Elite reform conferences excluded genuine heterodox economic schools

Evidence

None of the participants evinced the slightest unease in their embrace of the dogma that nothing that had transpired in the last seventy-five years had moved the goalposts of allowable economic controversy away from those supposedly positioned by John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek. … Surely it had been fatuous of me to hope INET might have provided a platform for any authentic divergent strains of economic thought, given that those glitterati would have avoided the conference like the plague if it had been stocked up with post-Keynesians, Regulation School representatives, Institutionalists, and Minskyites, much less Chinese-style Marxists. β€” Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 17

Categorization

  • XREF: The Keynes-Hayek orthodoxy framing and the exclusion of heterodox schools connects to chapters on the economists’ thought collective. β€” connects to: Professional exclusion of heterodox economists makes neoclassical orthodoxy self-reinforcing β€” Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 824; Economic heterodoxy declined because graduate training filtered out non-economists β€” Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 64; Elite cultural unity does not equal mass political unity β€” Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 439 (+1 more)
  • corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim β€” Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 17

Broader Connections