The Neoclassical Economics Through the Prism of the Heterodoxy Economic Concept

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 1 - 13, 30.06.2020

Maya Tsoklinova

Öz

The heterodoxy economic concept provides an alternative approach to explore basic economic principles. The heterodoxy economy seeks to include social and historical factors in the analysis, as well as to assess how the behaviour of individuals and social groups changes market equilibrium. A heterodox conviction is also the belief that it is necessary to examine the reasons for deviations from market equilibrium rather than to analyze economic systems in a condition of static equilibrium. Therefore, the economic system must be explored in its entirety, including the three elements of the triad “nature-society-economy”. In this report a special emphasis is placed on the economic principles that are characteristic of the heterodoxy economic concept and their differences with those typical of orthodox (conventional) economic theory. The orthodox conventional economic theory deals with the "rationality-individualism-balance" triad, with an emphasis on maximizing behaviour and rational economic agents who always strive to fulfil the conditions that ensure their equilibrium. Alternatively to the abovementioned, the heterodox concept focuses attention on the triad "nature-society-economy". This unity makes it possible not to separate the economic environment from the natural one. In this way, it is possible to neutralize one of the biggest market failures, namely: the study of the economic environment beyond the natural environment. The latter calls for the concept of sustainable development to be used in its four directions: sustainability of the economy; sustainability of society; environmental sustainability; institutional sustainability. The purpose of this report is to explore neoclassical economic theory through the prism of the heterodoxy concept and on this basis to reveal the main differences in the theoretical and methodological terms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

neoclassical economics, heterodoxy economic concept, triad „nature-society-economy”, triad „rationality-individualism-equilibrium”.

Kaynakça

• Гечев, Р. (2007). Устойчиво развитие и пазарна конкурентоспособност. В: Годишник на УНСС. с. 175-199.
• Миркович, К. (2004). Пределна полезност и пределна стойност. Икономическа мисъл. № 6.
• Миркович, К. (2005). Релативистична теория на полезността и стойността. Икономическа мисъл. № 2.
• Михайлов, П. (2009). Икономическият човек” и неговото място в обществото. Икономика. № 4.
• Михайлов, П. (2012). Каква икономическа теория ни е нужна? Народностопански архив. № 2.
• Тодоров, В., (2016). Българска неортодоксална критика на неокласическия икономикс във връзка с глобалната финансово-икономическа криза от 2008-2009 година, издателство „Наука и икономика”, ISBN 978-954-21- 0909-9, ИУ-Варна, с. 56-75.
• Тодоров, В., (2017). Съвременна политическа икономия в България: проблеми на идентификацията, ISSN 0013-2993, Икономическа мисъл, 2, с. 3-29.
• Тошкова, Св. (2014). Икономическата теория в търсене на нова парадигма и методология (в контекста на историята). с. 9-32.
• Тошкова, Св., (2018). Икономическата теория - път към алтернативите, Юбилейна научна конференция „Икономика и икономическа теория: проблеми и взаимодействия” - ИУ Варна, ISBN 978-954-21-0951-8.
• Arnsperger, C., Y. Varoufakis. (2006). What is neoclassical economics? Post-Autistic Economics Review 38: article 1.
• Barbier, E. (2007). Natural Resources and Economic Development. Cambridge University Press.
• Bâc, P. D. (2015). A history of the concept of sustainable development: literature review. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series. 17(2). 576-580.
• Backhouse, R. E. (2000). Progress in heterodox economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22(2): 149–55.
• Bortis, H. (1997) Institutions, Behaviour and Economics Theory: a contribution to Classical Keynesian political economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chichilnisky, G., G. M. Heal. (2000). Environmental Markets: Equity and Efficiency, Columbia University Press. New York.
• Colander, D., Richard P. F. Holt, and Barkley Rosser. (2008). The changing face of mainstream economics. The Long Term View, 7 (1): 31-42).
• Corsi, M., C. D’Ippoliti, and F. Lucidi. (2010). Pluralism at risk? Heterodox economic approaches and the evaluation of economic research in Italy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(5): 1495-1529.
• Cronin, B. (2010). The diffusion of heterodox economics. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69(5): 1475-1494.
• Dequech, D., (2008). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 30(2): 279-302.
• Dow, S. C. (2011). Heterodox economics: history and prospects. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35(6): 1151-1165.
• Dow, S. C. (2000). Prospects for the progress of heterodox economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22(2): 157-170.
• Garnett, R. F. (2006). Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics. Review of Political Economy 18(4):521–46.
• Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., (eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kolev, K. (2010). Social equilibrium between public and private interests as a precondition for sustainable forest management in Austria, Publishing house ‘Knizhen tiger’, Sofia, 36 p., ISBN 978-954-429-007-8.
• Lee, F. S., Keen, S. (2004). The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory‘, Review of Social Economy, 62(2): 169– 99.
• Lee, F. S. (2009). A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge.
• Lee, F. S. (2012). Heterodox economics and its critics. Review of Political Economy 24(2): 337-351.
• Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. Macmillan, London.
• Mearman, A. (2011). Who do heterodox economists think they are? American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70(2): 480-510.
• O‘Hara, P. A. (2002). The Role of Institutions and the Current Crises of Capitalism: a reply to Howard Sherman and John Henry‘, Review of Social Economy, 60(4): 609–18.
• Page, T. (1977). Conservation and Economic Efficiency: An Approach to Materials Policy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
• Page, T. (1982). Intergenerational justice as opportunity.
• Petri, F. (2004) General Equilibrium, Capital and Macroeconomics: a key to recent controversies in equilibrium theory, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Pezzey J. C. V. (1992). Sustainability: an interdisciplinary guide. Environmental Values 1, pp. 321–362.
• Pezzey, J C. V. (1996). An Analysis of Scientific and Economic Studies of Pollution Assimilation. Working paper 1996/97, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies. Australian National University. Canberra.
• Santos, A. C. (2011). Behavioural and experimental economics: are they really transforming economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35 (4): 705-728.
• Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. MetaLibri Digital Library.
• Smith, V. (2008). Rationality and economics: constructivist and ecological forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Spash, C. L. (1995). The political economy of nature. Review of Political Economy 7(3): pp. 279-293.
• Stilwell, F. J. B., (2012). Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Stevenson, R. E. (1987) Institutional Economics and the Theory of Production‘, Journal of Economic Issues, 21(4): 1471-93.
• Solow, R. (1986). On the intergenerational allocation of natural resources. Scandanavian Journal of Economics 88(1). pp. 141–149.
• Van Bouwel, J. (2004). Explanatory pluralism in economics: Against the mainstream? Philosophical Explorations 7(3): 299–315.
• World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).