¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa

Ingrid Kvangraven; Carolina Alves

doi:10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588

Publicado

2020-07-28

¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa

Why so Hostile? Busting Myths about Heterodox Economics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588

Palabras clave:

economía, heterodox, mitos, hostil, corriente principal (es)
economy, heterodox, myths, hostile, main stream (en)

Descargas

PDF
XML

Autores/as

Ingrid Kvangraven University of York
Carolina Alves University of Cambridge

Resumen (es)
Resumen (en)

¿Qué significa economía heterodoxa? ¿Es una etiqueta útil o perjudicial? Al estar fuera de la corriente principal de la disciplina de la Economía, la forma en que nos posicionamos puede ser particularmente importante. Por esta razón, muchos de los que nos rodean rechazan el uso del término “heterodoxo” y desaconsejan su uso. Sin embargo, creemos que la renuencia a usar el término se debe en parte a malentendidos —y, a veces, desacuerdos— sobre lo que significa el término y quizás a los desacuerdos acerca de las estrategias para cambiar la disciplina. En otras palabras, este es un debate importante sobre la identificación y la estrategia. En este blog, deseamos plantear el tema en círculos heterodoxos y de la corriente principal, al desbaratar algunos mitos comunes sobre la economía heterodoxa, en su mayoría derivados de la ortodoxia. Esta es una pequeña parte de un proyecto más grande sobre la definición de la economía heterodoxa.

What does heterodox economics mean? Is the label helpful or harmful? Being outside of the mainstream of the Economics discipline, the way we position ourselves may be particularly important. For this reason, many around us shun the use of the term “heterodox” and advise against using it. However, we believe the reluctance to use the term stems in part from misunderstandings of (and sometimes disagreement over) what the term means and perhaps disagreements over strategies for how to change the discipline. In other words, this is an important debate about both identification and strategy. In this blog, we wish to raise the issue in heterodox and mainstream circles, by busting a few common myths about Heterodox Economics – mostly stemming from the orthodoxy. This is a small part of a larger project on defining heterodox economics.

Referencias

Ayres, C. E. (1936). Fifty Years’ Development in Ideas of Human Nature and Motivation. American Economic Review, 26(1), 224-236. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/1807783

Barbosa-Filho, N. & Taylor, L. (2006). Distributive and Demand Cycles in the US Economy –A Structuralist Goodwin Model. Metroeconomica, 57(3), 389-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-999X.2006.00250.x

Bhaduri, A. & Marglin, S. (1990). Unemployment and the Real Wage: The Economic Basis for Contesting Political Ideologies. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14(4), 375-393. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035141

Caverzasi, E. & Godin, A. (2015). Financialisation and the Sub-Prime Crisis: A Stock-Flow Consistent Model. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 12(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.4337/ejeep.2015.01.07

Cartwright, N. (1999). The Vanity of Rigour in Economics: Theoretical Models and Galilean Experiments. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248057939_The_Vanity_of_Rigour_in_Economics_Theoretical_Models_and_Galilean_Experiments

Cedrini, M. & Magda, F. (2018). Just Another Niche in the Wall? How Specialization is Changing the Face of Mainstream Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42(2), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex003

Colander, D. (2009). Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Pluralism: Suggestions for an “Inside the Mainstream” Heterodoxy. En R. F. Garnett, E. Olsen & M. Starr (Eds.), Economic Pluralism. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203871812

Colander, D., Holt, R. & Rosser, B. (2010). The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics. Review of Political Economy, 16(4), 485-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953825042000256702

Coyle, D. (2007). The Soulful Science: What Economists Really Do and Why It Matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9781400833689/the-soulful-science

Coyle, D. (2013). The State of Economics and Education of Economists. En M. A. Madi & J. Reardon (Eds), The Economics Curriculum: Towards A Radical Reformulation. World Economics Association. https://curriculumconference2013.weaconferences.net/papers/the-state-of-economics-and-the-education-of-economists/

Dafermos, Y., Nikolaidi, M. & Galanis, G. (2017). A Stock-Flow-Fund Ecological Macroeconomic Model. Ecological Economics, 131(C), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.013

Dequech, D. (2018). Applying the Concept of Mainstream Economics outside the United States: General Remarks and the Case of Brazil as an Example of the Institutionalization of Pluralism. Journal of Economic Issues, 52(4), 904-924. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2018.1518532

D’Ippoliti, C. (2018). “Many-Citedness”: Citations Measure More Than Just Scientific Impact (Working Paper No. 57). Recuperado de Intitute for New Economic Thinking sitio web. https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_57-DIppoliti-revised.pdf

Dos Santos, C. (2006). Keynesian Theorising During Hard Times: Stock-Flow Consistent Models as an Unexplored “Frontier” of Keynesian Macroeconomics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), 541-565. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei069

Dow, S. (1990). Beyond Dualism. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035123

Dow, S. (1997). Mainstream Economic Methodology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 21(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a013660

Dow, S. (2008). Plurality in Orthodox and Heterodox Economics, 1(2), 73-96. Recuperado de http://www.jpe.ro/poze/articole/11.pdf

Dutt, A. K. (1984). Stagnation, Income Distribution and Monopoly Power. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035533

Epstein, J. M. & Axtell, R. L. (1996). Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. Cambridge: Brookings Institution Press & MIT Press.

Foley, D. K. (2003). Unholy Trinity: Labor, Capital and Land in the New Economy. Londres: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203456477

García-Molina, M. & Ruíz-Tavera, J. K. (2009). Thirlwall’s Law and the Two-Gap Model: Toward a Unified “Dynamic Gap” Model. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 32(2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.2753/PKE0160-3477320209

Goodwin, R. (1967). A Growth Cycle. En C. H. Feinstein (Ed.), Socialism, Capitalism, and Economic Growth: Essays Presented to Maurice Dobb (pp. 165-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hands, D. W. (2011). Orthodox and Heterodox Economics in Recent Economic Methodology. Paper presentado en el XVII Meeting on Epistemology of the Economic Sciences, Buenos Aires, Argentina. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1937439

Higgins, W. & Dow, G. (2013). Politics Against Pessimism: Social Democratic Possibilities Since Ernst Wigforss Berna: Peter Lang.

Jo, T. & Todorova, Z. (2015). Introduction: Frederic S. Lee’s Contributions to Heterodox Economics. En Jo, T. H. & Todorova, Z (Eds). Advancing the Frontiers of Heterodox Economics. Essays in Honor of Frederic S. Lee. Londres: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315850368

Julius, A. J. (2009). The Wage-Wage-…-Wage-Profit Relation in a Multisector Bargaining Economy. Metroeconomica, 60(3), 537-559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-999X.2008.00355.x

King, J. E. (2013). A Case for Pluralism in Economics. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 24(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304612474219

Lavoie, M. (2009). Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan:

Lavoie, M. (2014). Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lavoie, M. & Godley, W. (2006). Features of a Realistic Banking System within a Post-Keynesian Stock-Flow Consistent Model. En M. Setterfield (Ed.), Complexity, Endogenous Money and Macroeconomic Theory: Essays in Honour of Basil J. Moore (pp. 251-268). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lawson, T. (2006). The Nature of Heterodox Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), 483-505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei093

Lawson, T. (2013). What is This “School” Called Neoclassical Economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(5), 947–983. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet027

Lawson, T. (2015). A Conception of Social Ontology. En S. Pratten (Ed.), Social Ontology and Modern Economics (pp. 19-52). Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.

Lee, F. (2009). A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge

Lee, F. (2017). Microeconomic Theory: A Heterodox Approach. Londres: Routledge.

Lee, F. & Lavoie, M. (Eds). (2012). In Defense of Post-Keynesian and Heterodox Economics: Responses to their Critics. Londres: Routledge.

Lee, F., Pham, X. & Gu, G. (2013). The UK Research Assessment Exercise and the Narrowing of UK Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(4), 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet031

Kinsella, S. & Khalil, S. (2011). Debt-Deflation Traps within Small Open Economies: A Stock-Flow Consistent Perspective. En D. B. Papadimitriou & G. Zezza (Eds.), Contributions in Stock-Flow Consistent Modeling: Essays in Honor of Wynne Godley (pp. 235-265). Londres: Palgrave MacMillan.

Mariyani-Squire, E. & Moussa, M. (2014). Fallibilism, Liberalism and Stilwell’s Advocacy for Pluralism in Economics. The Journal of Australian Political Economy, 75, 194-210. Recuperado de https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:30361

Mason, J. W. (24 de noviembre de 2018). A Demystifying Decade for Economics [Publicación en un blog]. Recuperado de http://jwmason.org/slackwire/in-jacobin-a-demystifying-decade-for-economics/

Mearman, A. (2011). Pluralism, Heterodoxy and the Rhetoric of Distinction. Review of Radical Political Economics, 43(4), 552–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613411402644

Mearman, A., Guizzo, D. & Berger, S. (2017). Is UK Economics Teaching Changing? Evaluating the New Subject Benchmark Statement. Review of Social Economy, 76(3), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2018.1463447

Michell, J. (09 de Agosto de 2016). On “Heterodox Economics” [Publicación en un blog]. Recuperado de https://criticalfinance.org/2016/08/09/on-heterodox-macroeconomics/

Pasinetti, L. L. (1962). Rate of Profit and Income Distribution in Relation to the Rate of Economic Growth. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(4), 267-279. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296303

Passarella, M. (2012). A Simplified Stock-Flow Consistent Dynamic Model of the Systemic Financial Fragility in the “New Capitalism”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(3), 570-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.05.011

Tesfatsion, L. & Kenneth J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Computational Economics. Agent-Based Computational Economics (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Thornton, T. (2015). The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics? Journal of Australian Political Economy, 75, 11-26.

Turner, P. (1999). The Balance of Payments Constraint and the Post 1973 Slowdown of Economic Growth in the G7 Economies. International Review of Applied Economics, 13(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/026921799101724

Setterfield, M. (2000). Expectations, Endogenous Money, and the Business Cycle: An Exercise in Open Systems Modeling. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 23(1), 77-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2000.11490272

Skidelsky, R. (18 de enero de 2018). How Economics Survived the Economic Crisis. Project Syndicate. Recuperado de https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-no-intellectual-shift-in-economics-by-robert-skidelsky-2018-01?barrier=accesspaylog

Skott, P. (2008). Growth, Instability and Cycles: Harrodian and Kaleckian Models of Accumulation and Income Distribution (Working Papers 2008-12). Recuperado de University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics, Amherst Economics sitio web. http://www.umass.edu/economics/publications/2008-12.pdf

Skott, P. & Ryoo, S. (2015). Functional Finance and Intergenerational Distribution in a Keynesian OLG Model (Working Papers 2015-13). Recuperado de University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics, Amherst Economics sitio web. http://www.umass.edu/economics/publications/2015-13.pdf

Steinbaum, M. (28 de febrero de 2019). Economics After Neoliberalism [Publicación en un blog]. Recuperado de http://bostonreview.net/forum/economics-after-neoliberalism/marshall-steinbaum-empiricism-alone-wont-save-us

Stilwell, F. (2016). Heterodox Economics or Political Economy? World Economics Association Newsletter, 6(1), 2-6. https://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/newsletterarticles/heterodox-economics-or-pe/

Stilwell, F. (2016). Teaching Political Economy: Making a Difference? Studies in Political Economy, 89(1), 147-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/19187033.2012.11675006

Tavani, D. (2012). Wage Bargaining and Induced Technical Change in a Linear Economy: Model and Application to the US (1963-2003). Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(2), 117-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2011.11.001

Vera, L. V. (2006). The Balance of Payments Constrained Growth Model: A North-South Approach. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 29(1), 67-92. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/4539005

Vernengo, M. (2010). Conversation or Monologue? On Advising Heterodox Economists. Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, 32(3), 389-396. https://doi.org/10.2753/PKE0160-3477320304

Vernengo, M. (18 de mayo 2011). The Meaning of Heterodox Economics, and Why It Matters [Publicación en un blog]. Recuperado de http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/2011/05/meaning-of-heterodox-economics-and-why.html?m=1

Wrenn, M. (2007). What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought. Forum for Social Economics, 36(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12143-007-9002-5

Zamparelli, L. (2014). Induced Innovation, Endogenous Technical Change, and Income Distribution in a Labor Constrained Model of Classical Growth. Metroeconomica, 66(2), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/meca.12068

Zezza, G. (2004). Some Simple, Consistent Models of the Monetary Circuit (Working Paper No 405). Recuperado de The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College sitio web. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp405.pdf

Cómo citar

APA

Kvangraven, I. & Alves, C. (2020). ¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa. Ensayos de Economía, 30(56), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588

ACM

[1]

Kvangraven, I. y Alves, C. 2020. ¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa. Ensayos de Economía. 30, 56 (ene. 2020), 230–245. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588.

ACS

(1)

Kvangraven, I.; Alves, C. ¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa. Ens. Econ. 2020, 30, 230-245.

ABNT

KVANGRAVEN, I.; ALVES, C. ¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa. Ensayos de Economía, [S. l.], v. 30, n. 56, p. 230–245, 2020. DOI: 10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ede/article/view/86588. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2026.

Chicago

Kvangraven, Ingrid, y Carolina Alves. 2020. «¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa». Ensayos De Economía 30 (56):230-45. https://doi.org/10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588.

Harvard

Kvangraven, I. y Alves, C. (2020) «¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa», Ensayos de Economía, 30(56), pp. 230–245. doi: 10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588.

IEEE

[1]

I. Kvangraven y C. Alves, «¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa», Ens. Econ., vol. 30, n.º 56, pp. 230–245, ene. 2020.

MLA

Kvangraven, I., y C. Alves. «¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa». Ensayos de Economía, vol. 30, n.º 56, enero de 2020, pp. 230-45, doi:10.15446/ede.v30n56.86588.

Turabian

Kvangraven, Ingrid, y Carolina Alves. «¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa». Ensayos de Economía 30, no. 56 (enero 1, 2020): 230–245. Accedido marzo 20, 2026. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ede/article/view/86588.

Vancouver

1.

Kvangraven I, Alves C. ¿Por qué tan hostil? Quebrando mitos sobre la economía heterodoxa. Ens. Econ. [Internet]. 1 de enero de 2020 [citado 20 de marzo de 2026];30(56):230-45. Disponible en: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ede/article/view/86588

Descargar cita

CrossRef Cited-by

4

1. Pedro Perfeito da Silva. (2023). Post-neoliberalism and capital flow management in Latin America: assessing the role of social forces. Journal of International Relations and Development, 26(1), p.30. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-022-00272-0.

2. Asier Arcos-Alonso, Itsaso Fernandez de la Cuadra-Liesa, Amaia Garcia-Azpuru, Mikel Barba Del Horno. (2024). Rethinking Economics Education: Student Perceptions of the Social and Solidarity Economy in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 15(1), p.27. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010027.

3. Giulia Zacchia. (2021). What Does It Take to Be Top Women Economists? An Analysis Using Rankings in RePEc. Review of Political Economy, 33(2), p.170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2020.1848624.

4. Camilo Andrés Guevara Castañeda. (2025). Monetary autonomy and heteronomy: the limits of monetary theory’s performative power and the possibility of reimagining global monetary governance. Journal of Cultural Economy, , p.1. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2025.2492596.