Home > Uncategorized > The war against scientific economics continues

The war against scientific economics continues

From the AFEE (Association for Evolutionary Economics):

February 24, 2021

Subject: An Open Letter Regarding a Proposal to Dismiss 145 Faculty Members at the University of Leicester

We are shocked to hear that 145 staff members have been placed at risk of compulsory redundancy at the University of Leicester. 

In particular, 16 people within the School of Business have been targeted because their work is deemed to fall within “Critical Management Studies” or “Political Economy”. Specifically, “class based” and “institutionalist” forms of political economy are deemed redundant. However, the “rational choice orthodoxy” has been excluded from this definition.

The proposed action threatens academic freedom. It betrays a lack of appreciation of pluralism in academia, contradicting pedagogical research concluding that students learn best when presented with differing points of view, allowing students to consider the evidence, and come to their own conclusions.

We support our colleagues in Leicester University. We hope that the administration will reconsider this action as contrary to academic freedom, contrary to student learning, and contrary to the advancement of economics.


John Watkins, President
Mary Wrenn, President-Elect
Association for Evolutionary Economics

To learn more about this issue:

Reference:  https://www.uculeicester.org.uk/ulsb16/briefing-to-colleagues/

To sign a petition in support of academic freedom and the advancement of economics,


  1. February 25, 2021 at 7:29 pm

    The actual war against a scientific economics is being carried out by mathematically inclined subjectivist theorists who fail to see that subjective ‘utility’ has little to do with purchaser choices about what to buy in order to instrumentally use to obtain cardinally measurable benefits from the specific uses they put goods to. These subjectivist ‘warrior’ economists are opposed to any forms of economic analysis which cannot support their notion that value-in-exchange overrides values-in-use –actual cardinally measurable instrumental benefits which flow from how goods can be used. This is also why they are opposed to ‘class based’ and ‘institutional’ analysis, for these definitely support the idea that the distribution of income is what defines who is or is not a purchaser in ‘markets’ and ‘why’ this is so.

    Neoclassical economics is the problem, for it, while reliant upon mathematical functional forms for subjective utility which can neither be seen nor measured, has departed from all scientific principles for economic analysis based upon evidential reasoning. It’s consumer is only a purchaser, and I add one that is not even a life form, for life forms need to obtain benefits from their ‘consumption’ of goods. The pseudo-rationality of the Grasshopper is elevated over the foresight and planning of the Ant throughout the Neoclassical framework.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.