is about that groundwork and those economists who are developing it. They are the cutting edge of economics. Those who are doing cutting edge work are researchers who are pushing and testing the boundaries of the profession in such a way that it draws the attention of the elite in the profession. The cutting edge has the potential of changing mainstream economics and ultimately what is considered the orthodoxy. (shrink)
It turns out that Rolls’s answer to Nagel’s (1974) question, "What is it like to be a bat?" is brusque: there is nothing it is like to be a bat . . . provided that bats don’t have a linguistically structured internal representational system that enables them to think about their first-order thoughts which are also linguistically structured. For phenomenal consciousness, a properly functioning system of higher-order linguistic thought (HOLT) is necessary (Rolls 1998, p. 262). By this criterion, not (...) only bats, but also a great portion of the animal kingdom, perhaps all animal species except humans, turn out to lack phenomenal consciousness. Indeed, even human babies, and perhaps infants before the early stages of acquiring their first language, are likely to lack such consciousness, if one considers the level of conceptual sophistication required by the HOLT hypothesis. In order to have a higher-order thought, one needs to have the concept of a. (shrink)
Doll, R. C. Foreword.--Conant, J. B. The education of American teachers.--Holt, J. How children fail.--Dewey, J. Democracy and education.--Whitehead, A. N. The aims of education.--Goodman, P. Compulsory mis-education.--Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society.--Rogers, C. R. On becoming a person.--Bruner, J. S. The process of education.--Silberman, C. E. Crisis in the classroom.
This study constitutes a contribution to the discussion about moral reasoning in business. Kohlberg’s (1971, in Cognitive Development and Epistemology (Academic Press, New York), 1976, in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory and Research and Social Issues (Holt, Rienhart and Winston, New York)) cognitive moral development (CMD) theory is one explanation of moral reasoning. One unresolved debate on the topic of CMD is the charge that Kohlbergian-type CMD theory is gender biased. This research puts forth the proposal that the issue (...) may be elucidated by exposing an ambiguity in “gender” (Borna and White: 2003, Journal of Business Ethics 47, 89–99; Gentile: 1993, Psychological Science 4(2), 120–122; Unger: 1979, American Psychologist 34(11), 1085–1094). We use the Sociomoral Reflective Objective Measure (SROM) to measure CMD and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to measure gender as a psychosocial concept, rather than as a biological classification. The results of our study indicate that high femininity, measured as a psychosocial attribute, is associated with significantly lower Kohlbergian-type CMD scores among business practitioners. Sex moderates the effect of gender on CMD, but only indirectly. Our research also reveals that education plays a significant moderating role in the relationship between gender and moral reasoning. In addition, age has a significant direct effect on CMD scores of business practitioners. (shrink)