Mary V. Wrenn

Agency and Mental Models in Heterodox Economics

Agency is power-the power to act and the power to choose, the power to imagine and the power to understand, engage, and manipulate the surrounding biological and social environment. Mainstream economics adopts the western philosophy of entirely self-determined, autonomous, and efficacious agency in its employment of methodological individualism and optimizing, rational economic man. As such, agency is endowed without discretion to all individuals who independently choose to act based on the weight of objective costs and benefits (Davis 2003, 113). To the heterodox economist, agency cannot be captured or analyzed by this simple rendering of the individual. Rather, agency must be examined by its own internal logic and responses to external forces; how it came to be and how it evolves. The argument set forth is that the conceptualization of agency as a product of the individuals mental models and interaction with the surrounding structural environment unites otherwise seemingly disparate heterodox groups of thought. The procedure is simple: the concept of interactive agency is explored from the perspectives of five different heterodox groups of thought! with an eye toward possible common ground.

The Social Ontology of Fear and Neoliberalism

Fear is a primal instinct; it is a survival mechanism the evolution of which allowed the early humans, indeed all species to adapt, evolve, and survive. When humans moved into settled communities with more advanced means of production, the nature of fear—much like the nature of social relationships—changed. Once the means of social reproduction were secured, fear became less necessary as a survival instinct and more useful as a heuristic device. Fear evolved. Fear cannot be characterized solely as a socially constructed phenomenon, nor as the instinctual response to personally felt traumas. The growth and nature of fear must be studied as a process that develops under its own inertia, feeding off its antecedent past, and as a phenomenon that is shaped by and in turn shapes its institutional setting. Fear should be understood as both structurally determined and socially transformative. This research seeks to examine the ontology of fear, specifically as it relates to neoliberalism.

What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought

Since its intellectual inception, the development of the economics discipline has been accompanied by divergence of thought. Through the years, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, a fissure has emerged within the discipline, sociologically dividing conventional, mainstream economics from the dissention of heterodox economics. The nature of that division, however, as well as the nature of heterodox thought is unclear. Historians of economic thought would seem to be uniquely suited to specify the nature of heterodox economics and the mechanism of its marginalization. Although anecdotal, personal interviews with historians of economic thought provide a breadth and depth of study not available through surveys with an immediacy not allowed by doctrinal examination. The purpose of this study and intent of this paper is to reveal the ways that orthodox and heterodox economics differ, whether heterodox economics has any clear research program other than criticizing the limits of the more orthodox view, and what aspects of heterodox economics remain underdeveloped, all through the lens of the historian of economic thought.

Karl Polanyi on the Limitations of Formalism in Economics

This chapter examines Karl Polanyis critique of formalism in economics and his case for a more institutional economics based upon a reconstitution of the facts of economic life on as wide an historical basis as possible. The argument below reviews Polanyis argument with regard to the relation between economic anthropology and comparative economics, the contrast between the formalist and substantive approaches to economic analysis, the notion of an economistic fallacy, the most important limitations of the conventional formalist economics approach, and the nature and import of the new departure that Polanyi envisioned.

Agency, Identity, and the Great Crisis: A Veblenian Perspective

Within neoliberalism, an individuals agency and identity are fundamentally different than at any other stage in human development. The argument set forth is that within neoliberalism, agency and identity are, respectively, falsified and fluid, which further supports the intensification of the neoliberal project. When studied through the Veblenian lens, the role played by the habituating tools of commodity fetishism, conspicuous consumption, and moral panics become clear, demonstrating that while fundamentally different, neoliberal agency and identity emerge from previously established habits of thought.

Unveiling and Deconstructing the Enabling Myths of Neoliberalism Through Immanent Critique

In the deconstruction of the neoliberal narrative through immanent critique, we find that it is woven from enabling myths that not only support the neoliberal project, but are essential for its continued survival. This research aims to untangle and critically assess three of the core enabling myths of neoliberalism through the critical lens of immanent critique. If we hope to redesign our social institutions into structures which support the flourishing of individuals and the broader society, then we must aim a critical eye toward these enabling myths to unveil and debunk through immanent critique.

Care and the Neoliberal Individual

Abstract: This article explores two conflicting ethical systems: neoliberalism and institutionalism. Neoliberalism’s foundations support an overarching ethic of individual autonomy and individual responsibility. Institutionalism contrasts this conception with a view of human beings as relational. The ethical foundation of such a view requires a meta-ethic of interpersonal responsibility that supports an ethic of care.

Immanent Critique, Enabling Myths, and the Neoliberal Narrative

This research aims to untangle and critically assess the core enabling myths of neoliberalism. The first step is to outline in brief the method of immanent critique, how it works, as well as its advantages and possible limits. The next step is to use immanent critique to strip the neoliberal narrative to its core, organizing myths: the myths of privatization, deregulation, and retrenchment of the welfare state.

Envy in Neoliberalism: Revisiting Veblen’s Emulation and Invidious Distinction

Abstract: Cautionary tales admonishing against the evils of envy crowd religion and folklore across cultures. Pre-capitalist societies attempted to suppress envy, and familial and community relations held the emotion of envy in check through social sanctions. Capitalism, however, encourages envy. The connection between capitalism and envy is not new. Thorstein Veblen (2007) methodically addressed it in his explanation of invidious distinction and emulation. As capitalism has evolved into its present incarnation of neoliberalism, however, envy has also evolved. The evolution, nature, and role of envy within neoliberalism must be studied in order to understand more fully its consequences. This research seeks to examine the social ontology of envy. According to advocates of neoliberalism, inequality serves an important social function: It is the great motivator, without which individuals would not have incentives to improve. Inequality and — by extension — envy are thus heralded as the prime catalysts of economic activity.

Fear and Institutions

Fear allowed early humans to adapt, evolve, and survive. When humans moved into settled communities, with more advanced means of production, the nature of fear — much like the nature of social relationships — changed. Once the means of social reproduction were secured, fear became less necessary as a survival instinct, and more useful as a heuristic device. Fear cannot be characterized as an essentially socially constructed phenomenon, or as the self-contained, individualized response to internalized traumas. The growth and nature of fear must be studied as a process that develops under its own inertia and as a phenomenon that is both shaped by and shapes its institutional setting. Fear should be understood as both structurally determined and socially transformative. This research examines fear, specifically, as it relates to neoliberalism and institutions.