2 The Emergence of Heterodox Economics in Post-W：2出现异端经济学post-w.doc

Error! Main Document Only.32CONFERENCE OF SOCIALIST ECONOMISTS AND THE EMERGENCE OF HETERODOX ECONOMICS IN POST-WAR BRITAINByProfessor Frederic S. LeeUniversity of Missouri-Kansas CityJuly 2001Department of Economics211 Haag HallUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City5100 Rockhill RoadKansas City, Missouri 64110U.S.A.e-mail: CONFERENCE OF SOCIALIST ECONOMISTS AND THE EMERGENCEOF HETERODOX ECONOMICS IN POST-WAR BRITAIN1. IntroductionThe emergence of heterodox economics, that is a community of heterodox economists, in post-war Britain is the focus of this article. Thus it is concerned with those factors that lead individual economists to see themselves as supporting a body of theory that was antithetical to neoclassical economic theory and to partaking in social networks and institutions which were outside those which made up the community of neoclassical economists. The end result of the many personal journeys was the creation in 1970 of the Conference of Socialist Economists (CSE), Britains first post-war community of heterodox economists. The use of the term community is important in that it brings together both the body of ideas accepted by heterodox economists with the fact that the ideas are embedded in a social milieu. Thus members of the community both advocate the ideas and engage in social activities to ensure that they continue to be advocated independently of any individual member. The social milieu that supports and promotes a body of ideas consists of two social structures-social network The social network consists of direct and indirect social relationships between heterodox economists. The relationships or social ties include correspondence; intellectual and social interactions at conferences, in seminars, or with students; and belonging to the same mailing list, subscribing to and publishing in the same journals, attending the same meetings, and supporting a common course of action. Economists who participate in the above activities can be thought of as members of the network and hence members of the heterodox community. and institutionsInstitutions are social arrangements organised to produce specific outcomes that would support and promote heterodox economic theory. Relevant institutions include journals, book publishers, professional associations and informal groups, and universities and research institutes with their undergraduate and graduate economic programs.-which have to be consciously constructed and maintained. In particular, the social network glues together the heterodox theory with its supporting institutions. Thus, the economists who are part of the social network interact both with the theory and the institutions in such a way that so as to create a community of heterodox economists.Although the article deals with the emergence of heterodox economics after 1945, it is important to set the stage by briefly saying why. At the turn of the century, historical economics and to a lesser extent Marxism were important components of economic scholarship in British in universities and colleges and actively contested the terrain with neoclassical economic theory, especially as represented by Marshall and his Principles of Economics. However, by the 1930s Marshallian neoclassical economics, as represented in the works of A. C. Pigou, J. Robinson, A. Kahn, and R. Harrod, had achieved a near-hegemonic victory. Outside of British higher education there existed sorted currency cranks, distributists such as the Henry George school, socialists, and Marxists. While they had some influence on public debate and the attitudes of trade unionists, their impact upon economic scholarship in higher education was minimal. Consequently, they will not be dealt with in this essay. Gone was the Oxford historical and applied approach to political economy that was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of Oxfords distinctive Honour School in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics; gone was much of the teaching of aspects of historical economics in the provincial universities, replaced with Marshalls economics; gone were prescribed reading and lectures on Marx and Marxism; and gone was scholarly research utilising these heterodox traditions by British academic economists, with some exceptions of course. The absence of Marxism and historical economics from the thinking and awareness of British economists was supported by the widespread adoption of Marshalls continuity thesis that asserted that the entire history of economic theory lead with little deviation to the neoclassical theory taught and espoused since 1900.It is clear from the various comments on the economics at Cambridge in the inter-war period that any form of heterodox economics was not taught nor was the focus of any substantial research, bar the work of Maurice Dobb. In fact Dobb was probably the only inter-war Marxist economist teaching at a British university in the inter-war years. A. Robinson, 1990; Collard, 1990; and Turner, 1989 Along with the rise to dominance of Marshallian neoclassical theory, British economics became, as a result of a number of powerful institutional forces, increasingly homogenised. One was the Royal Economic Society that actively promoted itself as the economic society for all British economists, while discouraging the view that there should be other competing or alternative associations for British economists.The Scottish Economic Society did the same for Scotland. The second institutional force was the role of The Economic Journal in projecting what constituted economics and the forefront of economic research. Although the neoclassical theory content of the journal grew slowly over time, by the 1930s it was clear that what constituted acceptable economic theory was neoclassical economic theory broadly interpreted. The use of neoclassical theory and methodology, irrespective of the particular topics to which it was applied, was the defining characteristic of a young British economist in the 1930s, as starkly evident by the articles published in the newly formed Economica (1920) and the Review of Economic Studies (1933).The third less obtrusive but extremely powerful institutional force was the role of examinations and external examiners from Cambridge and the London School of Economics in ensuring that non-neoclassical material was not taught at provincial institutions. For example, a student entering University College, Southampton to read economics would in fact be reading for a University of London external degree. Thus the economic content of the degree would be determined by the University of London and particularly by the London School of Economics. Consequently the student would read material by Wicksell, Knight, Marshall, Keynes, Pigou, Hayek and Robbins, but not Marx or any historical, institutional, or Marxian economist. Moreover, the lecturers would have to lecture only on the neoclassical material being prescribed so as not to disadvantage their students when it came to exams, since the University of London set the examinations. The situation at Southampton was not different from the situations faced by university colleges elsewhere. Even if an economics department at a provincial institution could determine its own content, the role of the external examiner would generally ensure that the content did not stray too far from neoclassical economics. The final force concerned the appointments of professors and lecturers in that the status of Cambridge and later the London School of Economics ensured through the letters of reference that only proper neoclassical economists were appointed, as evident by the ostracism of J. A. Hobson by F. Y. Edgeworth and British academic economists. Young and Lee, 1993; Koot, 1987; Kadish, 1982 and 1989; Kadish and Tribe, 1993; Middleton, 1998; Coats, 1967; Lee, 1993; and King, 1988Although heterodox economists existed at various universities, the same could not be said about heterodox economic traditions. With the absence of such traditions in British universities by 1940 this meant that in the post-war years, heterodox economics had to start from scratch. Thus the next section of the article will examine and delineate those factors that lead, over the period of 1950 to 1970, to the creation of the CSE. Particular attention will be paid to economists associated with the Communist Party, the impact of the New Left and student activism, and the perceived crisis in economic theory. The third section deals with the emergence of the CSE in 1970-1971; and the final section concludes with a brief survey of CSE first five years of building a community of Marxian-heterodox economists.2. The Emergence of Heterodox Economics in Post-War Britain, 1945 to 1970From 1945 to the 1960s British economics and what was taught at universities was some variant of the reigning neoclassical economics. In particular, there existed no association of economists or other institutional arrangement around which critics of and dissenters from neoclassical economics could gather and develop a collective existence. Rather as relatively isolated academics, they had little or no support within academia.The Communist Party with its Economists Group did provide some support for its members, which included Maurice Dobb (Cambridge), Ronald Meek (Glasgow and Leicester), and Ron Bellamy (Leeds). However, up until the 1970s it devoted much of its activities to supporting communists in the trade union movement, offering advice on applied and policy issues. It only started to deal with theoretical issues after the Party attracted some young academic economists in the 1970s. Still, not much is know about the Groups overall activities. Grahl, 2000 Because they severely questioned or challenged the orthodoxy or attempted to provide a anti-neoclassical theory, they were singled out for attacked and marginalisation, as in the cases of Philip Andrews and George Richardson (Young and Lee, 1993; Lee and Irving-Lessmann, 1992). Moreover, just being a Marxist, although somewhat respectable otherwise, meant that promotion was denied, as happened to Ronald Meek when teaching at the University of Glasgow in the 1950s. Thus they stood generally little chance against the cleansing and discriminatory proclivities of the mainstream.While the statement is apt to be denied by economists, it should be noted that Marxist economic historians suffered from the discriminatory practices of their neutralist colleagues. Moreover, Eric Hobsbawn suggests that blacklisting of Marxist historians started in 1948, with the result that there was virtually no hiring of Marxist historians for nearly a decade. In addition, between 1945 and 1950 the Labour government purged the Civil Service, the BBC, and adult education of communists. Thus, it is not clear why economists should insist that conditions were different in economics by claiming there was no discrimination against Marxist or other radical economists. Coleman, 1987; Hobsbawn, 1978; and Childs, 1997 Finally, there existed an element of conformity within British economics which impressed upon British economists that they were all colleagues who belonged to the same economic association, the Royal Economic Society; and the Royal Economic Society portrayed itself as the only institution for all British economists. Consequently, even if individual economists did disagree with neoclassical theory, they did not, at least in the period 1945 to the mid-1960s, see themselves as so different from their neoclassical colleagues to feel that their interests would be best served by establishing a new economic association or a new economic journal.This is in stark contrast to the Communist Party Historians Group. The purpose of the Group was to challenge the perspectives of non-Marxian bourgeois historians. Formed in 1946 by a number of Marxist historians, including Dobb, the group met regularly for discussion and members produced over thirty books and one hundred articles and chapters in books. It also raised its own income to finance its activities; held conferences, weekend schools, and public lectures; established the journal, Past and Present, for the purpose of published the best Marxian and non-Marxian radical historical material; produced a bulletin promoting local history; and somewhat successfully established regional branches. To achieve its purpose, the Group consistently attempted to build bridges between Marxists and non-Marxists with whom they shared some common interests and sympathies. The achievements of the Group included contributing to the emergence of the field of social history and labour history, transforming the study of the English Revolution, and influencing the general teaching of history through the publication of popular general textbooks. Hobsbawn, 1978; Schwarz, 1982; and Kaye, 1995 2.1Cracks in the Status QuoThe New Left emerged in 1956-57 as a result of the shattering impact on the Communist Party and the British Left in general of Khruschevs speech detailing Stalins atrocities, the Hungarian uprising, and the Suez Crisis. Consequently, a wider field for socialist politics came into being where non-aligned Marxists could fight for socialism outside the Communist Party. Joining in the fight were middle class non-aligned angry young men and women who rejected the complacency of post-war Britain as well as the single-lane road to socialism via nationalisation and centralised state planning. The evolving view from the New Left was that socialism meant more than simply material well-being; it also meant social equality and an improved quality of life. This intellectual ferment produced a growing disenchantment with the traditional presentation of Marxian economic theory as well as with the arguments that Keynesian techniques could produce a more humane capitalism; but at the same time it produced a renewed interest in Marxism and more particularly in socialist economics. The questioning of tradition and authority in the fight for socialism became a hallmark of the New Left; it also became a characteristic of the articles published in various New Left publications, culminating in the New Left Review (1960). Chun, 1993; and Kenny, 1995Independent of New Left political activities, the latter half of the 1960s saw a particular upsurge of radical activism both outside and inside universities. With the election of a Labour government in 1964, many expected the development of economic policies that would maintain economic growth and which would move the U.K. closer to socialism. However, the period of 1964 to 1970 was dominated by the introduction of wage and price controls to deal with inflation, the perception of slow economic growth, cuts in social expenditures, devaluation, and attempts to curb the power of trade unions and the ability of workers to engage in strike action. In addition, there were international issues regarding Rhodesia and South Africa and white minority rule and support of the United States in Vietnam as well as domestic issues about immigration and Northern Ireland which simultaneously raised questions about the degree to which the Labour government supported imperialism and racism. Collectively, these issues and events produced a radicalising effect on students and younger academics in higher education.Inside the university sector students began questioning the constitutional and disciplinary procedures by which universities had hitherto operated. This involved, between 1967 to 1975, sit-ins at nearly all of the forty-four universities and a few polytechnics as well as rent strikes, boycott of classes, and paint-spraying of buildings. The expansion of the university sector both in terms of the number of universities and the number of students generated a less academic-collegial oriented environment; students felt estranged from their lecturers and tutors while both the students and the teaching staff felt estranged from those who ran the institutions. In particular, decisions were made and imposed on students and staff alike without any consultation or consideration. Moreover, in some cases, such as at Warwick, decisions made by the University (largely without consultation with the staff) tended to favour particular areas that were closely connected to local business interests; the outcome of which meant that students and staff in the more academic less business-oriented areas had to cope with a declining physical environment and under-stocked libraries. In some cases, students were left without student unions. These imprecise, but deeply felt grievances and issues eventually erupted into student activism (which in various universities and polytechnics was supported by some of the teaching staff and governors). The spark often came from an unexpected source, such as the appointment of a new Director at the London School of Economics or a supplement in The Times touting science at Warwick tailored to the needs of industry. But once the activism-opposition started, the harsh response (at least in student eyes) by the universities generated additional student activism. One outcome of the student activism was that students and the younger staff took an increasing interest in radical politics which opposed the capitalist system; and for students interested in economics and budding post-graduate economists this translated into an interest in Marxism as well as in critiques of neoclassical economic theory. Williams, 1970; Bagnall and Cox, 1973; Radice, 1973; Childs, 1997; Stewart, 1989; Dahrendorf, 1995; and Thompson, 1980Complementing the rise of student activism was the breakdown in t