From inherited tradition to bold redefinition: a personal journey toward a positive, shared vision of what heterodox economics truly is.
Once upon a time, when I was still young, bold and clueless, I inherited the editorship of the Heterodox Economics from dedicated and well-established researchers like Fred S. Lee or Tae-Hee Jo. Fred and Tae-Hee had compiled a lot of important background material – most notably the Heterodox Economics Directory, which is still updated regularly by the Newsletter’s team – and had also designed a neat system for structuring information into categories, that is, by and large, still in use.
Heterodox Economics Newsletter
Der Heterodox Economics Newsletter wird herausgegeben von Jakob Kapeller und erscheint im dreiwöchentlichen Rhythmus mit Neuigkeiten aus der wissenschaftlichen Community multiparadigmatischer ökonomischer Ansätze. Der Newsletter richtet sich an einen Kreis von mehr als 7.000 Empfänger*innen und zählt schon weit mehr als 250 Ausgaben.
Nonetheless, when setting up a new website in 2013 I found that one thing was missing: a concise, conceptual definition of what heterodox economics is. Back then, sociological definitions referring to specific research communities with ‚self-identifying‘ researchers were somewhat prominent (see here for an example) and, relatedly, negative definitions that tried to define heterodox economics simply as an antipode to the ‚dominant mainstream‘ (see here for an example).
However, for me, this was not satisfactory. While I recognize, appreciate and benefit from the diversity of heterodox thought, there is too much consistency on very general ideas shared across different schools and traditions to reduce ‚heterodox‘ to a mere umbrella term for deviant views. And there are too many commonalities in terms of specific intuitions, convictions, methods or hypotheses to argue convincingly that different schools should be treated as isolated and distinct. Sure, there remain disagreements and cleavages within our community – but at the end of the day, there have to be cleavages as they signify the important difference between science and sect ;-) What is important is that such disagreements can often be discussed with reference to shared conceptual foundations, which point to the important ties between different heterodox schools, that are sometimes overlooked when the focus lies on said cleavages.*
So I came to a conclusion that effectively scared me: I noticed I had to write up a positive definition of what heterodox economics is. I honestly thought this was over my head, but, then again, I was the editor of the Newsletter now, so no one would do it for me. Here is what I came up with back then:
„Heterodox Economics is an umbrella term covering various strands of economic thought as well as a series of interdisciplinary research fields. While heterodox economics is internally highly diversified, most heterodox economists agree on certain conceptual definitions (e.g. doing economics is to study the process of social provisioning in a broad sense), theoretical foundations (e.g. the role of uncertainty in economic action or the importance of the principles of effective demand and endogenous money) and a common epistemological framework, that takes the form of pluralist engagement.
These commonalities imply that heterodox economists do not necessarily reject any analysis based on the „holy trinity“ of conventional economics, i.e. scarcity, rationality and equilibrium, but contest that, as in the current state of the economic discipline, economic research should always assume this holy trinity as the only relevant starting point for economic thought. Hence, while heterodox economics is on the one hand simply an open-minded, interested and critical starting point for analyzing economic issues, it also serves as a common denominator for those economic views, which are increasingly marginalized within the economics’ profession.“
Looking back on this, I am not too disappointed. Over the years I found myself citing this definition in many lectures trying to explain what heterodox economics is (I also sometimes cite this older editorial, that further develops some aspects of the above). It has aged not too badly, but, in my humble view, still requires an update – not only to increase its accuracy, but also because heterodox economics has changed and developed.
Against this backdrop, my question for you today is: what do you think is missing, should be changed or adapted in the above definition? If you happen to have any input on this core question in heterodox soul-searching, please drop us a message by email. We will make no promises here to include all suggestions, but we would – nonetheless – very much appreciate, if you would share any insights or views you might have on this question. If you – instead or in addition – want to know what I tend to change in this description you can take a peek further below. **
Many thanks and all the best,
*It is probably not too much to say, that much of my work is trying to expose, illuminate and exploit these commonalities to produce sensible research. Last week, for instance, I have, together with Jonas Dominy and Jan David Weber, contributed this short talk to the Ergodicity Economics conference 2026. In this talk we map key intuitions between heterodox economics and ergodicity economics to indicate how these perspectives align well in many respects – and where deepening this joint vision could lead to fruitful research agendas.
** To me some core missing components in the above definition are topical: the recognition of planetary boundaries (now much more widely appreciated across schools) is missing as is an emphasis on a shared interest in inequality and structural asymmetries (across class, race, gender et al. but also between countries and their often diverging developmental trajectories). Furthermore, somewhat widely held theoretical intuitions – e.g. on the importance of path-dependence, the social constitution of money or the household as a site of production – could be added. Finally, the more general insight that economic development is driven by interconnected individuals, which effectively renders socio-economic systems into complex systems, that has gained some traction among natural sciences in recent years, is a candidate for inclusion (see also this more recent editorial). The reason is that the underlying intuition is latently present in many heterodox approaches and concepts and, thereby, has long been partially anticipated by arguments on social embeddedness, the paradox of thrift, the endogenous emergence of social hierarchies, the beauty contest or the social emulation of preferences.
