Skip Navigation



Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access published online on September 26, 2009
Cambridge Journal of Economics, doi:10.1093/cje/bep057
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by De Langhe, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

How monist is heterodoxy?

Rogier De Langhe*

* The author is a PhD fellow of the Research Foundation, Flanders (FWO). Thanks to Jeroen Van Bouwel, Erik Weber, Maarten Van Dyck, Wendy Olsen and Tony Lawson

Address for correspondence: Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; email: rogier.delanghe{at}ugent.be

Some heterodox economists, most notably Tony Lawson, have come under suspicion of not being true pluralists, but ‘strategic pluralists’: their advocacy of pluralism is thought to be merely instrumental to a hidden monist agenda. This paper does not aim to judge the accused but rather to assess the accusations; the focus is on clarifying the notion of pluralism itself. First a paradox is found to lie at the core of scientific pluralism. Different responses to this paradox can be traced to different views on pluralism found in the literature. The resulting classification allows an analysis of the current controversy among pluralists and provides an understanding of the different aspects of the debate.

Key Words: Pluralism • Epistemology • Heterodox economics • Orthodox economics • Philosophy of social science

JEL classifications: A10, B00, B40, B50

Manuscript received November 12, 2007; final version received July 29, 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.