I have lots problems with Marglin's views, not just on heterodox economics, but on the mainstream too. Marginalism (neoclassical economics), the supply and demand story that emerged in the 1870s, is not simply about efficiency. It is about a certain type of efficiency (factors of production are fully utilized). There are different views of efficiency, and certainly that was the case for the authors of the surplus approach (Smith/Ricardo/Marx), for whom efficiency was essentially about capital accumulation, i.e. the wealth of nations. Also, the problem is not that the mainstream ignores income distribution, but that it provides an untenable position on income distribution (to each according to its productive). In contrast, for the surplus approach authors income distribution depends on class conflict.
From my point of view, Marglin is very close to presenting a post-modernist view of critiques of the mainstream, that is, several alternatives to the mainstream are acceptable, as the much as the mainstream is. This is Deidre McCloskey's view that economics is about the rules of conversation, rhetoric. I'm more of a realist, I think there is an external reality independent of my views about it, and that there are, besides logical aspects, facts that allow us to discern between theories that are not correct (the mainstream) and theories that have not been proved wrong (classical-Keynesian). For my view on heterodoxy read this.
PS: Marglin's syllabus here. Thanks to Pedro Américo for the tip.
Greg Mankiw wrote a response to his students, who protested his teaching, in his last New York Times column. He basically blames the students for not knowing enough economics. He goes on to say that the complaints of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, in support of which the students had boycotted his class, are also a “grab bag of anti-establishment platitudes without much hard-headed analysis or clear policy prescriptions.”
He also suggested that students boycotted the wrong class, since his lecture that day was on inequality. Note that his views on inequality are strictly based on conventional mainstream neoclassical theory. Inequality for him is based on education (see here his critique of Krugman’s views on inequality). So basically the top 1% are more educated, more productive and, as a result, receive more. You cannot protest market forces.
As has been reported in some blogs (Robert Viennau and Daniel McDonald) students were planning to walk out of Mankiw's class to protest the type of economics he teaches and in solidarity with the Occupy movement (Adbusters has had a campaign for a while here). That's right on the mark. The teaching of economics is a central part of the process by which the mainstream and the liberalization and deregulation policies that led to the crisis have been perpetuated. The Harvard Crimson reports on the protest here. The anti-Mankiw blog is here.
David Ruccio has a great post on why there are no clear lines between research and policy advice, between advocacy and activism. The post was prompted by Krugman's justifications for not appearing in the Occupy Wall Street protests. I agree with Ruccio that it is possible to provide serious analysis and participate in social movements, and there are lots of examples of public intellectuals that do both well (Noam Chomsky, the late Howard Zinn, and Cornell West, shown above, come to mind). For example, here is the take from Kevin Gallagher and Mark Blyth in Occupy Boston.
