Review by Hannes Ingo Torbohm
“…the market system has failed to provide any solutions during the [2008 & Covid crises] – its weaknesses have been exposed for all to see and the absolute necessity of government intervention on an unprecedented scale has been apparent. A post-Crisis return to a misplaced faith in the so-called ‘efficient markets hypothesis’ would merely be the result of unjustified inertia on the part of the economics profession… undergirded by ideology not evidence.” (Potts and Armstrong, 2021, p.xxv)[1]
Phil Armstrong’s Can heterodox economics make a difference? is an exemplary case study for a wish long-held for heterodox economics.[2] Armstrong’s recent contributions have revolved around the idea that if only the disparate schools of heterodoxy could work together then it would be much easier to make the case that the inertia of the mainstream could be stopped (Armstrong, 2018). This dream of the heterodox scholar would require a meeting of minds, a common framework, and a set of goals that allowed for an increased pluralism in our economic space. It would be a requirement to build an academy that could learn from difference, produce in divergent ways, and always have at base an agreement on what exists (Armstrong, 2015). This dream is, however, a mirage of sorts, which is revealed to the reader as they begin the path through these interviews conducted by Armstrong.
Armstrong’s text is the expression of this dream of the heterodox space. His own work in recent years has proposed a “heterodox paradigm” where differing schools, if only they would accept MMT’s position on money and government spending, could be brought together (Armstrong, 2018). From this position it would be possible, so argues Armstrong, to present a competing narrative to the mainstream with a wide variety of pluralistic positions on display. Thus, ending a hegemony by presenting a hegemony of MMT’s ontology. I wish to be clear that I am deeply sympathetic to this idea and am a proponent of a version of it myself, but I fear it is less than plausible.
Armstrong’s fact-finding volume of this position is the result of his PhD: a comprehensive list of interviews. The importance of this text should not be understated, it is the expression and realisation of collaboration between different schools on a singular venture. Armstrong is presenting, in rough, the form that his paradigm could take – but unfortunately the text also reveals the primary issue with the theory. Different schools are often disparate because they disagree. However, one should not fear that the dream is only a mirage, but rather take the time to breathe in this project – and the ways in which it allows these scholars to present commonality. In this way, this volume adds to the same debate that Fullbrook’s recent works have, however, Armstrong’s method of contributing to the debate is different. This is not an assessment of the “absence of academic freedom” in and of itself, but a discourse with disparate voices in which they are given space to present their own ideas (Armstrong, 2020, p.3). As Armstrong puts it, the text is an attempt to grapple with the “sociology of the economics profession.” (Armstrong, 2020, p.3)
The volume itself is essentially broken into 3 parts. The first is the interviews from 2018 consisting of discussions with specialists in different fields, that discuss their own relations to their discipline, money, credit, mathematics, and their view of the heterodox space. The second round contains extended interviews from 2019 with methodology specialists – the questions begin identically but extend to allow increased musings on the role of heterodoxy and methodology. The third section is non-contiguous, and bookends the list of interviews: this is the theories of Armstrong himself. We are given Armstrong’s own argument and his explanation for the impetus of questioning for the interviews themselves (and Armstrong’s primary influence, Warren Mosler’s MMT white paper) (Mosler, 2020, pp.461-465).
My exploration of this volume will focus on the interviews as they represent the core of the text. Firstly, I will take some interviews from the first round and consider the style of interview, and how effective Armstrong’s interviews are. Secondly, I will take some of the follow-up interviews from round two and focus on how Armstrong’s own questioning develops to express the issues with his position in a holistic and refreshingly honest manner. I want to tackle this work in the air in which it asks us to think. Rather than focusing on the questioner, I instead want to focus on the ideas and conceptions as they appear before the reader in the volume.
First Round: Armstrong’s Style
In discussing the first round of interviews I want to discuss form as well as substance. I will break apart the nature of Armstrong’s questioning, how it sets up discussion, and how the conversational style of the interviews is an immense strength to the volume. I will then explore how in a few places there is space for a little more depth before discussing the issues with aligning heterodox economics through discussing the responses of certain contributors. The general flow of the questions is designed to draw out the perspectives of the interlocutors before asking them about a possible affinity with MMT – and thus by implication if it would be possible to get them to agree to work together following an MMT lens.
Armstrong reaches the core perspectives of each scholar quickly. The difficulty for Armstrong is not necessarily getting the interviews with these scholars, but rather displaying the important points made in an intelligible way. One must note therefore an excellent opening to each interview through the set questions. By asking the following two questions:
“Which field(s) of economics do you consider to be your specialism?” followed by “What do you consider to be the main issues relating to your field?” (Armstrong, 2021, p.456)
The reader, therefore, gets not a description of who the person is, or why they should pay attention; rather, the scholar has the opportunity to explain their work in their own words. Biographies have been assembled, but they are not present above each scholar. This allows Armstrong to not only ingratiate the reader, but also provides a framework for subsequent questioning.
The importance of these opening questions is clearly displayed in the opening of the very first interview. Professor Victoria Chick notes an interest in “Money, Keynes and methodology.” (Chick & Armstrong, 2021, p.7) Then Armstrong’s second question elicits an in-depth response about the history of Keynesian heterodox economics with a personal note that “it’s basically a question of thinking about the way the economy has changed and the fact that economic theory is always context-dependent.” (Chick & Armstrong, 2021, p.7) Armstrong thus has Chick explain her own thesis and work. We are introduced to this scholar on their terms, and as such we do not have to question Armstrong’s portrayal of a thinker. Rather when the more important discussions arise, we have an excellent grasp on what they think.
These opening remarks however also convey a great deal of detail even when the scholar does not supply a grand quantity of information. Professor Charles Goodhart CBE, FBA only answers in short sentences to these opening questions. To quote his full answers:
A1 – “Central Banking, Monetary policy, financial regulation and monetary economics more widely.” (Goodhart & Armstrong, 2021, p.99)
A2 – “What monetary policy should be, how it should be made, how it works, and what kind of financial regulation should be applied, particularly within the banking system.” (Goodhart & Armstrong, 2021, p.99)
From these responses, we not only have a clear understanding of what Goodhart’s interests are, but also how those specialisms interrelate into a comprehensive worldview. Due to this rendering of Goodhart’s perspective, we thus have all the information required to assess his more extensive claims about his own work. To quote a later section:
“The point that I’m trying to make is that the bank never creates money by itself; it can only do so in negotiation and discussion with its clients… The bank can’t create money if the borrower isn’t there.” (Goodhart & Armstrong, 2021, p.100)
Due to Armstrong’s opening, we not only grasp the ways in which Goodhart is interested in monetary policy, but also how the interrelatedness seen above comes into effect. Goodhart is interested in regulation due to his perspective on the role of the client, who will have to choose to enter into the money creating contractual arrangement with the bank. Thus, Armstrong’s questioning not only allows us to view a scholar from their own perspective, but it also sets the stage for us comprehending their answers on more complex topics and ideas. The reader is thus invited into the discourse, and as such can find the answers intelligible throughout.
It should also be expressed that the conversational style Armstrong uses to adapt his questions allows the interviewee to express their opinions. Chick is given the space to express her own perspectives on the breakdown between mainstream and heterodox thinkers. As she noted mainstream economics thinks differently, and as such heterodox scholars view many mainstream ideas as “absurd idealisations, to which the economy does not conform.” (Chick & Armstrong, 2021, p.11) As she explains, attempts to get conversations going is, “…a bit like asking directions to somewhere and getting the reply, ‘I wouldn’t start from here.’” (Chick & Armstrong, 2021, p.11) Armstrong follows this thread, which reveals that Chick felt that in her earlier career many approaches “were tolerated” but now: “They wouldn’t dream of working with me. They wouldn’t know how, and I would know how to work with them, because we don’t share anything, really.” (Chick & Armstrong, 2021, p.12) This willingness to follow the more conversational aspects of his interviews allows the readers to perceive a wider range of not only the Professors’ perspectives, but also the very issues that Armstrong is attempting to reveal.
However, sometimes conversations do not go as far as they perhaps could. It is clear in the discussion with Professor William Mitchell that the questions get in the way of the flow of the discussion somewhat. Armstrong asks Mitchell about his perspective on state and credit theories of money. Mitchell’s response is to claim that these are “two paths” which are “not incompatible in any way, they lead you to have different emphases.” (Mitchell & Armstrong, 2021, p.156) As such Mitchell has let us know his perspective on monetary ontology, but from here Armstrong has two follow up questions on money’s reality that Mitchell has already answered. Armstrong does ask the first, which Mitchell says he has already answered, and then Armstrong must skip the next question before moving the conversation onwards (Mitchell & Armstrong, 2021, p.156). This was always bound to be an issue with a pre-set list of questions, and in most circumstances, to Armstrong’s credit, the issue does not present due to a fluid adjusting of the questions to follow or accentuate the discourse. However, the questions are to a degree inflexible, and this can cause issues. I should explain that Armstrong does let his speakers know this repeatedly throughout, and often will let the interviewee know how the questions will change and the intended emphasis, but the issue does remain in a few places. This is perhaps caused by the questions seeming to fit a non-MMT interlocutor, and as such they bring out the differences from an MMT perspective (which Armstrong has) better than they fit one of the founding fathers of MMT in Mitchell.
Another issue with the questioning is that sometimes the scholar does not answer them in much depth – or will focus on other points from previous questions. Professor Tim Congdon CBE is asked about the possibility of heterodox schools and theories replacing mainstream economics. Congdon responds not by considering the question, but by exploring how his work and passion is about the flow of money in an economy. He also devotes some considerable time to exploring how his perspective differs from the mainstream before admitting: “I apologise – I haven’t answered your question. But no, I do not think heterodox ideas will drive policy-making a decade or two from now. My hope is that we see a return to traditional monetary economics.” (Congdon & Armstrong, 2021, p.35) Armstrong chooses against prompting Congdon to develop his reasoning beyond this short summation of a position, instead choosing to move onto questions about MMT. This seems like a missed opportunity to get a comprehensive answer to the original question.
Armstrong has an intent willingness to follow a thread even when it might reveal deep issues for any attempt to build a heterodox paradigm. As I have discussed the questions aim to display the perspectives of the scholars and then discussing if it is possible to find any paradigm under MMT itself. One revealed issue with the text is not the oft predicted reticence to this idea from other schools, but rather the animosity that is shared between different heterodox camps. This is not a great surprise to any reader who knows the thinkers and lives in this space, but at the same time it reveals the extent of the issue. As Mitchell claims, “…the mainstream pull down anything that’s not the mainstream, and the heterodox fights among itself.” (Mitchell & Armstrong, 2021, p.158) The core issue with finding any affinity is the community itself as it is “an extremely split, faction-oriented” group of thinkers (Mitchell & Armstrong, 2021, p.158). Thus, those who want to find any willingness to bring others together need to find a method of promoting the co-operation between these groups.
Interestingly the scholars who in interviews discuss this issue also contribute to it. It is a testament to the willingness to let scholars develop their own points that Mitchell in his interview can claim the following:
“The point I’m making is the Marxists are just lost, I think the heterodox side of economics are completely waylaid by postmodernism. They’ve started to get completely obsessed with identity – ethnicity, gender, sexuality – all of that identity stuff, and abandoned any concept of class, and really gone down the plughole, essentially, they’ve just lost the plot.” (Mitchell & Armstrong, 2021, p.158)
To build any heterodox paradigm, as Armstrong wishes to do, there must be an openness to other perspectives. However, this passage does not reveal any engagement with those who are attacked, nor names or positions that are in need of critique. It is an issue with the interview that there is not the space to devote to this critique, and as such offer the reader a space to make up their own mind. The issue revealed is clear: it is not just other schools that might have to find an affinity with MMT, but MMT must be open to letting these other schools have their own outlooks within any possible future paradigm. It is of course not the space of an interview volume for Armstrong to let us know his own resolution to this issue – I am sure this will come in future works. It is a great testament to the volume that these issues are not only revealed, but also expressed in the words of the individual scholars. There is no attempt to hide the difficulties, the text instead feels like an excellent fact-finding mission to unveil the issues with moving forwards.
To conclude the first section. There are some issues with the ability to follow points, however, there is an excellent expression of scholars’ views and the issues that are unveiled. Armstrong’s text develops the perspectives of a wide range of scholars, his conversational style is a benefit for the reader and despite some issues, he never shies away from exploring the positives and negatives for his own project.
Second Round: The building of a paradigm.
The distinct difference between the first and second round of questioning is the increased time Armstrong has given himself to delve deeper into the main thesis of the text. As these interviews search for answers to the possibility of heterodox economics making a difference, these questions aim to promote more explicitly the possibility of working together. This provides the reader with a more comprehensive set of answers, but it also provides more time to consider the issues raised in the first round of questioning. To explore this, I aim to delve into the interviews with Ferguson, Keen and Lawson as these best demonstrate the new depth Armstrong can elicit.
Armstrong has more time to get into increased detail. This is most clear with Professor Scott Ferguson as Armstrong has the space to ask about possible paradigms. Ferguson is clear that “…in the broader economic conversation, we are in a ‘paradigm crisis’ which means that what counts as viable discourse and is able to set the terms of the debate is up for grabs again.” (Ferguson & Armstrong, 2021, p.324) Thus, Ferguson has pre-empted Armstrong’s perspective and this allows Armstrong the space to tailor his questioning to work out what the situation is. Armstrong thus asks if, although Ferguson is coming from another perspective, it is possible to see a heterodox paradigm of some form. The response is as follows:
“I would say heterodoxy can be described as a paradigm and, as a paradigm those working within it share certain assumptions – refusing neutrality, refusing equilibrium, refusing disembodied relation. The work of a heterodox paradigm either pays lip service to or, in actuality, affirms history and involves thinking about economics in terms of power; it’s hard for me to imagine any heterodox economist that doesn’t reckon with power in one way or another whether that’s in terms of competition, class conflict or even entrenched oil interests!” (Ferguson & Armstrong, 2021, p.325)
Therefore, in Ferguson, Armstrong finds the very method of paradigm building his work is searching for. However, it cannot go unnoticed that here we find expressed some of the ideas that Mitchell argued against, and thus the issues with the paradigm are then expressed in a comprehensive depth. This argument relies on the perception of power dynamics that complements, or even starts discussions, of identity. This very debate is one that others who we might consider heterodox might take issue with.
Ferguson explores precisely how any heterodox paradigm building exercise must occur. Armstrong asks what key things economists should do next, and Ferguson is clear in response: institution building. He presents a list of three distinct requirements for forward motion:
First, “building institutions, publishing organs, etc.”;
Second, “the willingness of funders to support such efforts”;
Third, “broad shifting political and social circumstances.” (Ferguson & Armstrong, 2021, p.326)
This presents the most comprehensive road map within the volume for how heterodoxy must move forwards. The first is something heterodox scholars have already done for themselves; this review itself is published by GIMMS, a great example of this very form of institution building.[3] There are also campaigns for heterodox economics that have gained steam in recent years.[4] The second and third objectives are the points of concern. To persuade funders to see the benefits of heterodoxy there needs to be an acceptance of the ideas presented by the non-mainstream, however, this requires the large social shift in society to begin with. Thus, heterodoxy is caught in an odd place, where it can build environments for itself but can never give to itself the legitimacy the mainstream automatically assumes. Or as Ferguson puts it, “I think there’s certainly a path to heterodoxy eventually overtaking the orthodoxy, but I would never predict that it necessarily will.” (Ferguson & Armstrong, 2021, p.326)
This concern for the future of any heterodox shared space, or paradigm, is also noted by Professor Steve Keen. Keen states that, “There’s a lack of consistency in [the space between Marxists and Austrian school thinkers] where I’d like to see an alternative theory of value evolve that would actually bring those together, but it certainly hasn’t happened yet. The older I get, the more I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime.” (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, p.357) This is a direct response to a question on if it is possible to imagine heterodox schools as complementary or compatible. Thus, Keen is clear that there are deep-rooted philosophical difficulties with finding any allegiance between the possible members of any heterodox paradigm. The wider sense that this project itself requires a lot of intent work is again discussed at length.
Furthermore, Keen discusses the difficulties with being considered heterodox at all. As he expresses,
“at the university itself, it has actually made heterodoxy more of a threatened species. The neoclassicals used to just basically ignore characters like me – say, ‘hi; to you in the mail room, go and have coffee with someone else and laugh about that nutter down the road who thinks that capitalism’s unstable. After capitalism proved itself to be unstable it was a case of: ‘Where’s that bastard who said it was and made a fool of all of us?’” (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, p.358)
Keen does note that things look better if you consider the “policy sphere” due to some “soul searching” at central banks, however this does not make life easier for the developing of a heterodox paradigm (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, p.358). To build a future that can encompass those who do not directly conform, there must be institutions to teach these individuals, and it is that which makes Keen’s observations about the state of modern academia really concerning. The picture Armstrong’s interviews build is thus deeply concerned with both sides of the picture, the building of a future, and the deep concern heterodoxy must have for its development.
Professor Tony Lawson complements Keen’s analysis with his own answers revealing the difficulties of academic life for heterodox scholars. Lawson discusses the state of being “pushed out” of academia and leaving individuals like himself (who was a professor at Cambridge University as a heterodox thinker) to become “public enemy no. 1.” (Lawson & Armstrong, 2021, p.377) Lawson expresses the nature of anxiety felt by mainstream economists, “After experiencing failure after failure with their mathematical modelling endeavour they’ve become more insecure and more defensive. So, I am ever more blatantly perceived as ‘the enemy’ and I have had continual opposition and faced restrictions.” (Lawson & Armstrong, 2021, p.377) Lawson thus not only shares Keen’s experience but explores precisely why mainstream economics has become this way. It is not just a blind hatred of being proved wrong, as Keen suggests, but also an anxiety at their own failings. These interviews are thus crucial reading for any heterodox scholar, as they explore the multifaceted issues the mainstream has with heterodoxy at large.
Lawson provides one of the most comprehensive explorations of the heterodox/mainstream divide present in the volume. As he elucidates:
“I do believe that economics is made up of different projects – amongst other things – and people pursuing them (small communities) call themselves Institutionalists, Post-Keynesians, Marxists, feminists etc., all of which tend to self-identify as heterodox, whether or not they define the term.” (Lawson & Armstrong, 2021, p.374)
In this conception, heterodoxy itself is understood as a loose self-identity. This explains Keen’s discussion of the difficulties getting these scholars to align, and thus grants an ever-richer perspective on the issues of any heterodox paradigm. However, Lawson does offer a possible opening for a development of such a space in non-mainstream circles when he notes that “pluralism is important, or historically has been, for heterodoxy.” (Lawson & Armstrong, 2021, p.375) It thus might be possible to align disparate scholars if one can conceive of a pluralistic space, or institution, where alternate voices are not just considered but celebrated.
Keen also expresses this point, although he himself proposes a more political or practical use of this potential. As he explains,
“The pluralism in physics is specialisations – so you’ll have some people working in fluid dynamics, somebody else working in quantum mechanics, another person working in statistical mechanics, others in nuclear physics. You get a huge range of specialisations but they all share a common philosophical starting point, and that’s the nature of pluralism in physics. I’d rather get that sort of pluralism in the long term, but in the short term you need pluralism to pull people together, so the key stuff that is left out by one paradigm can be suggested by another.” (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, pp.365-6)[5]
Thus, Keen agrees with a political need for pluralism, it can open the door to some heterodox schools reaching a level of ascendancy, perhaps even academic recognition. However, this need is not philosophical, or imbedded as a necessity in his worldview, rather it is a political means to an end.[6] For Keen, the aim is to create a new mainstream, one that perhaps has different core values but represents the same sort of academic dominance. It is key that Lawson noted that the pluralistic nature of heterodoxy has “historically” been of import, perhaps suggesting that in the future this might not be the case. However, one cannot imagine how Lawson and Keen, who openly disagree with each other in this volume unprompted by Armstrong, could be conceived of as part of the same ascendant mainstream replacement.[7]
It is worth noting however that Keen seems to believe that certain MMTers might be the problem. I mentioned at the opening that Armstrong is coming from an explicitly MMT background, but Keen in his interview does note that the wider discourse surrounding MMT is unhelpful for building the paradigm that the book is exploring. Keen discusses a “single-minded” attitude matched with a “take no prisoners” style of discourse, particularly on Twitter (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, p.363). As Keen claims, “That does not go down as well when you’re having an academic debate.” (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, p.363) Keen does not mince words, and names “Mitchell, Wray and Mosler” as the problem leaders of the movement that make it difficult to find pluralistic possibilities in MMT spaces (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, p.363). Despite this Keen also names scholars with a more “personable attitude”, but this notes the requirement for openness at home should be a beginning to building heterodoxy’s potential paradigm (Keen & Armstrong, 2021, p.364). Without a willingness of other schools to meet MMT at the table this will not be possible. It should be noted that Keen was clear that building a paradigm for him would be a replacing of other schools and I struggle to believe it would be possible to find accord given that promise either.
Armstrong clearly has built upon the questions raised in the first round and excellently been more willing to ask scholars more direct questions about the issues of paradigm building. We thus see the most comprehensive discussions of this topic in the second round, but the theme of general discord in economic academic debates is also replicated. Thus, we not only get a more holistic impression of the wider context, but also a clearer road map of what is to come.
Moving Forwards
To conclude, it is clear that Armstrong has used this volume as an excellent fact-finding mission for the issues of heterodoxy at large. His own perspective of MMT is present, and does inform the volume, but I would call this text required reading for anyone who wants to assess the issues faced by alternate schools. This volume really represents the starting point of any possible exploration into building a future for heterodoxy.
There is an impressive willingness by Armstrong to represent the very issues his own worldview faces in stark detail. Throughout this review, I have aimed to present a taste of what is present in the volume, but there are many spectacular interviews I was unable to even discuss. Furthermore, if one is a student of this discipline, the range of views presented in full is invaluable. I cannot recommend this text more.
Armstrong aimed to explore,
“…whether it is feasible that heterodox economics, in any form, might mount a challenge to the mainstream paradigm in the foreseeable future and to assess the extent to which the respondents consider different heterodox schools are characterised by commonality and complementarity rather than being adversarial.” (Armstong, 2020, pp.3-4)
This volume succeeds in this mission statement of discovery and in the process marks the position from which all who wish, as Armstrong does, to found a heterodox paradigm must start. The primary issue is where those who believe in a paradigm go from here, and what they choose to do next. It will inevitably be hard for Armstrong to build a comprehensive route from here, however recent papers, lectures, and conference appearances reveal that he is fully aware of the task ahead. To anyone wishing to follow Armstrong, here is the challenge, and these are the people you must convince.
References:
Main volume:
- Armstrong, P. (2020) Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham).
Interviews Referenced from that volume:
- Chick, V & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Professor Victoria Chick”. In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.7-24
- Congdon, T & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Professor Tim Congdon CBE. In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.25-45
- Fergurson, S. & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Professor Scott Ferguson” In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.316-326
- Goodhart, C. & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Professor Charles Goodhart CBE, FBA”. In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.99-108
- Keen, S. & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Professor Steve Keen” In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.353-369
- Lawson, T. & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Professor Tony Lawson”. In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.370-391
- Mitchell, W. & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Professor William (Bill) Mitchell”. In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.152-164
- Mosler, W. (2020) “Appendix 2: White Paper: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)”. In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.461-465
- Potts, N. & Armstrong, P. (2020) “Preface” In Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference? Conversations with Key Thinkers, (P. Armstrong. Ed.) (Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham). pp.xxiii-xxx
Other Cited works:
- Aldred, J. (2019) Licence to be Bad: How Economics Corrupted Us, (Allen Lane: Milton Keynes).
- Armstrong, P. (2015) Heterodox Views of Money and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), (Moslereconomics.com: http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/Money-and-MMT.pdf)
- Armstrong, P. (2018) Modern Monetary Theory and a Heterodox Alternative Paradigm, (GIMMS: https://gimms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Modern-Monetary-Theory-and-a-Heterodox-Alternative-Paradigm-Phil-Armstrong.pdf)
- Fullbrook, E. (2016) Narrative Fixation in Economics. (College Publications (World Economics Association): London).
[1] References from the volume that are Armstrong’s perspective will bear his name alone, but if it is another scholar’s transcribed words then that scholar will appear first with Armstrong’s name second. However, this reference is from the Preface written by Armstrong and Potts, and thus both names appear.
[2] Recent discussions of this idea can be found in (E. Fullbrook, 2016).
[3] GIMMS or The Grower Initiative of Modern Money Studies can be found at: https://gimms.org.uk/
[4] Rethinking Economics would be an example of this, which is at: https://www.rethinkeconomics.org/
[5] Interestingly the issue of pluralism in science is the same that Fullbrook discusses in his text on this matter. It is unclear if Keen is referencing the ongoing debate about how to build pluralism or if this is just a similarity. Nevertheless, Fullbrook’s discussion of this same issue is at: (Fullbrook, 2016, pp.65-77).
[6] It should be noted that it being called political here is not a critique of what Keen is trying to present. It is well known that the Mont Pèlerin Society aimed to influence wider economic debate with their own economic theories, which have deeply impacted the mainstream, as an explicitly political aim. For context of that society, see: (Aldred, 2019, p.3-9). Political beliefs and economics are not separate but deeply intertwined and always have been. It is thus not a critique, but a recognition of emphasis.
[7] It is not the space of this review to explore the disagreement that appears between these scholars, and if Armstrong had prompted it, and followed the point, it might have been a distraction from the individuals’ own perspective. The disagreement is surrounding the use of mathematical models. It is not clear if Lawson intends to critique Keen, but he does reference him and note a disagreement in heterodox scholars who use modelling (Lawson & Armstrong, 2020, p.387-389). Keen references in the interview the creation of the “Minsky software package” which is an attempt to mathematically simulate an economy (Keen & Armstrong, 2020, p.353). However it is on the following page where Keen notes his entire world view is anathema to anything Lawson could accept, and thus he states, “Tony [Lawson] is completely against mathematics, and I think that’s fallacious, because what he says about mathematics applies to linear systems and it doesn’t apply to nonlinear systems.” (Keen & Armstrong, 2020, p.354)