No abstract

This paper starts with an evaluation of three common arguments against pluralism in economics: (1) the claim that economics is already pluralist, (2) the argument that if there was the need for greater plurality, it would emerge on its own, and (3) the assertion that pluralism means 'anything goes' and is, thus, unscientific. Pluralist responses to all three arguments are summarized. The third argument is shown to relate to a greater challenge for pluralism: an epistemological trade-off between diversity and consensus that suggests moving from a discussion about 'pros' and 'cons' towards a discussion about the adequate degree of plurality. The paper shows how the trade-off originates from two main challenges: the need to derive adequate quality criteria for a pluralist economics, and the necessity to propose strategies that facilitate the communication across different research programs. It concludes with some strategies to meet these challenges.

No abstract