Mainstream economics and its rivals

Abstract

Introduction Like the Marxist tradition, mainstream economics is deeply flawed, far too deeply flawed to provide the basis for a viable political economy. Yet like the Marxist tradition it contains elements that could be relocated into a different framework and reused productively in an alternative political economy. This chapter will discuss mainstream economics, but also other traditions that offer different ways of thinking about the economy: heterodox traditions in economics, the Maussian tradition of economic anthropology and economic sociology. Although the title of this chapter positions them as rivals, none of these competitors offers a fully worked out alternative, yet they all have something to contribute, both to the critique of the mainstream tradition, and to understanding our diverse economy. Like Marxist political economy each of these traditions discussed is somewhat diverse, and this brief account will inevitably overlook some of that diversity in order to simplify the argument. The objective of the chapter, however, is not to be comprehensive or even balanced, but rather to show why the flaws and absences in existing approaches create the need for an alternative, while also picking out elements that could be used in a new synthesis. While it will provide some general introductory material about each of these traditions and its strengths and weaknesses, the primary objective of the chapter is to evaluate them with respect to this book's larger argument. Thus it will generally focus on questions of economic form, economic diversity, appropriations and ethics. It will also consider the ontology of the economy and how this is misrepresented in the dominant tradition, which will act as a prelude to the more realist ontology of the economy that will frame the account of appropriative practices developed in the next chapter. Mainstream economics: the neoclassical core The mainstream tradition in economics is centred on neoclassical economic theory. Although many and perhaps even most mainstream academic economists no longer adhere to all parts of the neoclassical core, and the mainstream itself is increasingly defined by its commitment to unrealistic mathematisation rather than neoclassicism (T. Lawson, 2014, p. 103), this section will focus on the core and its manifest inadequacy as a theory of the economy and the appropriations that occur within it.