In my response to Garnett and Mearman, I argue that many of their comments are based on the assumption that mainstream economics has truth and value, which is in fact not the case. In addition, I argue that that the divided economics community arises from actions taken by mainstream economists and not due to actions taken by heterodox economists. Finally, I argue that pluralism through tolerance is the way forward.
Di VaioG.WeisdorfJ.2009. Ranking economic history journals: A citation-based impact-adjusted analysis. Discussion Paper, No. 09-11, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen.
LeeF. S.2008. Heterodox economics. In New Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. BlumeL. E.DurlaufS., 2-6. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
LeeF. S.2009. A history of heterodox economics: Challenging the mainstream in the twentieth century. London: Routledge.
5.
LeeF. S.2010a. Alfred Eichner’s missing ‘complete model’: A heterodox micro-macro model of a monetary production economy. In Money and macrodynamics: Alfred Eichner and Post Keynesian economics, ed. LavoieM.RochanL.-P.SeccarecciaM., 22-42. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe Inc.
6.
LeeF. S.2010b. Who talks to whom: Pluralism and identity of heterodox journals. Unpublished.
7.
LockettA.McWilliamsA.2005. The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge?Journal of Management Inquiry14(2): 139-50.
8.
PietersR.BaumgartnerH.2002. Who talks to whom? Intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economic journals. Journal of Economic Literature40(2): 483-509.
