Professor John Smithin

Professor Smithin is questioned about his specialisms, the key issues relating to them and the importance of history and the role of mathematics in his work. The perceptions of Professor Smithin on the nature of money are sought, followed by his view of applicability of the credit and state theories of money, the endogenous approach to money and the determination of interest rates. Professor Smithin is asked whether the global financial crisis (GFC) provided significant evidence to contradict the expectations of NCM and the extent to which the mainstream has maintained its hegemonic status, post crisis. Professor Smithin is then questioned on heterodox economics, whether is it feasible that heterodox economics, in any form, might mount a challenge to the mainstream paradigm in the foreseeable future and to assess the extent to which the different heterodox schools are characterised by commonality and complementarity rather than being adversarial. In addition, Professor Smithin is asked about his view of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Professor Smithin is asked to consider the potential for cooperative work within heterodox economics, the value of pluralism and the extent to which heterodox economists work within a community as opposed to within their own schools and, probing further, the feasibility of a heterodox paradigm. Professor Smithin is asked about his view of critical realism (CR), which heterodox schools (if any) he considers to be compatible with CR and what role, if any, he considers CR might have in ‘under-labouring’ a heterodox paradigm. The interview deals with the importance of education, especially the benefits of a more pluralist economics curriculum and a consideration of the positive and negative factors which Professor Smithin considers to be potential influences on the likelihood of change in economics. In this interview there is a strong focus on the importance of methodological issues and the tension between pluralism and consensus informing the debate on how the hegemony of the mainstream paradigm might best be challenged.