IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201510.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mainstreaming. Reflections on the Origins and Fate of Mainstream Pluralism

Author

Listed:

Abstract

There is considerable discussion on the so-called “mainstream pluralism”, which stems from the growth and coexistence of new research programs in economics that significantly deviate from the neoclassical core. Other disciplines have actively contributed to the birth of such programs, that are carried on by different, often separated communities of researchers. Although “mainstream pluralism” is not the pluralism heterodox economists and students groups have sought for in the recent decades, its persistence over time might provide a possible precondition for the advent of pluralism in economics. While the literature tends to regard mainstream pluralism as a transitory state towards a new, post-neoclassical, mainstream, this paper contributes to the debate by bringing in a different perspective, focusing on economics’ fragmentation and the necessity of specialization. We adopt a “late Kuhnian” framework (derived from Kuhn’s late works on specialization), considering not scientific revolutions but specialization as key engine of progress in science, and interpret mainstream pluralism as the result of economics’ recent growth in size and dive rsity. To account for the necessity of specialization in economics, we employ Ronald Heiner’s work on the competence-difficulty gap, as well as the evidence offered in some recent studies about the impact of the “burden” of previously accumulated knowledge on innovative behaviour. After a bird’s eye view on the recent history of economics in relation to other disciplines (and an analysis of Herbert Gintis’s “unity of behavioral sciences” proposal as possible new mains tream), we discuss the possibility that today’s “mainstream pluralism” might persist over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Cedrini, Mario & Fontana, Magda, 2015. "Mainstreaming. Reflections on the Origins and Fate of Mainstream Pluralism," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201510, University of Turin.
  • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2015dip/wp_10_2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    3. Randall G. Holcombe, 2008. "Pluralism versus Heterodoxy in Economics and the Social Sciences," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 51-72, March.
    4. Fontana, Magda, 2010. "Can neoclassical economics handle complexity? The fallacy of the oil spot dynamic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 584-596, December.
    5. Hirshleifer, Jack, 1985. "The Expanding Domain of Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(6), pages 53-68, December.
    6. Davis, John B., 2006. "The turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-20, April.
    7. Philippe Fontaine, 2007. "From Philanthropy to Altruism: Incorporating Unselfish Behavior into Economics, 1961-1975," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-46, Spring.
    8. Davis, John B., 2013. "Economics Imperialism under the Impact of Psychology: The Case of Behavioral Development Economics," OEconomia, Editions NecPlus, vol. 2013(01), pages 119-138, March.
    9. Benjamin Jones & E.J. Reedy & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2014. "Age and Scientific Genius," NBER Working Papers 19866, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Bruno S. Frey & Matthias Benz, 2004. "From Imperialism to Inspiration: A Survey of Economics and Psychology," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & Alain Marciano & Jochen Runde (ed.), The Elgar Companion To Economics and Philosophy, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. David Dequech, 2007. "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 279-302.
    12. David Colander, 2001. "The Lost Art of Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2415.
    13. David W. Galenson & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2000. "Age and the Quality of Work: The Case of Modern American Painters," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(4), pages 761-777, August.
    14. Benjamin F. Jones, 2010. "Age and Great Invention," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Hahn, Frank, 1991. "The Next Hundred Years," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(404), pages 47-50, January.
    16. David Colander, 2014. "The Wrong Type of Pluralism: Toward a Transdisciplinary Social Science," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 516-525, October.
    17. David W. Galenson & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2001. "Creating Modern Art: The Changing Careers of Painters in France from Impressionism to Cubism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1063-1071, September.
    18. Leonhard Dobusch & Jakob Kapeller, 2012. "A Guide to Paradigmatic Self-Marginalization: Lessons for Post-Keynesian Economists," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 469-487, July.
    19. Roger Backhouse & Beatrice Cherrier, 2014. "Becoming Applied: The Transformation of Economics after 1970," Discussion Papers 14-11, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    20. Bruce Caldwell, 2013. "Presidential Address — Of Positivism and the History of Economic Thought," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(4), pages 753-767, April.
    21. Wolfram Elsner, 2013. "State and future of the ‘citadel’ and of the heterodoxies in economics: challenges and dangers, convergences and cooperation," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 10(3), pages 286—298-2, December.
    22. Dieter Bögenhold, 2010. "From Heterodoxy to Orthodoxy and Vice Versa: Economics and Social Sciences in the Division of Academic Work," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1566-1590, November.
    23. John B. Davis & Alain Marciano & Jochen Runde (ed.), 2004. "The Elgar Companion To Economics and Philosophy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2696.
    24. J. E. King, 2012. "The Microfoundations Delusion," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14065.
    25. Sheila C. Dow, 2008. "Plurality in Orthodox and Heterodox Economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 73-96, March.
    26. John B. Davis, 2008. "The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(3), pages 349-366, May.
    27. Philippe Fontaine, 2012. "Beyond Altruism? Economics and the Minimization of Unselfish Behavior, 1975-93," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 195-233, Summer.
    28. Roger E. Backhouse, 2004. "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & Alain Marciano & Jochen Runde (ed.), The Elgar Companion To Economics and Philosophy, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mario A. Cedrini & Roberto Marchionatti, 2017. "On the Theoretical and Practical Relevance of the Concept of Gift to the Development of a Non-imperialist Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 49(4), pages 633-649, December.
    2. Ambrosino, Angela & Fontana, Magda & Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2015. "Shifting Boundaries in Economics: the Institutional Cognitive Strand," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201544, University of Turin.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mario Cedrini & Magda Fontana, 2018. "Just another niche in the wall? How specialization is changing the face of mainstream economics [Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences]," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 42(2), pages 427-451.
    2. Mario A. Cedrini & Roberto Marchionatti, 2017. "On the Theoretical and Practical Relevance of the Concept of Gift to the Development of a Non-imperialist Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 49(4), pages 633-649, December.
    3. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    4. Matthias Krapf, 2015. "Age and complementarity in scientific collaboration," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 751-781, September.
    5. William A. Jackson, 2018. "Strategic Pluralism and Monism in Heterodox Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(2), pages 237-251, June.
    6. Angela Ambrosino & Magda Fontana & Anna Azzurra Gigante, 2018. "Shifting Boundaries In Economics: The Institutional Cognitive Strand And The Future Of Institutional Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 767-791, July.
    7. Benjamin Jones & E.J. Reedy & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2014. "Age and Scientific Genius," NBER Working Papers 19866, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Börsch-Supan, Axel & Weiss, Matthias, 2016. "Productivity and age: Evidence from work teams at the assembly line," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 30-42.
    9. Robert B. Ekelund & John D. Jackson & Robert D. Tollison, 2015. "Age and productivity: An empirical study of early American artists," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(4), pages 1096-1116, April.
    10. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Ambrosino, Angela & Fontana, Magda & Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2015. "Shifting Boundaries in Economics: the Institutional Cognitive Strand," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201544, University of Turin.
    12. Kaltenberg, Mary & Jaffe, Adam B. & Lachman, Margie E., 2023. "Invention and the life course: Age differences in patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    13. Claudius Gräbner & Birte Strunk, 2020. "Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 311-329, October.
    14. Bruce A. Weinberg & David W. Galenson, 2019. "Creative Careers: The Life Cycles of Nobel Laureates in Economics," De Economist, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 221-239, September.
    15. Michele Di Maio, 2013. "Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1315-1348, November.
    16. Drakopoulos, Stavros A. & Katselidis, Ioannis, 2017. "The Relationship between Psychology and Economics: Insights from the History of Economic Thought," MPRA Paper 77485, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Michel De Vroey & Luca Pensieroso, 2021. "Grounded in Methodology, Certified by Journals: The Rise and Evolution of a Mainstream in Economics," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2021015, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    18. Romaniuc, Rustam, 2017. "Intrinsic motivation in economics: A history," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 56-64.
    19. Stavros, Drakopoulos, 2021. "The Relation of Neoclassical Economics to other Disciplines: The case of Physics and Psychology," MPRA Paper 106597, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Piero Cavaleri or Marina Grazioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.