HETERODOX ECONOMICS

This book is part of Agenda Publishing’s Short Histories Series, which aims to provide ‘concise’ topic introductions primarily for undergraduate students. It dovetails with the author’s editorial involvement, since 2013, in eight textbook publications for the UK’s Open University, where he has taught economics for ‘30 or so years.’ Written as a historical narrative for undergraduates with some prior economics knowledge, the book’s content is notable on several counts. First, the chapters are structured to demonstrate Trigg’s notion of the intersecting and evolving ‘pluralist’ dimensions of heterodox economics situated within the history of capitalism and facts about the lives of a select group of renowned heterodox economists. The relation of capitalism’s historical context and significant events, and biographical notes, are generally absent, muted, or very selective in the scholarship that has dealt specifically with the history of heterodox economics. History of economic thought works, however, generally use narratives to combine biographies with economic events (Morgan, 2025, p. 1413). Second, historical accounts of the traditions that form heterodox economics are usually focused on one or two perspectives (like post-Keynesian economics, Marxian economics, or institutional and evolutionary economics). Trigg, instead, seeks to ‘concisely’ discuss multiple heterodox perspectives. Third, the political nature of knowledge production across the social sciences (including the economics discipline)—through the selection of a theoretical perspective and its associated ‘view of the world’ and research methods—is acknowledged by Trigg. This is not a common practice or tradition that one can ascribe to the community of heterodox economists nor their orthodox (conventional) counterparts. Fourth, Trigg (2026, p. ix) also acknowledges that the texts of the ‘rich pantheon’ of heterodox economists that he discusses ‘are open to different interpretations, and in choosing which writers to highlight I have inevitably brought my own views into play.’ Openness that different textual interpretations occur and expressed recognition of an ‘own view’ influencing the selection of ‘writers’ discussed is also not a common practice amongst economists, academic or otherwise.