Political and Social Economics: Beyond Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

by: Robert Gassler

Forum for Social Economics, Vol. 36, No. 2. (3 October 2007), pp. 109-125.

View FullText article

Springer (DOI)

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

heraclitus

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

economics, heterodox

Abstract

Abstract Economists face at least two problems when they try to go interdisciplinary. One is how to adapt their theory where the original set of assumptions may fail to apply. This is a particular problem for economists who carry the “default” neoclassical model around in their heads. This paper outlines a map for keeping track of assumptions when doing interdisciplinary work. A second problem is how to take a theory designed for one discipline and turn it into something intelligible to practitioners of another. One needs a common language, and it is argued that general systems theory might help, even though it is not a complete language. The map proposed here provides a unified way to compare and contrast the approaches of different orthodox and heterodox traditions and better see what problems they are most suited to addressing.

@article{citeulike:2746270, abstract = {Abstract\ \ Economists face at least two problems when they try to go interdisciplinary. One is how to adapt their theory where the original set of assumptions may fail to apply. This is a particular problem for economists who carry the “default” neoclassical model around in their heads. This paper outlines a map for keeping track of assumptions when doing interdisciplinary work. A second problem is how to take a theory designed for one discipline and turn it into something intelligible to practitioners of another. One needs a common language, and it is argued that general systems theory might help, even though it is not a complete language. The map proposed here provides a unified way to compare and contrast the approaches of different orthodox and heterodox traditions and better see what problems they are most suited to addressing.}, author = {Gassler, Robert }, citeulike-article-id = {2746270}, doi = {10.1007/s12143-007-9006-1}, journal = {Forum for Social Economics}, keywords = {economics, heterodox}, month = {October}, number = {2}, pages = {109--125}, posted-at = {2008-05-02 17:52:02}, priority = {0}, title = {Political and Social Economics: Beyond Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12143-007-9006-1}, volume = {36}, year = {2007} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:2746270 L3 - citeulike-article-id:2746270 TI - Political and Social Economics: Beyond Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy JF - Forum for Social Economics VL - 36 IS - 2 SP - 109 EP - 125 N2 - Abstract  Economists face at least two problems when they try to go interdisciplinary. One is how to adapt their theory where the original set of assumptions may fail to apply. This is a particular problem for economists who carry the “default” neoclassical model around in their heads. This paper outlines a map for keeping track of assumptions when doing interdisciplinary work. A second problem is how to take a theory designed for one discipline and turn it into something intelligible to practitioners of another. One needs a common language, and it is argued that general systems theory might help, even though it is not a complete language. The map proposed here provides a unified way to compare and contrast the approaches of different orthodox and heterodox traditions and better see what problems they are most suited to addressing. KW - economics KW - heterodox AU - Gassler, Robert PY - 2007/10/03/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12143-007-9006-1 ER -

RIS BibTeX