Can Heterodox economics work together to make a difference? – a Review and Discussion of Phil Armstrong’s Interviews Review by Hannes Ingo Torbohm

Phil Armstrong’s Can heterodox economics make a difference? is an exemplary case study for a wish long-held for heterodox economics.[2] Armstrong’s recent contributions have revolved around the idea that if only the disparate schools of heterodoxy could work together then it would be much easier to make the case that the inertia of the mainstream could be stopped (Armstrong, 2018). This dream of the heterodox scholar would require a meeting of minds, a common framework, and a set of goals that allowed for an increased pluralism in our economic space. It would be a requirement to build an academy that could learn from difference, produce in divergent ways, and always have at base an agreement on what exists (Armstrong, 2015). This dream is, however, a mirage of sorts, which is revealed to the reader as they begin the path through these interviews conducted by Armstrong.

Armstrong’s text is the expression of this dream of the heterodox space. His own work in recent years has proposed a “heterodox paradigm” where differing schools, if only they would accept MMT’s position on money and government spending, could be brought together (Armstrong, 2018). From this position it would be possible, so argues Armstrong, to present a competing narrative to the mainstream with a wide variety of pluralistic positions on display. Thus, ending a hegemony by presenting a hegemony of MMT’s ontology. I wish to be clear that I am deeply sympathetic to this idea and am a proponent of a version of it myself, but I fear it is less than plausible....