To treat both the issues of both heterodox ideas and marginalized social groups that have been raised in this discussion, how about considering feminist economics? Now, wait—before you stop reading—consider whether you really know what this field is about. I have found many heterodox as well as mainstream economists more than willing to take off on flights of reaction without actually reading any works by feminist economists. Does it seem that there may be a teensy bit of gender bias in the assumption that economic actors are rational, autonomous individual mental choice-makers (while somebody else takes care of emotions, dependencies, and bodies?).

Perhaps there is a smidgen of fear behind the my-math-is-bigger-than-your-math criteria for research acceptance? Feminist economics has been an organized field now for more than 10 years, with a journal (Feminist Economics) and international organization (IAFFE). Apparently Chris Hayes missed our ten sessions at the winter ASSA meetings. (But thanks for the late invitation to join the discussion, Chris.)

And, yes, power and gatekeeping make a difference. I trained in the mainstream and published in Econometrica, the Journal of Political Economy and other top economics journals while simultaneously developing my feminist arguments. In another discipline, this combination might have made me a prize “catch.” In this one, it led to me being shown to the door. (Google “Julie A. Nelson vs. Brandeis University” if you want the story.)

Are heterodox ideas are making inroads into economics? I believe that the degree of change is severely limited by mainstream economists’ devotion to what they see as the methodological core. Pressing social issues and would-be innovative projects get radically diluted when they are viewed from this method-centric viewpoint. Ecological economics, which realizes the critical need for responses to problems such as climate change, meets mainstream prejudices and turns into “natural resource” economics where the future is discounted away. Economists taking a “behavioral” turn too often read a wide variety of interesting literature…and then try to cram some bits of it into utility function notation and econometric studies of MRI scans. Issues of gender and race get coded into dummy variables, and left at that, while issues of power are barely addressed at all. For economics to be useful, it should be problem-centric, using whatever tools work to address a phenomenon of concern. A few economists are willing to do this, even if it means breaking ranks. But such courage is far too rarely seen.

Amartya Sen (a mainstream but open-minded economist) wrote as a blurb for Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics (U. of Chicago Press, 1993), “The barbarians are surely at the gate. The only question is: Are the barbarians the ones outside the gate, or are we inside it?”