The orthodox model’s ban on disagreement suppressed heterodoxy and worsened later conflict.

Evidence

Consensus is often mistaken for groupthink within the DSGE model, and this tends to mirror a sociological characteristic of the economics profession. Both the ā€œagentā€ in the DSGE model and in the American profession could not imagine an effective search for truth emerging out of substantial persistent disagreement over fundamentals. Agents in orthodox models are enjoined from ā€œagreeing to disagreeā€; and economists in good standing must knuckle under as well. The utter revulsion for anything smacking of real heterodoxy, combined with a fear of appearing ā€œunscientificā€ to outsiders, eventually led to a donnybrook far more drastic than any embarrassment or compromised legitimacy that might have otherwise previously arisen from strident disagreement in the court of public opinion. Indeed, the effect of the crisis has been to bring those repressed disputes out into the open. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 787

Categorization

  • XREF: The ā€˜agent and profession mirror each other’ move connects to the thought-collective theme and to Mirowski’s broader argument about how elite economics polices internal dissent — echoes the sociology of knowledge in the Kuhn chapter earlier. — connects to: Heterodox critics exposed real weaknesses in orthodox Marxist applications.; Autocratic rule suppressed ethnic conflict that resurfaced after regime overthrow — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2348; Autocratic rule can suppress ethnic conflicts that resurface after regime change. (+2 more)
  • SEED: Angle: how a discipline that bans ā€˜agreeing to disagree’ structurally guarantees that crises explode as scandals instead of being absorbed — the donnybrook theory of suppressed heterodoxy.

Broader Connections