I wanted to comment on recent developments affecting heterodox economics programs in the United States, developments that relate directly to my own experience at two such institutions: the graduate program at the University of Utah and the PhD program at the New School for Social Research, where I completed my doctorate almost twenty-seven years ago. I should add that my colleague Geoff Schneider is organizing a panel on the topic at the forthcoming ICAPE conference, in which both of us will be joined by Katherine Moos to discuss the issue.
Although these two programs, and other heterodox programs, are often lumped together, their histories could not be more different.
The University of Utah’s economics program emerged as something of a paradox. Its heterodox character dates back to the 1950s, shaped by broader political and institutional forces. On the one hand, the Red Scare and McCarthyism led to the persecution of left-of-center scholars, those deemed communist or socialist. On the other, the Lavender Scare targeted LGBTQ individuals in academia and public life. At the same time, the University of Utah sought to distance itself from a narrow association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to attract a more secular and religiously diverse faculty. These dynamics created space for the hiring of Marxist scholars, some of whom arrived from Berkeley and elsewhere as they fled persecution. Utah thus became, somewhat unexpectedly, a refuge.
This coincided with the broader presence of Institutional economists in mid-century American academia. Together, these conditions allowed for the formation of several generations of heterodox economists. Figures such as Kay Hunt, who earned his PhD at Utah, later held tenure at UC Riverside, and eventually returned to Utah, exemplify the program’s intellectual lineage. [Kay used to tell the story that when Joan Robinson visited Utah for the Tanner Lectures on Human Values, he was the only person she requested to talk to, I suppose to the chagrin of his orthodox colleagues].
For over fifty years, Utah sustained a solid heterodox economics program, which was characterized by an emphasis on the history of economic ideas, at least until Kay retired and I left. That era now appears to be ending. The reasons are well-known and have been discussed on this blog before, particularly in connection with the expansion of business schools. Roughly two decades ago, the University of Utah’s business school began hiring its own microeconomists to teach economics internally. That small group gradually grew into a parallel economics department. As in the case of Notre Dame, this duplication reduced enrollments in the original economics department. In a conservative political environment, Utah being a deeply red state, this provided an opportunity for administrators to push for the consolidation of economics under the aegis of the business school.
At the end of the day, what is at stake is ideology. Business schools tend to promote a free-market worldview that, in my view, has no proper place in a university. I used to joke with my students in Utah that business schools are like strip clubs: they may have a role in society, but not in a university. That quip aside, there is a serious institutional problem here, one I have addressed before in posts on management education [see above link].
The New School presents a very different case. The origins of its Graduate Faculty lie in the University in Exile, created to shelter scholars fleeing Nazism. However, the New School did not become a distinctly heterodox economics hub until much later [see this post on the history of the New School, and this on my views on heterodox economics; on the latter see also this paper]. It was really in the late 1960s that Marxism and other heterodox traditions began to leave a strong imprint.
Because of its location in New York and the prominence of many of its faculty, the New School became arguably the most visible center for the formation of heterodox economists worldwide. Cambridge was never fully heterodox; UMass Amherst, though larger and extremely important, lacked the same visibility; and the reputations associated with the New School carried particular symbolic weight.
The recent cancellation of the New School’s PhD program and its uncertain future are, in my view, primarily the result of financial and administrative decisions rather than a targeted ideological attack. For decades, the administration pushed the Graduate Faculty to be financially self-sufficient, despite the obvious fact that graduate programs almost never are. Typically, undergraduate programs or professional master’s degrees act as cash cows that subsidize PhDs. This reality was never fully accepted. Compounding the problem, the New School never provided substantial financial support to PhD students, and living in New York is extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the program’s importance was more symbolic than material in the long-term reproduction of heterodox economists.
I do not think these developments mean that heterodox economics is disappearing from the United States. Strong programs remain, notably at UMass Amherst and the University of Missouri–Kansas City, both of which in many ways seems to be doing quite well. There are also occasional heterodox economists who emerge from conventional programs, often thanks to a pluralist advisor. Nor do I see these closures as evidence of a heightened, coordinated attack on heterodox economics as such. Rather, they reflect the peculiar institutional histories of these two departments. That said, they are undeniably a blow and will have real effects on the heterodox groups.
There is also a broader structural challenge that affects all of higher education, but hits heterodox programs harder. The United States has reached a demographic peak in high-school graduates, and institutions now face a “demographic cliff.” Fewer students, rising costs, and the mistaken perception that college education is no longer relevant will reduce faculty hiring overall. Since heterodox programs are already more vulnerable, they will feel this pressure more acutely.
Ironically, heterodox economists are often better prepared to teach economics as political economy, making it more accessible and intellectually engaging for a broader public. Yet it is precisely in liberal arts colleges and public universities, where such strengths matter most, that job openings are likely to shrink. These are serious challenges we will have to confront going forward.
