Phil Armstrong
‘It’s the same each time with progress,
First, they ignore you,
Then they say you’re mad,
Then Dangerous,
And then there’s a pause,
And then you can’t find anyone who disagrees with you’
Tony Benn
1. Introduction: The Hegemony of Mainstream Economics and how they can retain it.
Thomas Kuhn contended that most scientific activity should be conceptualised as puzzle-solving within a given paradigm (which he called ‘normal science’). Fundamental questions would need to be answered in order to construct the paradigm (or disciplinary matrix) and this, in turn, would act as a precursor to the research process. ‘Effective research scarcely begins before a scientific community thinks it has acquired firm answers to questions like the following: What are the fundamental entities of which the universe is composed? How do these interact with each other and with the senses? What questions may legitimately be asked about such entities and what techniques are employed in seeking solutions?’ (Kuhn 2012 [1962]: 4-5).
In the case of mainstream economics (I define mainstream economics – as applied to macroeconomics – here as New Consensus Macroeconomics [NCM [1] ] a development within the broad church of neoclassical economics), the ‘fundamental entities’ are the individual, expected utility-maximising agents, interacting with each other in a universal market form. Formal deductivist reasoning is required, underpinned by ubiquitous mathematics. General equilibrium analysis, particularly DSGE models, provide the structure within which to frame questions and develop solutions. Once economists are established as practitioners within NCM, they become comfortable ‘talking the common language’ of the paradigm, even if they are unaware of all the rules of the game; the apparent coherence of the paradigm enables them to determine research tasks, confident in the knowledge that their colleagues, operating within the same tradition, even if they do not agree with the conclusions, will recognise the legitimacy of the exercise, as ‘normal science’ (Armstrong 2018).
‘Theory-ladenness’ is critical; the question to be answered presupposes the existence of the paradigm and the theories it contains. Discrepancies are commonplace and may well generate discussions within the profession. Failure to resolve stubborn problems may well frustrate scientists but they are quite likely to be patient and may well content themselves with other aspects of normal science in the meantime. Unexpected empirical results need not lead to paradigm overthrow, indeed, if an ‘anomaly’, or result inconsistent with the expectations of theory, were to be discovered, it would usually be seen as the fault of the scientist or the scientist’s facilities rather than the paradigm itself (Hands 2001: 101-2). Revolutions in science are possible but they require a significant accumulation of contradictory empirical findings, often requiring an extended period of time. Kuhn notes the significance of ‘crisis’; a period characterised by the existence of just such a body of evidence contrary to the predictions of the established theory. It is this crisis which might lead to the overthrow of the paradigm and its replacement with an alternative. However, Kuhn notes that this is no simple process. For Kuhn, scientists do not just “see” they “see as” and it is their shared conceptual framework that determines what is seen as what. The paradigm provides the lens, or interpretative framework, by which various aspects of the world are observed (Armstrong 2020b). Kuhn stresses that simple falsification of a theory is not enough. A weight of evidence might cause a paradigm to be relinquished but this only occurs when a superior alternative is available and the body of support for the new theory is great enough to counteract scientists’ inclinations to rely on ad hoc modifications to protect the status quo provided by the original paradigm.
The case of economics, in particular the apparent resilience of NCM in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, provides an interesting case study, illustrating this essentially defensive ‘modification’ process in practice. Despite the impact on their prestige, NCM economists remained optimistic about the survival chances of their approach; for them, all that was needed was ad hoc modification to enrich their theory, which although challenging, was regarded well within their compass (Pedrosa and Farhi 2015). A key strength of the NCM position from a Kuhnian standpoint, is the apparent lack of realistic opposition. Their use of both rational expectations and representative agents combined with their acknowledgement of market frictions gives them a significant advantage over alternative or heterodox schools which reject this approach. The latter are placed at a significant disadvantage given the current structure of the economics academy which is structured in a way which suppresses academic freedom (Bilgrami 2015) and the political structure that both supports mainstream thinking and is, in turn, supported by it (Chernomas and Hudson 2017). Provided New Keynesians are sufficiently open to modifying their models, especially with regard to accepting the non-neutral nature of the financial system, their position seems secure.
Leading proponents of New Keynesianism have largely retained their status and remain eager to support the idea that the consensus still exists despite the crisis. This gathering of their wagons around NCM, whilst rejecting the claims of alternatives, is critical as a means to bolster the status of economics as a relatively mature science which has made and continues to make progress even in the face of apparent adversity.
2. A Brief Assessment of the Performance of Mainstream Economics
Buiter (2009, parentheses in the original) notes, ‘Most mainstream macroeconomic theoretical innovations since the 1970s (the New Classical rational expectations revolution associated with such names as Robert E. Lucas Jr., Edward Prescott, Thomas Sargent, Robert Barro etc, and the New Keynesian theorizing of Michael Woodford and many others) have turned out to be self-referential, inward-looking distractions at best. Research tended to be motivated by the internal logic, intellectual sunk capital and aesthetic puzzles of established research programmes rather than by a powerful desire to understand how the economy works – let alone how the economy works during times of stress and financial instability. So, the economics profession was caught unprepared when the crisis struck.’
Lawson (quoted in Armstrong 2020: 370). provides a damning indictment of mainstream economics – one which stretches back a long way, “For the last sixty years or more economists have chosen their method – mathematical modelling — in advance of forming their questions. They don’t ask the question ‘what’s the nature of the task or problem or context?’ because they’ve determined the tool to be employed in advance. So, with the rise of mathematical modelling, we find a decline of explicit ontological reasoning, resulting, of course, in the increasing explanatory failures of the discipline”. Lawson (quoted in Armstrong 2020: 376) also highlights the mainstream’s unwillingness to engage, a point to which I will return later, “Over the years I have found that a characteristic of modellers is that they have no idea of how to defend what they do, so they don’t try! Or, if they do try to justify what they do, they use platitudes like, ‘it’s scientific’ or ‘it’s rigorous’ or even ‘it’s just the way we do it.’”
Lawson argues that the crisis merely highlighted the already embedded weaknesses of mainstream economics, ‘The problem didn’t start with the 2007 crisis; the crisis made no relevant difference to the discipline. What the crisis did was encourage people like the queen to make comments on the state of the discipline; or, more generally, it brought to the attention of the general public the fact that most modern academic economists have almost nothing of value to say. I think that’s the difference. Economists only felt the need to say something, to apologise – or some did – for not having predicted the crisis. What they should have said is that prediction is impossible anyway, given the nature of social reality, and we apologise for wasting so many resources on modelling and pretending to predict when instead we should have been using methods of explanation; but they didn’t go there’ (Lawson quoted in Armstrong 2020: 379).
For Lawson, mainstream economists’ reliance upon methodological individualism – an ‘atomistic’ view of the world rather than a realist social ontology – necessarily results in a failure to shed any light on the real world, “‘My position is that mathematical modelling is irrelevant to the world… its set of ontological presuppositions, the vision that necessarily underpins their modelling, is of a world of isolated atoms, of factors that ‘under conditions x, always do y’. Social reality is the opposite, everything is constituted through relations – you don’t have a teacher without a student or manufacturing without money and so on. Everything is a process so it’s quite different [in the real world]. The same [atomistic] assumptions underpin [mainstream] forecasting models but in reality, we can’t forecast or control the future; everything’s changing!’” (Lawson quoted in Armstrong 2020: 383, parentheses added).
3. The Mainstream attitude to alternative approaches
Fred Lee was a leading advocate of heterodox economics, the founder of the Association for Heterodox Economics and both a vehement and eloquent critic of mainstream economics. He contrasts the methodology of mainstream economics – methodological individualism – with the way its actual work is socially organised (Lee 2009: 14). He stresses that the practice of neoclassical economics is organised in a hierarchical manner, requiring that ‘economists at all levels of economic research… know and work with the same theory, have the same research standards and utilise the same research techniques’ (Lee 2009: 14). He further contends, ‘It is also necessary that [neoclassical economists] accept the same broad goals and for the specific issues for research the same set of theoretical propositions. These two requirements are achieved through the homogenous teaching and intellectual inculcation of graduate students. That is graduate students in neoclassical graduate programs are uncritically introduced to a pre-established body of theory, while simultaneously shielded from criticism and alternative ways to “do” economics. Hence, they are deliberately not provided the intellectual capabilities to critically evaluate neoclassical theory and, furthermore, are pointedly discouraged from ever criticizing it; but at the same time imbued with an attitude to exclude and cleanse from economics all views and approaches that are not those they have been taught’ (Lee 2020: 14-15).
Fred Lee (1949-2014).
Image via via Frederic S. Lee website
Thus, mainstream economists’ practice is both self-referential and inward-looking by design. Leading mainstream economists have no incentive to consider alternative or heterodox approaches. Working within their own paradigm brings the potential for great rewards and recognition from their peers. Considering out-of-paradigm methodology and theory would involve significant time and promise little or no prestige or recognition in return. The fact that mainstream economists spend their careers refining their own theories with little or no concern for methodology or alternative approaches is therefore in no way surprising (Armstrong 2020a).
4. The Case of the Mainstream versus MMT
As Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has increased its profile within heterodox economics and as a grassroots movement, its impact within the highest echelons of academia has been relatively small. Leading academic mainstream (NCM) economists rarely engage directly with its practitioners [2]. Their primary focus remains working on abstract modelling with the aim of publishing in high-ranking journals. Instead, perhaps ironically, the most detailed criticisms of MMT have come from within heterodoxy rather than from mainstream economists. Although a degree of sympathy and openness towards MMT (and indeed, a willingness to work together) exists within both Post Keynesianism (Armstrong forthcoming) and Marxism (Potts and Armstrong 2020), significant antipathy has been expressed by other members of these groups. Although I would argue that such criticism can be countered by a deep consideration of the actual nature of MMT, its existence is nevertheless symptomatic of deep divisions within heterodoxy, a discussion of which lies outside the scope of this paper (Armstrong 2018, 2020c).
From within orthodoxy, criticism of MMT has usually originated from professional economists working for financial institutions (who have been well-schooled in mainstream thinking and its hierarchy at at university) [3] and journalists specialising in finance [4] who mount a defence of the mainstream against any upstart criticism of the status quo, forming an effective buffer between leading NCM economists and heterodox scholars, such as Modern Monetary Theorists. Professional economists and financial journalists are often willing acolytes steeped in the mainstream method; a method they use in their professional research and writing, and which informs their worldview.
In addition, representatives of right-wing, pro ‘free market’ think tanks [5] provide another source of criticism. Such institutions often have significant funding and outreach and their position vis-a-vis the mainstream is not clear-cut. In some ways (but by no means all) they could be legitimately categorised as critics of mainstream theory, but their critique originates from an entirely different perspective to that of MMT. In most cases, such think tanks propagate an Austrian perspective (or, more generally, support laissez-faire) and see MMT as part of the argument for a larger state and consider it vital to provide a counterargument in favour of non-interventionism against all schools which are seen as antagonistic to unfettered markets. However, neither critics from within the mainstream camp nor the Austrian School advocates see a deep study of MMT as a worthwhile precursor to the provision of meaningful critique. The time required to read and analyse the primary literature of an alternative approach makes it much more appealing to simply take a short cut, indulge in a cursory superficial analysis and draw a caricature of the new theory. Refuting this ‘strawman’ version of the competing theory provides a much more manageable task which can be successfully accomplished with little need to devote significant time to the task.
This job is made easier by the fact that many new theoretical approaches – including MMT – can pick up a range of followers who self-identify as supporters without fully appreciating the depth and implications of its theory. Such advocates may contribute a commentary which is far easier to challenge than the primary literature and its existence provides an opportunity for an ‘easy win’ for a mainstream critic. Second, importantly, such mainstream-supporting writers often have far larger readerships than the developers of heterodox alternatives. A summary dismissal of a new approach, however inaccurate, is likely to be accepted, especially if it connects with the prejudices of a predominantly mainstream readership. One of the most – if not the most entrenched – presuppositions of both mainstream and ‘free market’ economists and their allies is that alternative heterodox schools are all likely to place less stress on counter-inflationary policy than would be prudent, and inflation would be liable ‘to get out of hand’ if mainstream ‘sound money’ theory were to lose its hegemonic status to some ‘untrusted’ outlier.
Indeed, the starting point for much of the criticism is that governments and central banks are naturally predisposed towards advocating inflationary policy, even under the current prevailing theoretical structure. They see the adoption of a radical, ‘progressive’ approach as very much a step in the wrong direction, i.e., the chances of rampant inflation taking hold becoming ever greater. Even when inflation is absent and has been for a considerable period of time, free market-supporting Cassandras continue to cry ‘inflation, inflation, inflation’, if a whiff of expansionary fiscal policy (or what they perceive as expansionary monetary policy) is in the air. The much feared and always predicted inflation’s continued failure to appear poses no threat to the critics of progressive theory. They maintain that it’s sure to come; there will be a day of reckoning (even though they can’t say when). If and when inflation does come (as has recently been the case) they cry, ‘I told you so’, rather like a weather reporter who says it’s going to rain during a warm spell in summer in full confidence that one day, at least, in the future it will rain [6]. Robin Brooks (of the IFF, Washington, DC) seemingly took delight in posting a ‘tombstone for MMT’ (figure 1) on social media. It was designed to provide a simple pictorial symbol to illustrate the ‘death’ of his caricatured version of MMT following the recent inflation spike. Paradoxically, the tombstone actually illustrated Brooks’ ignorance of MMT. Apparently, he considered it was ‘born’ in 2013; we can reasonably infer that insights contained in the substantial pre-2013 MMT literature have escaped his attention.
Figure 1. A ‘tombstone’ for MMT via Twitter
All reasonable commentators who actually consider world events can easily identify the source of the current inflation – rising energy and food costs on the back of a global pandemic and international conflict. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, free-market critics of state intervention argue the cause of the inflation has been ‘too much government spending’ or ‘too much money printing’ by the central bank. The marked absence of evidence for any causal link between increases in the money supply and rises in the price level, again, apparently poses no problems. The unsupported contentions continue to be stressed and re-stressed ad nauseum as part of an ideological attack on state intervention or what is perceived as ‘big government’.
From a mainstream (or ‘laissez-faire’) perspective caricaturing an alternative approach, such as MMT, has an important advantage once inflation finally emerges. In the case of MMT, critics stress that MMT ‘only works’ when there is no inflation, i.e., they mischaracterise MMT as ‘not being a real theory’ but rather a policy prescription advocating expansionary fiscal policy when there is spare capacity and no inflation, and further argue that MMT supports ‘raising taxes’ [7] to control inflation once it emerges. MMT is pigeonholed into a subset of interventionism that has no kudos once inflation has arrived. Accusations of ‘quackery’, ‘madness’ or even being ‘dangerous’ [8] are commonly made by the more forthright critics [9]. Sometimes more measured antagonists may cede a small amount of ground [10], and note, somewhat patronisingly, that alternative visions such as MMT, merely highlight something obvious that was already known and then use that as a basis for developing a theory down the wrong path which has now, fortunately, been shown to be an illusion.
Notwithstanding these poorly researched attacks, in reality, MMT is not merely a policy package but a theory which, when compared to the mainstream, provides superior explanations of the operation of the monetary system under different exchange rate regimes (Mosler 2020, 2010; Armstrong 2015). With respect to inflation, MMT explains both the origin of the price level and the rate at which it changes, a contribution which is notably absent from mainstream theory (Mosler 2023). MMT stresses that inflation is a complex phenomenon and can have multiple causes (Fullwiler et al 2019; Mosler 2023; Armstrong forthcoming). In practice, in the UK and the USA for example, increases in government spending are rarely the cause of inflation (Armstrong forthcoming). Price rises usually emerge as relative price increases in the oligopolistic institutional structure [11]. This is followed by governments raising their prices correspondingly, leading to a reduction in the absolute value of the currency (Armstrong forthcoming). MMT suggests that taxes should not be used as an ‘after the fact’ policy tool, rather taxes are designed, from inception, to free up resources with which the state can provision itself and should be part of the state’s economic planning process from the outset, reflecting a democratically founded decision regarding how large a state is desired (Mosler 2020; Fullwiler et al 2019).
In reality and contra its mainstream critics, MMT stresses the importance of inflationary control and points out that mainstream theory’s advocacy of interest rate rises is profoundly mistaken and in fact, central banks ‘have it backwards’ (Mosler 2020). MMT suggests that a permanent buffer stock of employed labour – a Job Guarantee – would provide an effective inflation anchor which would then replace interest rate adjustments [12] as the stabilisation policy in the economy. Stabilisation would occur in the labour market, not the money market. The idea that ‘controlling the money supply’ is a possible cure for inflation has no traction under floating exchange rates, where the money supply is endogenous and necessarily passively responds to demand. Attempts to control the money supply or specifically, the ’monetary base’ are bound to result in failure (Armstrong 2015).
Of course, careful reading of the major MMT literature would reveal all this. However, as noted, its mainstream critics are unwilling to do the necessary research. Indeed, doing so would defeat their object, which is not to try to understand and develop a meaningful critique of an opposing approach, but rather simply to develop a cursory criticism of a ‘strawman’ version of MMT which often includes using quotes from ‘fringe’ players (rather than core proponents such as Mosler, Mitchell or Wray). Their true aim is, of course, to dismiss MMT as quickly as possible, thus ensuring that the ‘real work’ of refining mainstream mathematical modelling can continue uninterrupted. Importantly MMT’s mainstream critics at all levels generally avoid engagement with all heterodox scholars, meaning their ignorance of the actual nature of alternatives, such as MMT, does not become apparent.
5. Fighting Back
“…Many aspects of the practice of science do not live up to the high ideals of ‘science’ as a dispassionate search for truth. If there is any hope of reform, dissenters must play a crucial role. To be effective, they need to understand that science is a system of power as well as of knowledge, and consequently, they need to be prepared for a power struggle as well as a struggle over ideas (Martin 1998: 615)”. It is important that dissidents, such as Modern Monetary Theorists, realise the enormity of the task that they face and, importantly, despite the difficulties, just how important their activities are to scientific progress (Armstrong et al 2020) [13]. Modern Monetary Theorists need to rebut criticism using a wide range of media, despite the obvious advantages possessed by the mainstream.
Detailed analysis of the ranges of approaches that MMT scholars and activists might take in order to challenge the hegemony of mainstream economics is provided elsewhere (Armstrong et al 2020). However, here I might reiterate the importance of writing academic texts and articles for peer-reviewed journals (especially those focused on heterodox economics where the likelihood of publication is greater) although I acknowledge that MMT often fails to ‘get a fair hearing’ from other heterodox scholars (Armstrong 2020c). Ultimately, developing an MMT-based journal to ensure the widest possible readership for MMT would be a key aim. In addition, the importance of supporting activist groups such as the Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies and the MMT Podcast cannot be overstated. The active engagement of both academics and activists in writing policy proposals based upon the insights of MMT and disseminating them as widely as possible is also a key element of future strategy designed to undermine the ‘bad science’ of the mainstream (as illustrated by a retaliatory ‘tombstone’, figure 2, below).
Figure 2. A ‘tombstone’ for mainstream economics in particular its ‘bad science’.
6. Conclusion
The upsurge in criticism of MMT is a good sign. It shows that those opposed to progressive change in economic theory and policy are finding it increasingly difficult to merely ‘ignore’ MMT. We are now in stage two. Accusations of ‘madness’ and being ‘dangerous’ are proliferating. However, these attacks, especially when arising from mainstream sources, are rarely, if ever, founded upon a deep study of MMT and its major authors’ work. They are based upon a cursory reading of MMT, followed by the building of a strawman version of MMT, in turn leading to a dismissal of MMT with a brief and damning critique. Mainstream hegemony is such that leading scholars and even financial ‘specialists’ and journalists can hide their ignorance of MMT by refusing to engage in debate about the actual work of MMT. However, supporters of MMT should not be disheartened. The progress made in recent years has been impressive at all levels. By pursuing a range of approaches (Armstrong et al 2020) we have grounds to hope that eventually, we will come to the ‘pause’ and shortly afterwards mainstream economics will be given its rightful place as an interesting, but ultimately fruitless element of the history of economic thought, rather like phlogiston theory in the history of scientific thinking.
[1] ‘The NCM [New Consensus Macroeconomics] is now firmly established amongst both academia and economic policy circles…it draws heavily on the so-called new Keynesian economics’ (Arestis 2009: 2, parentheses added). It combines rational expectations, explicit micro-foundations and optimization behaviour with other features such as the long-run vertical Phillips curve (Arestis 2009).
‘NCM is the macroeconomic mainstream as it dominates the research, is taught in most of the top universities, receives funding from many important research foundations and has been recently awarded the Nobel Prize. The new Keynesians, in turn, are the most recent dominant school of thought within the mainstream. As a consequence, much of the research and the operational practice of central banks and governments is based on the principles propagated by them, particularly since the 90s’ (Pedrosa and Farhi 2015).
[2] That is not to say it never happens. Occasionally, mainstream economists do engage with MMT, for example, Mankiw (2019) and Portes (2019) provided short and under-researched critiques. The former was comprehensively rebutted by Mitchell (2019a, 2019b).
[3] As noted by Lee (2010), for example, Robin Brooks of the Institute for International Finance (IIF).
[4] For example, Gavyn Davies of the Financial Times.
[5] For example, the Cato Institute, The Adam Smith Institute, and The Institute of Economic Affairs. There is often an ‘overlap’ between these groups. Financial journalists may well also be members of ‘free-market’ think tanks or give them measured support.
[6] Unjustified sweeping statements such as ‘On the left, inflation has killed off Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), for example’ (Bourne 2022) and ‘This is the harsh macroeconomic lesson of 2022. Both left and right thought they’d found theories that might liberate them from the constraints of budgeting in pursuing their objectives. They were wrong’ (Bourne 2022) typify this unscholarly approach to analysis.
It is also worth noting that It seems rather disingenuous for this author to pretend to be writing from the ‘sensible middle’ rather than from a strong laissez-faire supporting perspective (which he clearly does).
[7] Bourne (2022) wrongly states that MMT simply asserts that ‘Governments could simply raise taxes to choke off inflation as it occurred’.
[8] See Senate Resolution (2019), ‘Recognizing the duty of the Senate to condemn Modern Monetary Theory and recognizing that the implementation of Modern Monetary Theory would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation’, 116th Congress, First session. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/sres182/BILLS-116sres182is.pdf
[9] Such as Robin Brooks of the IFF and Ryan Bourne of the Cato Institute.
[10] See Davies (2022).
[11] All the problematic inflation I’ve seen has been caused by rising energy prices, which begins as a relative value story but soon gets passed through to most everything and turns into an inflation story. The “pass through” mechanism, the way I see it, comes from government paying higher prices for what it buys, including indexing government wages to the CPI (Consumer Price Index), which is how we as a nation have chosen to define inflation. And every time the government pays more for the same thing, it is redefining its currency downward’ (Mosler 2010: 115).
[12] My thanks go to Neil Wilson who makes the point that even heterodox economists generally fail to recognise the importance of buffer stock theory and instead cling to interest rate policy. My research (Armstrong 2020a) supports this view.
[13] ‘In the social sciences as elsewhere, modern science is widely assumed to be a successful and progressive enterprise. Sociologists of science tend to be science advocates, and students of social problems implicitly treat science as a “healthy” institution. Science critics are often opposed to “distorted” versions of science but not to “true” science. A few social critics, however, have argued that modern science is the product of an alienated human spirit and a factor in rather than a solution to our individual and social problems’ (Restivo, 1988).
Acknowledgements
My thanks go to Neil Wilson for his valuable comments which have been incorporated into the paper.
I would also like to thank my great (and long-suffering) friends, Andy Lovett and Steve Secker for their patient engagement with me in long discussions about MMT, its place in economics and its mainstream critics.
References
Arestis, P. (2009), ‘New Consensus Macroeconomics: A Critical Appraisal’, in Microeconomics, Macroeconomics and Economic Policy: Essays in Honour of Malcolm Sawyer, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 99-115.
Armstrong, P. (forthcoming), The Contribution of Modern Monetary Theory to Heterodox Economics, title tbc, in Post Keynesian Economics: Key Debates and Contemporary Perspectives, John King and Therese Jefferson (eds.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Armstrong, P. (2020a), ‘Modern Monetary Theory and its Relationship to Heterodox Economics’. https://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/id/eprint/4127/. Accessed 19/01/23.
Armstrong, P. (2020b), ‘Norwood Hanson, Paul Krugman and MMT’, Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies, March 29, 2020. https://gimms.org.uk/category/mmt-long-read/. Accessed 19/01/23
Armstrong, P. (2020c), Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference?: Conversations with Key Thinkers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Armstrong, P. (2019), ‘A simple MMT advocate’s response to the Gavyn Davies article ‘What you need to know about modern monetary theory’, Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies, May 27, 2019, Davies-review-full-Phil-Armstrong.pdf (gimms.org.uk). Accessed 19/01/23
Armstrong, P. (2018), ‘MMT and an Alternative Heterodox Paradigm’, Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies, Modern Monetary Theory and a Heterodox Alternative Paradigm – The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies (gimms.org.uk). Accessed 19/01/23
Armstrong, P. (2015), ‘Heterodox views of money and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)’, Money-and-MMT.pdf (moslereconomics.com). Accessed 19/01/23
Armstrong, P., Holland, S., Jackson-Prior, C. and Plumridge, P. (2020), ‘Economics and the political and social environment; lessons for MMT advocates’ The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies (2020), https://gimms.org.uk/2020/04/05/lessons-for-mmt-advocates/. Accessed 19/01/23
Bilgrami, A. (2015), ‘Truth, balance and Freedom,’ In Bilgrami, A. and Cole, J. (eds.), Who’s Afraid of Academic Freedom, New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourne, R. (2022), A nightmare year for the economic dreams of both the left and the right’, The Times, Dec 22, A nightmare year for the economic dreams of both right and left | Business | The Times. Accessed 19/01/23
Buiter, W. (2009), “The unfortunate uselessness of most ’state of the art’ academic monetary economics”, FT.com/Maverecon, March 3, http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/UselessnessOfMacro.WBuiter2009.pdf. Accessed 19/01/23
Chernomas, R. and Hudson, I. (2017), The Profit Doctrine: Economists of the Neoliberal Age, Northampton: Pluto Press.
Davies, G. (2019) ‘What you need to know about modern monetary theory’, April 28, FT, https://www.ft.com/content/744f4fc4-6762-11e9-9adc-98bf1d35a056. Accessed 19/01/23
Hands, D.W. (2001), Reflection without Rules, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fullwiler, S., Grey, R. and Tankus, N. (2019), ‘An MMT response on what causes inflation’, FT Alphaville, March 1 https://www.ft.com/content/539618f8-b88c-3125-8031-cf46ca197c64. Accessed 15/12/21.
Kuhn, T. (2012/1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lawson, T. (1997), Economics and Reality, London: Routledge.
Lawson T, interviewed in Phil Armstrong (2020c), Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference?: Conversations with Key Thinkers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lee, F. (2010), A History of Heterodox Economics, Abingdon: Routledge.
Mankiw, G. (2019), ‘A Skeptic’s Guide to Modern Monetary Theory’, Harvard University, December 12, Microsoft Word – MMT – Mankiw (harvard.edu). Accessed 19/01/23
Martin, B. (1998) ‘Strategies for Dissenting Scientists’ Journal of Scientific Exploration vol. 12, no.4, 605-616.
Mitchell, W. (2019a), ‘A Response to Greg Mankiw – Part 1’, December 23 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43900. Accessed 19/01/23
Mitchell, W. (2019b), ‘A Response to Greg Mankiw – Part 2’, December 24 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43961. Accessed 19/01/23
Mosler, W (2010), The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, US Virgin Islands: Valance.
Mosler, W. (2020), ‘White Paper: Modern Monetary Theory’ (MMT), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gvDcMU_ko1h5TeVjQL8UMJW9gmKY1x0zcqKIRTZQDAQ/edit. Accessed 19/01/23
Pedrosa, I. and Farhi, M (2015), ‘Macroeconomic Theory in the Aftermath of the Crisis: Mainstream and New Keynesianism’, Nova Economia, 25(2): 237-60, May-August
Popper, K. (1959/1965), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Portes, J. (2019), ‘Nonsense Economics: The Rise of Modern Monetary Theory’, Prospect, January 30, https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/nonsense-economics-the-rise-of-modern-monetary-theory. Accessed 19/01/23
Potts, N. and Armstrong, P. (2020), ‘What Marx and Kalecki/Post-Keynesians do not share, and why this is not a barrier to their learning from each other to their mutual advantage’,
in Contemporary Issues in Heterodox Economics, A. Hermann and S. Mouatt (eds.), Abingdon: Routledge.
Restivo, S. (1988), ‘Modern Science as a Social Problem’, The Sociological Review, Vol. 33 (3), 206.
US 116th Congress, H.Res.109 – Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal’ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text. Accessed 19/01/23