Heterodox economics is a broad, relative term referring to schools of economic thought which are not commonly perceived as belonging tomainstream economics. There is no absolute definition of what constitutes heterodox economic thought, as it is defined in contrast to the most prominent, influential or popular schools of thought in a given time and place.^[1]

Groups typically classed as heterodox in current discourse include theAustrian,ecological,^{[note 1]}Marxist-historical,post-autistic, andmodern monetary approaches.^[2][3][4]

Four frames of analysis have been highlighted for their importance to heterodox thought: history, natural systems, uncertainty, and power.^[5]

In the mid-19th century, such thinkers asAuguste Comte,Thomas Carlyle,John Ruskin andKarl Marx made early critiques of orthodox economy.^[6] A number of heterodox schools of economic thought challenged the dominance ofneoclassical economics after the neoclassical revolution of the 1870s. In addition to socialist critics of capitalism, heterodox schools in this period included advocates of various forms ofmercantilism, such as theAmerican School dissenters from neoclassicalmethodology such as thehistorical school, and advocates of unorthodox monetary theories such associal credit.

Physical scientists and biologists were the first individuals to use energy flows to explain social and economic development.Joseph Henry, an American physicist and first secretary of theSmithsonian Institution, remarked that the "fundamental principle of political economy is that the physical labor of man can only be ameliorated by… the transformation of matter from a crude state to an artificial condition...by expending what is called power or energy."^[7][8]

The rise, and absorption into the mainstream ofKeynesian economics, which appeared to provide a more coherent policy response tounemployment than unorthodox monetary or trade policies, contributed to the decline of interest in these schools.

After 1945, theneoclassical synthesis of Keynesian and neoclassical economics resulted in a clearly defined mainstream position based on a division of the field into microeconomics (generally neoclassical but with a newly developed theory ofmarket failure) and macroeconomics (divided between Keynesian and monetarist views on such issues as the role of monetary policy). Austrians and post-Keynesians who dissented from this synthesis emerged as clearly defined heterodox schools. In addition, the Marxist and institutionalist schools remained active but with limited acceptance or credibility.^[9]

Up to 1980 the most notable themes of heterodox economics in its various forms included:

1. rejection of theatomistic individual conception in favor of a socially embedded individual conception;
2. emphasis on time as an irreversible historical process;
3. reasoning in terms of mutual influences between individuals and social structures.

From approximately 1980mainstream economics has been significantly influenced by a number of new research programs, includingbehavioral economics,complexity economics,evolutionary economics,experimental economics, andneuroeconomics. One key development has been an epistemic turn away from theory towards an empirically driven approach focused centrally on questions ofcausal inference.^[10] As a consequence, some heterodox economists, such as John B. Davis, proposed that the definition of heterodox economics has to be adapted to this new, more complex reality:^[11]

...heterodox economics post-1980 is a complex structure, being composed out of two broadly different kinds of heterodox work, each internally differentiated with a number of research programs having different historical origins and orientations: the traditional left heterodoxy familiar to most and the 'new heterodoxy' resulting from other science imports.^[11]

Heterodox economics is not a school of thought in its own right, but rather an umbrella term for a set of various, diverse schools of economic thought. Despite their diversity, heterodox schools often considerneoclassical economics to be a flawed or invalid approach to understanding economics.^[12] The reasons behind this rejection may vary. Some of the elements commonly found in heterodox critiques are listed below.

One of the most broadly accepted principles of neoclassical economics is the assumption of the "rationality of economic agents". Indeed, for a number of economists, the notion of rational maximizing behavior is taken to be synonymous with economic behavior (Hirshleifer 1984). When some economists' studies do not embrace the rationality assumption, they are seen as placing the analyses outside the boundaries of the neoclassical economics discipline (Landsberg 1989, 596). Neoclassical economics begins with thea priori assumptions that agents arerational and that they seek to maximize theirindividualutility (orprofits) subject to environmental constraints. These assumptions provide the backbone forrational choice theory.

Many heterodox schools are critical of thehomo economicus model of human behavior used in the standard neoclassical model. A typical version of the critique is that of Satya Gabriel:^{[13][self-published source?]}

Neoclassical economic theory is grounded in a particular conception of human psychology, agency or decision-making. It is assumed that all human beings make economic decisions so as to maximize pleasure or utility. Some heterodox theories reject this basic assumption of neoclassical theory, arguing for alternative understandings of how economic decisions are made and/or how human psychology works. It is possible to accept the notion that humans are pleasure seeking machines, yet reject the idea that economic decisions are governed by such pleasure seeking. Human beings may, for example, be unable to make choices consistent with pleasure maximization due to social constraints and/or coercion. Humans may also be unable to correctly assess the choice points that are most likely to lead to maximum pleasure, even if they are unconstrained (except in budgetary terms) in making such choices. And it is also possible that the notion of pleasure seeking is itself a meaningless assumption because it is either impossible to test or too general to refute. Economic theories that reject the basic assumption of economic decisions as the outcome of pleasure maximization are heterodox.

Shiozawa emphasizes that economic agents act in a complex world and it is therefore impossible for them to attain maximal utility point. They instead behave as if there are repertoires of many ready-made rules, one of which they choose according to the relevant situation.^[14]

In microeconomic theory, cost-minimization by consumers and by firms implies the existence ofsupply and demand correspondences for whichmarket clearingequilibrium prices exist, if there are large numbers of consumers and producers. Under convexity assumptions or under some marginal-cost pricing rules, each equilibrium will bePareto efficient: In large economies, non-convexity also leads to quasi-equilibria that are nearly efficient.

However, the concept of market equilibrium has been criticized by Austrians, post-Keynesians and others, who object to applications of microeconomic theory to real-world markets, when such markets are not usefully approximated by microeconomic models. Heterodox economists assert that micro-economic models rarely capture reality.

Mainstream microeconomics may be defined in terms of optimization and equilibrium, following the approaches ofPaul Samuelson andHal Varian. On the other hand, heterodox economics may be labeled as falling into thenexus of institutions, history, and social structure.^[4][15]

Over the past two decades,^[when?] the intellectual agendas of heterodox economists have taken a decidedlypluralist turn. Leading heterodox thinkers have moved beyond the established paradigms of Austrian,Feminist, Institutional-Evolutionary, Marxian, Post Keynesian, Radical, Social, andSraffian economics—opening up new lines of analysis, criticism, and dialogue among dissenting schools of thought. This cross-fertilization of ideas is creating a new generation of scholarship in which novel combinations of heterodox ideas are being brought to bear on important contemporary and historical problems, such as socially grounded reconstructions of the individual in economic theory; the goals and tools of economic measurement and professional ethics; the complexities of policymaking in today's global political economy; and innovative connections among formerly separate theoretical traditions (Marxian, Austrian, feminist, ecological, Sraffian, institutionalist, and post-Keynesian) (for a review of post-Keynesian economics, see Lavoie (1992); Rochon (1999)).

David Colander, an advocate ofcomplexity economics, argues that the ideas of heterodox economists are now being discussed in the mainstream without mention of the heterodox economists, because the tools to analyze institutions, uncertainty, and other factors have now been developed by the mainstream. He suggests that heterodox economists should embrace rigorous mathematics and attempt to work from within the mainstream, rather than treating it as an enemy.^[16]

Some schools of heterodox economic thought have also taken a transdisciplinary approach.Thermoeconomics is based on the claim that human economic processes are governed by thesecond law of thermodynamics. The posited relationship between economic theory,energy andentropy, has been extended further bysystems scientists to explain the role of energy inbiological evolution in terms of such economic criteria asproductivity,efficiency, and especially the costs and benefits of the various mechanisms for capturing and utilizing available energy to build biomass and do work.^[17][18]

Various student movements have emerged in response to the exclusion of heterodox economics in the curricula of most economics degrees. TheInternational Student Initiative for Pluralist Economics was set up as an umbrella network for various smaller university groups such asRethinking Economics to promote pluralism in economics, including more heterodox approaches.

# Listed inJournal of Economic Literature codesscrolled to atJEL: B5 – Current Heterodox Approaches.

§ Listed inThe New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics^[20]

Some schools in the social sciences aim to promote certain perspectives: classical and modernpolitical economy;economic sociology andanthropology; gender and racial issues in economics; and so on.

• Bauer, L.; Matis, H. (1988). "From moral to political economy: The Genesis of social sciences".History of European Ideas.9 (2):125–143.doi:10.1016/0191-6599(88)90035-6.
• Dequech, David (2007). "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics".Journal of Post Keynesian Economics.30 (2):279–302.doi:10.2753/PKE0160-3477300207.S2CID 153773877.
• Flaherty, Diane (1987). "Radical political economy".The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics.4:36–39.
• Lee, Frederic. S. (2008)."Heterodox economics".The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.2:1–7.doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2487-1.ISBN 978-1-349-95121-5.

• Jo, Tae-Hee, Chester, Lynne, and D'Ippoliti. eds. 2017.The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics. London and New York: Routledge.ISBN 978-1138899940.
• Crozier, John Beattie (1906).The Wheel of Wealth: Being a Reconstruction of the Science and Art of Political Economy on the Lines of Modern Evolution. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
• Gerber, Julien-Francois and Steppacher, Rolf, ed., 2012.Towards an Integrated Paradigm in Heterodox Economics: Alternative Approaches to the Current Eco-Social Crises. Palgrave Macmillan.ISBN 978-0230303584
• Lee, Frederic S. 2009.A History of Heterodox Economics Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century. London and New York: Routledge. 2009ISBN 978-0415777148
• Harvey, John T. and Garnett Jr., Robert F., ed., 2007.Future Directions for Heterodox Economics, Series Advances in Heterodox Economics, The University of Michigan Press.Archived 2012-10-04 at theWayback MachineISBN 978-0472032471
• What Every Economics Student Needs to Know.. Routledge 2014.ISBN 9780765639233
• McDermott, John, 2003.Economics in Real Time: A Theoretical Reconstruction, Series Advances in Heterodox Economics, The University of Michigan Press.ISBN 978-0472113576
• Rochon, Louis-Philippe and Rossi, Sergio, editors, 2003. Modern Theories of Money: The Nature and Role of Money in Capitalist Economies. Edward Elgar Publishing.^{[permanent dead link‍]}ISBN 1840647892
• Solow, Robert M. (20 March 1988)."The Wide, Wide World Of Wealth (The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics'. Edited by John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman. Four volumes. 4,103 pp. New York: Stockton Press.)".New York Times.
• Stigler, George J. (December 1988). "Palgrave's Dictionary of Economics".Journal of Economic Literature.26 (4):1729–36.JSTOR 2726859.
• Stilwell, Frank., 2011.Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas. Oxford University Press.ISBN 978-0195514582
• Foundations of Real-World Economics: What Every Economics Student Needs to Know, 2nd edition, Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge: 2019.

• Lavoie, Marc, 2006.Do Heterodox Theories Have Anything in Common? A Post-Keynesian Point of View.
• Lawson, Tony, 2006. "The Nature of Heterodox Economics,"Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), pp. 483–505.Pre-publication copy.

• Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review
• Journal of Institutional Economics
• Cambridge Journal of Economics
• Real-world economics review
• International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education
• Review of Radical Political Economy

• Association for Heterodox Economics
• Heterodox Economics Newsletter
• Heterodox Economics Directory (Graduate and Undergraduate Programs, Journals, Publishers and Book Series, Associations, Blogs, and Institutions and Other Web Sites)
• Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE)
• International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE)
• Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE)
• Association for Social Economics (ASE)
• Post-Keynesian Economics Study Group (PKSG)