Is economics scientific discipline loyal to its own starting points and fundamental principles?

Abstract

The article argues that the economic scientific community, by disregarding the importance of freedom which was essential for its emancipation and market as its key criterion of choice, is disloyal to its own starting points and fundamental principles. By dictating strict methodological rules the neoclassical school has consolidated its monopoly position within economics. The article highlights that this methodological normativism is substantially reducing the diversity of methodological approaches and that such restriction of freedom has become a source of subordination within economic community. The author argues that today a new emancipation is needed, with a strong emphasis on the freedom to forge new approaches and acute awareness of the fact that no theoretical platform can persist without adequate demand for its findings in the science market.

Poverty and Economic Growth: A Review

“…So, for a better understanding of the role of income distribution in the process of development, emphasis should be put on "quality of growth" or a desired pattern of growth. Kralješević (2014) argues that economists have been disloyal to the fundamental starting points and principles, by disregarding the importance of freedom which was essential for its emancipation and market as its key criterion of choice. Easterley and Serven (2003) stress how the region's wide gaps in infrastructure implied significant lost opportunities in growth and welfare.…”

What kind of pluralism do we need in economics?

“…We can define four such paradigmatic periods in the history of economic thought (Kešeljević, 2014(Kešeljević, , 2020: Classical political economy (1776-1890), Marshallian economics (1890-1936), Keynesian economics (1936-1970s) and neoclassical economics (1970s onwards). These revolutionary periods are often identified with the publications of the founders of each approach: The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (1976), Principles of Economics by Alfred Marshall (1890), The General Theory by John Maynard Keynes (1936) and the collection of papers by Thomas Sargent and Robert Lucas published as Rational Expectations and Econometric Practise (1981).…”

“…Second, as consensus within orthodox economics today is based on power, dogmatism, intolerance and other such restrictions of academic freedom have become a source of subordination within the economic community (Kešeljević, 2014;Heise 2017;Freeman, 2009;Lee, 2009). The inability to pluralistically express dissent leads to intellectual imbecility (McCloskey, 1983), intellectual slavery (Eichner, 1983;Kristensen, 2001), ideological conduct (Calas & Smircich, 1999) and reduced creative thinking (Dutt, 2011).…”

“…Gräbner and Strunk (2020) argued that the market for economic ideas can serve as a selection machine only when we do not have structural obstacles that hinder alternative approaches. Kešeljević (2014) argued that no theoretical platform can persist in the long run without sufficient demand (e.g., from academics or policy makers) for its findings in the science market. The legitimacy of economics does not lie within monism and the exclusion of others, but in the struggle between paradigms competing for customers in the science market, solving the actual problems of our time.…”