Heterodox economics, the fragmentation of the mainstream, and embedded individual analysis

nomics (ICAPE) statement of purpose began as follows: There presently exists a number of societies and associations of economists and other social scientists, all of which are united by their concern about the theo-retical and practical limitations of neoclassical economics. In addition, they share the conviction that the current dominance of the subject by mainstream eco-nomics threatens academic freedom and is contrary to the norm of method-ological pluralism. (ICAPE 2003)1 This statement rests on two assumptions that have recently come under increas-ing scrutiny: first, neoclassical economics and mainstream economics are iden-tical; second, mainstream economics (however understood) is monolithic and unified. The opposing view is that mainstream economics is increasingly made up of a collection of disparate research strategies that bear limited resemblance to one another and also to neoclassical economics as it is widely understood (Sent 2006). I focus on the latter claim later in this essay, but first I want to emphasize the potential importance of this issue for ICAPE and heterodox economics