O meu primeiro post será sobre o artigo de T. Lawson, The nature of heterodox economics, publicado no Cambridge Journal of Economics 2006, 30, p.483-505.
O autor começa o artigo interpretando a heterodoxia como uma oposição à ortodoxia e investiga a essência do mainstream. Inicialmente, ele apresenta duas interpretações para a ortodoxia:
A primeira apresenta três elementos chaves aos trabalhos ortodoxos: “one component of most common strategy is everywhere to stipulate that human beings are rational (meaning optimizing) atomistic individuals. A second is the construction of theoretical set-ups or models specified to ensure that (typically unique) optimal outcomes are attainable.” E o terceiro surge como necessidade: “If the claim is that mainstream economics seek to defend the economic system per se, something more is required to guarantee this result. This, it is usually supposed, is achieved by the commonplace construction of an equilibrium framework […]”.
A segunda seria: “An obvious alternative hypothesis […] is that, if there is anything essential to the mainstream tradition of modern economics, it is merely a commitment to individualism, coupled with the axiom that individuals are everywhere rational (optimizing) in their behavior”
Logo depois, o autor questiona a veracidade dessas interpretações/definições de forma crítica comentando a existência de trabalhos ortodoxos mais modernos que descartam algumas das hipóteses/resultados usados nas abordagens acima.
Na verdade, a idéia central do autor sobre a ortodoxia é: “I believe there is a feature of modern mainstream economics that is essential to it. And it is an aspect so taken for granted that it goes largely unquestioned. This is just the formalistic-deductive framework that mainstream economists everywhere adopt, and indeed insist upon.[…] The truth is that modern mainstream economics is just the reliance on certain forms of mathematical (deductivist) method. This is an enduring feature of that project, and seemingly the only one; for the mainstream tradition it is its unquestioned, and seemingly unquestionable, essential core”.
Ou seja, para Lawson, o que identifica a ortodoxia é a unicidade no método, o uso de um raciocínio matemático-dedutivo. A partir disso, ele esclarece a natureza da heterodoxia:
“What follows for our understanding of heterodox economics? If the latter is first and foremost a rejection of modern mainstream economics, and the latter consists in the insistence that forms of mathematical–deductive method should everywhere be utilized, then heterodox economics, in the first instance, is just a rejection of this emphasis.
Notice that this does not amount to a rejection of all mathematical–deductive modeling. But it is a rejection of the insistence that we all always and everywhere use it. In other words, heterodox economics, in the first instance, is a rejection of a very specific form of methodological reductionism. It is a rejection of the view that formalistic methods are everywhere and always appropriate.
To say more about the nature of the heterodox traditions of modern economics, I think it is clear that we need to explain this opposition. And, as noted, we are concerned here with explaining an opposition that is sustained and enduring.
One conceivable explanation, I suppose, is that heterodox economists believe that methodological pluralism is desirable per se and no more needs to be said. But is that really all there is to it? After all, in some fields of physics, such as super string theory, mathematical methods seem actually to be universally applied, but without any sign of a heterodox opposition. In economics, by contrast, there clearly is a heterodox opposition to the mainstream. And the phenomenon to explain is not just that a heterodox opposition exists, but that it is, as noted, relatively widespread, firm, often highly vocal and enduring.”
Lawson afirma que a diferença entre ortodoxos e heterodoxos reside no método, no questionamento de um método único.
Eu recomendo a leitura do texto. O que eu tentei fazer nesse post é ilustrar um pouco o texto dele, tipo uma propaganda. Claro que o texto vai além do exposto, mas procurei me ater ao debate do último post, Bresser e o ovo do Dragão (ou melhor, dos comentários...).
O que vocês acham da visão de ortodoxia apresentada?