posted on 2023-08-30, 14:33authored byRoman Linneberg Eliassen
This thesis offers a new justification and interpretation of “pluralism in economics”
and discusses how it can be implemented. Calls for pluralism reflect discontent with
the exclusive dominance of one approach in economics. This perceived monism
entails twofold oppression of contesting theories with a legitimate claim to truth and
of the academics that promote them. A doctrine of pluralism thus has to satisfy both
an epistemological and a moral condition. However, the literature on pluralism in
economics either overly associates pluralism with heterodox economics or fails to
provide sufficient epistemological and institutional recommendations. The thesis
seeks to abstract from the content of current orthodox and heterodox theory in order
to give a consistent interpretation of pluralism as a stable and lasting doctrine. Firstly,
given epistemic uncertainty, pluralism is required for the advancement of knowledge,
the consequences of which are drawn by application of Mill’s arguments for the
liberty of thought and discussion and their further development in Feyerabend’s
methodological pluralism. Secondly, the doctrine must secure the right of all
academics to pursue truth in the ways they deem fit. Drawing on Habermas’ theory of
communicative rationality and Longino’s norms for scientific discourse, ideal
conditions for pluralist scientific exchange are delineated. Reviewing sociological
evidence, it is shown that there is a well-organized hierarchical system in the
discipline that reinforces monism through education, journals, hiring/promotion and
research funding. Given these constraints, the calls for pluralism amount to a call for
liberal education reform in economics, in which the aim is to foster the intellectual
development of students. Pluralism is not about accommodating a range of
approaches; pluralism ensures an environment that yields academics capable of truth pursuit
in a world of uncertain knowledge. However, intricate links between
economics and power relations in society may inhibit its feasibility.