<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>.. what explains the lack of pluralism in the current academic landscape?</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>A) This is mostly due to empirical revolution in economics.</strong></p>
<p>In the past economics used to have a lot of schools of thought (e.g. Keynesian, Marxian, Classical, Austrian etc), which coexisted along each other. This was in non-trivial way due to the fact that different schools made different theoretical assumptions in their model and in the past there was no way how to test those assumptions (for example Keynesian view on shape and behavior of aggregate demand and supply vs classical or Austrian one).</p>
<p>However, as you can see below in the picture from <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20171117" rel="noreferrer">Angrist et al. (2017)</a>, during the last century economics underwent empirical revolution. In most fields most papers nowadays are empirical.</p>
<p>Empirics in turns weeds out theories from science that cannot be empirically verified. For example, in physics there was a decade when there was Newtonian &quot;camp&quot; and Relativistic &quot;camp&quot; of physics coexisting, but soon whole physics shifted to relativity once Newtonian physics was shown not able to explain empirical observations (or more recently in physics there used to be debate between dark matter and modified Newtonian dynamics but now dark mater is physics orthodoxy thanks to empirical observations).</p>
<p>Simply put, once you start empirically testing things scope for diversity naturally declines. For example, if labor theory of value continuously fails multiple empirical tests and does not offer useful predictions and explanations why would you take it seriously?</p>
<p>Of course, no theory is perfect, there might be instances when theory fails some empirical tests but it is still used because there are no better theories to replace it, but generally speaking if some theory fails test after test, then it is just matter of time before it gets marginalized and weeded out.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/4pNIg.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/4pNIg.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><strong>B) I would  also challenge your assertion economics lacks pluralism</strong></p>
<p>I do not think economics has a lack of pluralism <strong>compared to other scientific fields</strong>. In fact economics is probably more pluralistic then let's say medicine, physics or biology.</p>
<p>For example, take Marxian economics, which empirically has empirical success on par with homeopathy. Marxian economics is still being taught and discussed at some universities, for example at the <a href="https://london.ac.uk/" rel="noreferrer">University of London</a>. It is just no longer prominent in the field. However, in medicine you would be much more hard pressed to find actual credited universities teaching courses in homeopathy.</p>
<p>Yet you will find even some good ranking schools, like Institute for Social Studies (part of Erasmus University of Rotterdam), that teach Marxian oriented programmes.</p>
<p>I would like to see any serious study that would actually show economics is not pluralistic compared to other science fields. I would even dare to say that economics is one of the most pluralistic fields outside of perhaps sociology or philosophy.</p>
<p>However, in any field of science, scientists will eventually arrive at consensus when it comes to positive results. E.g. why would anyone still teach Ptolemean model of solar system outside history of physics, or in economics in Physiocratic theory that all value is derived from land and land improvements only outside history of economics.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(2) Do you know of any post-keynesian and/or marxist courses currently taught in Canada or USA (at a graduate level)?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes <a href="http://www.heterodoxnews.com/hed/study-programs.html#entry-3" rel="noreferrer">here is a list of universities that have heterodox PhD economics programmes</a>. Some of them are European but there are also American universities there. For example,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>American University, US</p>
<p>The diverse theoretical approaches are combined with solid training in empirical methods which prepare graduates for teaching in colleges and universities, research positions in government departments or consulting firms, and policy making. Our Washington D.C. location gives students excellent access to government agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and think tanks such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute of International Economics. These agencies give students special opportunities for internships and part-time employment as well as the chance to hear and speak with economists dealing with today s national and international economic issues.&gt; The Department of Economics offers a Ph.D. degree with programs of
study in either political economy or traditional economic theory. The
neoclassical and Keynesian traditions form the core of economic theory
taught by the Department of Economics. Our uniquely pluralistic
approach to economics encompasses a range of other perspectives,
including Post Keynesian, Institutionalist, and post-Marxian economic
theories. Our program emphasizes international and economic policy
perspectives. Specialized course offerings include the economics of
gender, the economics of transition economies, economic methodology,
monetary economics, public finance, economic development, labor
economics, industrial organization, international trade, international
finance, econometrics, economic history, and mathematical economics.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>or</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Colorado State University, US ↑</p>
<p>The graduate program of the Department of Economics integrates rigorous training in quantitative methods with a broad, historically-grounded and critical approach to research and teaching that encompasses a plurality of perspectives and streams of economic thought. M.A. students are required to take core courses in each of the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, econometrics and political economy. PhD students take an additional advanced course in each of these fields. Beyond the core, students have a great deal of flexibility in selecting their fields of emphasis and research. The program has two main foci – political economy and regional economics. The heterodox political economy component of the program has traditionally been active in the fields of radical economics and institutional economics. In recent years, this dynamic and evolving program has been complemented by faculty working in the fields of feminist, structuralist, post-Keynesian, and Marxist economics, with an overall focus on international economics and economic development. This foundation prepares students for research and teaching positions in colleges and universities, research positions in government and the private sector, as well as for policy-related work with labor, environmental and international policy organizations.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>PS: Steve Keen is discredited scholar (see this <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/18992/15517">old SE answer</a>). Teaching Steve Keen in graduate school would be equivalent of teaching the Rogoff &amp; Reinhart theory that once debt-to-GDP goes above magical threshold of 90%  country will have debt problems in graduate macro program. Although I am not even being just to Rogoff &amp; Reinhart because they had only one seriously controversial research project. No matter how much someone hates mainstream economics, if S. Keen is the alternative then good grief!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T06:19:23.417Z
This answer seems incomplete, in that empirical evidence can "weed out" *descriptive* or *positive* theories, but not *normative* theories, [which are also an important part of economics](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/difference-between-positive-normative-economics.asp).
nanoman
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T10:19:55.943Z
@nanoman there aren’t normative theories strictly speaking there is normative economics which is economics theories + values. However, post-Keynesian or actually even Marxian economics aspires to be value free even if de facto you will find only radically left leaning people pursuing it. Theory in science is mechanism (like theory of evolution) theory can’t be normative. For example, you can easily take any theory from mainstream economics and apply any values across political spectrum to it <- that is normative economics, taking theory and then imputing your value judgements.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T10:47:15.410Z
@nanoman consider an example. take Marxian theory of business cycle. You can completely accept Marxian theory of business cycle where crisis are inevitable consequences of capitalism and still say we should have laissez faire capitalism based on your values - that is what normative economics is. You take the Marxian theory of business cycle and then you create policy prescriptions given your values and if you value non-intervention too much then this would be your conclusion. In the same way you can reject this theory believe we should abolish private property if you hate it too much
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T10:51:26.163Z
But you cannot have normative theory (meaning actually normative scientific theories not just some non-empirical philosophical writing that is sometimes referred to as theory). Because it’s not possible that your own values change reality. For example, if labor elasticity wrt tax rate in US is -0.5 that does not change just because you switch your political allegiance. Or if New Keynesian business cycle theory is correct then, that is his business cycle behaves no matter what values people have. The moral philosophy itself is not taught in most modern econ programs but in philosophy majors
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T20:59:35.097Z
I think it's funny that under the question asking about lack of diversity in Econ there are two answers: one is by the #1 user on the site, and the other one was deleted by the #1 user, who happens to be a mod (:
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T21:00:24.030Z
To be clear, I don't think there is anything shady going on, but it is rather funny.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T21:20:56.270Z
@Giskard The other answer does not attempt to answer the question (and was flagged as not an answer) so by rules it has to be deleted. How is that reducing diversity? If some user would post another question as an answer is deleting that reducing diversity? Or what about spam? I don't see any irony here, this site has its rules. No answer on this site was ever deleted by me just for providing alternative point of view to mainstream. Numerous MMT answers by BrianRomanchuck prove that point. In academia also if journal does not publishes paper that has math mistake thats not reducing diversity
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T21:28:04.100Z
at least not academic diversity, it is just basic due diligence.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T21:58:37.510Z
"Empirics in turns weeds out theories from science that cannot be empirically verified." Marx and/or Keynes in essence state that legal (power) and financial (money and credit) relationships dominate the behavior of intelligent agents in capitalist systems. Also these legal and financial relations influence behavior and determine outcomes (allocate gain and loss due to the "sins" of coordination problems). Go ahead and prove that law and finance do not exist in capitalism!
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T22:59:10.437Z
@SystemTheory 1. Keynes is literally mainstream. Virtually all 101 macro models taughti basically build on his ideas. 2. I know Keynes work, I read probably all he has written and I never seen him talking about legal power dominating capitalist system whatever is that even supposed to mean. 3.Marx’s work wasn’t primarily about legal systems nor even finance. 4. Nobody is saying that finance or law do not exist in capitalism. Both financial economics and economics in law are mainstream economics subjects. 5. Nowhere in my answer I even talk about law or finance so that’s just straw man argument
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T23:05:09.953Z
I don’t even talk about capitalism so again just straw man with a  red herring. Also the Keynes thesis was literally opposite. His main argument was that human behavior or  “animal spirits” dominate financial markets not other way around. You should consider maybe reading at least some of Keynes’ work because you are clearly not familiar with his economic writing. You should start with the General Theory to get familiar with his main contributions.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T23:29:12.127Z
Btw this sort of going off the rails about tangents or even completely unrelated topics is why your account has already several strikes and why your content is often flagged by various members of the community. If you are not willing to follow our most basic rules (i.e. not being completely off topic) then this site is not for you, contributing here is not mandatory. There are various other sites that do not penalize off topic contributions where you can just post whatever, but here you need to try to follow the rules in help center and our community rules on answers
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-23T16:47:06.177Z
@SystemTheory your answer was not censored, your answer was breaking basic rules & policies of SE. Also comments are not for off topic discussion either (see the help center). Especially read the thread on why some answers are deleted https://economics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers, btw also your answer violated the community guidelines which would also result in deletion although only after 3 days so maybe check the community guidelines as well https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2113/faq-on-community-standard-for-answers
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T21:56:34.403Z
2021-12-17T22:45:54.093Z
2021-12-17T22:45:54.093Z
1muflon1
<p>My question here is not about theory, but more about the teaching landscape. I'm currently learning economics in Canada, and I realize that the academic world is very homogeneous. I'm quite impressed by the lack of pluralism, and the absence of any marxist and post-keynesian perspectives (even though the subject of orthodoxy is thoroughly explored by authors like Steve Keen). So, here are my questions:</p>
<p>(1) According to you, what explains the lack of pluralism in the current academic landscape?</p>
<p>(2) Do you know of any post-keynesian and/or marxist courses currently taught in Canada or USA (at a graduate level)?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-17T21:08:39.893Z
The question 3 is opinion based and opinion based questions are strictly off topic on this site.  Since other questions are fine instead of closing your question I just deleted the 3rd one
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T10:19:25.267Z
@1muflon1 I understand you want to keep discussions under control but to an engineer  economics is a mostly opinion based subject to begin with, given the widely diverging opinions of experts, e.g. compared to chemistry or physics, so the argument is quite amusing.
Peter - Reinstate Monica
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T10:23:38.760Z
@Peter-ReinstateMonica then your perception of economics is incorrect and not grounded in reality. Economics is science based in fact and empirical evidence not opinions. You are probably confusing economics with economic policy. For example, economics same as pure physics is value free, but when it comes to questions like should we build a bridge sustainably or not or should we have redistribution you have to necessarily interject your values because neither economics nor physics tells you what you ought to do. Or take chemistry, organic chemistry can tell you how to test if some
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T10:58:27.447Z
vaccine is safe, but then when your are drafting vaccine policy/mandates you have to interject your opinions and values, because chemistry or biology does not tell you what you ought to do, just what works. Different specialist across the world have diverging opinions on when to start applying Covid vaccines to kids for example. In US medical experts recommend starting as soon as possible, in Europe in most countries experts recommend from 18 above. Now does this means biology and chemistry and medicine is just opinions? No.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T11:00:34.957Z
Unfortunately if you are layman then when it comes to any field, not just economics but also medicine biology etc you will get exposed just to the surface level policy discussion which is necessarily normative. That obviously does not mean that economics medicine or biology is just expert opinions. Such assertion is absurd prima facie to anyone who ever studied any of the fields
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T12:20:51.960Z
@Peter-ReinstateMonica this is serious site for those who study, teach, research and apply economics and econometrics, trolling and cheap baiting is not welcome.
csilvia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T12:21:21.273Z
@1muflon1 you are moderator, why are you responding to trolls instead of dealing with them?
csilvia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T13:01:03.470Z
@csilvia I take the SE old-school view that one should presume good intentions. I think that peter is just ignorant of the field of economics, and not a troll. If you think some action should be taken flag his comment there are 2 other mods beside me who can take action, I personally dont see a need for one here
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T14:12:05.480Z
In law school my Legal Philosophy professor, an economist, wanted me to draw "Liberty curves" to demonstrate the trade-off between private constraints and public constraints in the analysis of law. But these curves have no objective meaning apart from arbitrary assumptions in the math model. So I would not draw the curves and took a lower grade. Pluralism in economics is caused by diverse working assumptions which generate real differences in the applied math models. If many models are plausible then there is uncertain fit between the math models and the system represented by alternate models.
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-18T15:48:50.113Z
In scientific work, for example, the choice of reference frame is arbitrary, the choice of standard units of measure is arbitrary, but the laws of physics are the same for every inertial frame of reference and for every choice of units. To solve a math model in physics via differential equation one must recognize that some things remain the same (total mass, energy, electric charge, momentum, etc.) while other things change over time as the product of a natural process. Economics is the study of efforts to cause desired value(s) for self and/or others. The reference frame is normative values.
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-19T14:08:26.440Z
I work in a research center, an I've been in academics all my working life, and I can assert that questions of opinions and values are an important part of science. Currently, where I'm working from, we actively recognize three type of knowledge in our research: lived knowledge, practical knowledge, and academic knowledge. We would never suggest a conclusion before basing it on opinions.
Alexandre Michaud
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-19T14:42:45.767Z
Hi @AlexandreMichaud! A lively opinion-based debate is good in research centers but is a poor fit for the SE format. (See [here](https://economics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions).)  Please find some other venue for it; I rolled back your edit. You are free to challenge the current consensus on the [Meta] site, though I think it is unlikely that you will get a majority to vote with you.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T19:44:20.483Z
@Giskard Thank you for the information, I'll be sure look up the Economics Meta. I believe I changed the edit again by mistake, feel free to delete it again. Since I'm new to this community, I see this as a good learning opportunity :)
Alexandre Michaud
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T19:48:28.483Z
I rolled back the edit again. Please do not keep changing it. Doing this is considered vandalism on SE sites, also you are just creating extra work for us mods.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T19:49:54.707Z
@1muflon1 I know, it was a mistake on my part, I click on the wrong thing and resent the original. Sorry for the extra work :(
Alexandre Michaud
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-22T19:50:32.203Z
@AlexandreMichaud no worries, if it was by mistake then next time you can roll it back yourself as well. If you click on edit, there are rollback options
1muflon1
<soft-question><academic-graduate><teaching><schools-of-thought>
Learning post-keynesian and marxist economics
Alexandre Michaud
# Learning post-keynesian and marxist economics

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-17)

My question here is not about theory, but more about the teaching landscape. I'm currently learning economics in Canada, and I realize that the academic world is very homogeneous. I'm quite impressed by the lack of pluralism, and the absence of any marxist and post-keynesian perspectives (even though the subject of orthodoxy is thoroughly explored by authors like Steve Keen). So, here are my questions:

(1) According to you, what explains the lack of pluralism in the current academic landscape?

(2) Do you know of any post-keynesian and/or marxist courses currently taught in Canada or USA (at a graduate level)?

**Tags:** soft-question, academic-graduate, teaching, schools-of-thought

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The question 3 is opinion based and opinion based questions are strictly off topic on this site.  Since other questions are fine instead of closing your question I just deleted the 3rd one  
> **username_2**: @username_1 I understand you want to keep discussions under control but to an engineer  economics is a mostly opinion based subject to begin with, given the widely diverging opinions of experts, e.g. compared to chemistry or physics, so the argument is quite amusing.  
> **username_1**: @username_2-ReinstateMonica then your perception of economics is incorrect and not grounded in reality. Economics is science based in fact and empirical evidence not opinions. You are probably confusing economics with economic policy. For example, economics same as pure physics is value free, but when it comes to questions like should we build a bridge sustainably or not or should we have redistribution you have to necessarily interject your values because neither economics nor physics tells you what you ought to do. Or take chemistry, organic chemistry can tell you how to test if some  
> **username_1**: vaccine is safe, but then when your are drafting vaccine policy/mandates you have to interject your opinions and values, because chemistry or biology does not tell you what you ought to do, just what works. Different specialist across the world have diverging opinions on when to start applying Covid vaccines to kids for example. In US medical experts recommend starting as soon as possible, in Europe in most countries experts recommend from 18 above. Now does this means biology and chemistry and medicine is just opinions? No.  
> **username_1**: Unfortunately if you are layman then when it comes to any field, not just economics but also medicine biology etc you will get exposed just to the surface level policy discussion which is necessarily normative. That obviously does not mean that economics medicine or biology is just expert opinions. Such assertion is absurd prima facie to anyone who ever studied any of the fields  
> **username_3**: @username_2-ReinstateMonica this is serious site for those who study, teach, research and apply economics and econometrics, trolling and cheap baiting is not welcome.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 you are moderator, why are you responding to trolls instead of dealing with them?  
> **username_1**: @username_3 I take the SE old-school view that one should presume good intentions. I think that username_2 is just ignorant of the field of economics, and not a troll. If you think some action should be taken flag his comment there are 2 other mods beside me who can take action, I personally dont see a need for one here  
> **username_4**: In law school my Legal Philosophy professor, an economist, wanted me to draw "Liberty curves" to demonstrate the trade-off between private constraints and public constraints in the analysis of law. But these curves have no objective meaning apart from arbitrary assumptions in the math model. So I would not draw the curves and took a lower grade. Pluralism in economics is caused by diverse working assumptions which generate real differences in the applied math models. If many models are plausible then there is uncertain fit between the math models and the system represented by alternate models.  
> **username_4**: In scientific work, for example, the choice of reference frame is arbitrary, the choice of standard units of measure is arbitrary, but the laws of physics are the same for every inertial frame of reference and for every choice of units. To solve a math model in physics via differential equation one must recognize that some things remain the same (total mass, energy, electric charge, momentum, etc.) while other things change over time as the product of a natural process. Economics is the study of efforts to cause desired value(s) for self and/or others. The reference frame is normative values.  
> **username_0**: I work in a research center, an I've been in academics all my working life, and I can assert that questions of opinions and values are an important part of science. Currently, where I'm working from, we actively recognize three type of knowledge in our research: lived knowledge, practical knowledge, and academic knowledge. We would never suggest a conclusion before basing it on opinions.  
> **username_5**: Hi @username_0! A lively opinion-based debate is good in research centers but is a poor fit for the SE format. (See [here](https://economics.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions).)  Please find some other venue for it; I rolled back your edit. You are free to challenge the current consensus on the [Meta] site, though I think it is unlikely that you will get a majority to vote with you.  
> **username_0**: @username_5 Thank you for the information, I'll be sure look up the Economics Meta. I believe I changed the edit again by mistake, feel free to delete it again. Since I'm new to this community, I see this as a good learning opportunity :)  
> **username_1**: I rolled back the edit again. Please do not keep changing it. Doing this is considered vandalism on SE sites, also you are just creating extra work for us mods.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I know, it was a mistake on my part, I click on the wrong thing and resent the original. Sorry for the extra work :(  
> **username_1**: @username_0 no worries, if it was by mistake then next time you can roll it back yourself as well. If you click on edit, there are rollback options  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-12-17. Score: 8

> 1. .. what explains the lack of pluralism in the current academic landscape?

**A) This is mostly due to empirical revolution in economics.**

In the past economics used to have a lot of schools of thought (e.g. Keynesian, Marxian, Classical, Austrian etc), which coexisted along each other. This was in non-trivial way due to the fact that different schools made different theoretical assumptions in their model and in the past there was no way how to test those assumptions (for example Keynesian view on shape and behavior of aggregate demand and supply vs classical or Austrian one).

However, as you can see below in the picture from [Angrist et al. (2017)](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20171117), during the last century economics underwent empirical revolution. In most fields most papers nowadays are empirical.

Empirics in turns weeds out theories from science that cannot be empirically verified. For example, in physics there was a decade when there was Newtonian "camp" and Relativistic "camp" of physics coexisting, but soon whole physics shifted to relativity once Newtonian physics was shown not able to explain empirical observations (or more recently in physics there used to be debate between dark matter and modified Newtonian dynamics but now dark mater is physics orthodoxy thanks to empirical observations).

Simply put, once you start empirically testing things scope for diversity naturally declines. For example, if labor theory of value continuously fails multiple empirical tests and does not offer useful predictions and explanations why would you take it seriously?

Of course, no theory is perfect, there might be instances when theory fails some empirical tests but it is still used because there are no better theories to replace it, but generally speaking if some theory fails test after test, then it is just matter of time before it gets marginalized and weeded out.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/4pNIg.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/4pNIg.png)

**B) I would also challenge your assertion economics lacks pluralism**

I do not think economics has a lack of pluralism **compared to other scientific fields**. In fact economics is probably more pluralistic then let's say medicine, physics or biology.

For example, take Marxian economics, which empirically has empirical success on par with homeopathy. Marxian economics is still being taught and discussed at some universities, for example at the [University of London](https://london.ac.uk/). It is just no longer prominent in the field. However, in medicine you would be much more hard pressed to find actual credited universities teaching courses in homeopathy.

Yet you will find even some good ranking schools, like Institute for Social Studies (part of Erasmus University of Rotterdam), that teach Marxian oriented programmes.

I would like to see any serious study that would actually show economics is not pluralistic compared to other science fields. I would even dare to say that economics is one of the most pluralistic fields outside of perhaps sociology or philosophy.

However, in any field of science, scientists will eventually arrive at consensus when it comes to positive results. E.g. why would anyone still teach Ptolemean model of solar system outside history of physics, or in economics in Physiocratic theory that all value is derived from land and land improvements only outside history of economics.

> (2) Do you know of any post-keynesian and/or marxist courses currently taught in Canada or USA (at a graduate level)?

Yes [here is a list of universities that have heterodox PhD economics programmes](http://www.heterodoxnews.com/hed/study-programs.html#entry-3). Some of them are European but there are also American universities there. For example,

> American University, US
>
> The diverse theoretical approaches are combined with solid training in empirical methods which prepare graduates for teaching in colleges and universities, research positions in government departments or consulting firms, and policy making. Our Washington D.C. location gives students excellent access to government agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and think tanks such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute of International Economics. These agencies give students special opportunities for internships and part-time employment as well as the chance to hear and speak with economists dealing with today s national and international economic issues.> The Department of Economics offers a Ph.D. degree with programs of
> study in either political economy or traditional economic theory. The
> neoclassical and Keynesian traditions form the core of economic theory
> taught by the Department of Economics. Our uniquely pluralistic
> approach to economics encompasses a range of other perspectives,
> including Post Keynesian, Institutionalist, and post-Marxian economic
> theories. Our program emphasizes international and economic policy
> perspectives. Specialized course offerings include the economics of
> gender, the economics of transition economies, economic methodology,
> monetary economics, public finance, economic development, labor
> economics, industrial organization, international trade, international
> finance, econometrics, economic history, and mathematical economics.

or

> Colorado State University, US ↑
>
> The graduate program of the Department of Economics integrates rigorous training in quantitative methods with a broad, historically-grounded and critical approach to research and teaching that encompasses a plurality of perspectives and streams of economic thought. M.A. students are required to take core courses in each of the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, econometrics and political economy. PhD students take an additional advanced course in each of these fields. Beyond the core, students have a great deal of flexibility in selecting their fields of emphasis and research. The program has two main foci – political economy and regional economics. The heterodox political economy component of the program has traditionally been active in the fields of radical economics and institutional economics. In recent years, this dynamic and evolving program has been complemented by faculty working in the fields of feminist, structuralist, post-Keynesian, and Marxist economics, with an overall focus on international economics and economic development. This foundation prepares students for research and teaching positions in colleges and universities, research positions in government and the private sector, as well as for policy-related work with labor, environmental and international policy organizations.

---

PS: Steve Keen is discredited scholar (see this [old SE answer](https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/18992/15517)). Teaching Steve Keen in graduate school would be equivalent of teaching the Rogoff & Reinhart theory that once debt-to-GDP goes above magical threshold of 90% country will have debt problems in graduate macro program. Although I am not even being just to Rogoff & Reinhart because they had only one seriously controversial research project. No matter how much someone hates mainstream economics, if S. Keen is the alternative then good grief!

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: This answer seems incomplete, in that empirical evidence can "weed out" *descriptive* or *positive* theories, but not *normative* theories, [which are also an important part of economics](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/difference-between-positive-normative-economics.asp).  
> **username_1**: @username_6 there aren’t normative theories strictly speaking there is normative economics which is economics theories + values. However, post-Keynesian or actually even Marxian economics aspires to be value free even if de facto you will find only radically left leaning people pursuing it. Theory in science is mechanism (like theory of evolution) theory can’t be normative. For example, you can easily take any theory from mainstream economics and apply any values across political spectrum to it <- that is normative economics, taking theory and then imputing your value judgements.  
> **username_1**: @username_6 consider an example. take Marxian theory of business cycle. You can completely accept Marxian theory of business cycle where crisis are inevitable consequences of capitalism and still say we should have laissez faire capitalism based on your values - that is what normative economics is. You take the Marxian theory of business cycle and then you create policy prescriptions given your values and if you value non-intervention too much then this would be your conclusion. In the same way you can reject this theory believe we should abolish private property if you hate it too much  
> **username_1**: But you cannot have normative theory (meaning actually normative scientific theories not just some non-empirical philosophical writing that is sometimes referred to as theory). Because it’s not possible that your own values change reality. For example, if labor elasticity wrt tax rate in US is -0.5 that does not change just because you switch your political allegiance. Or if New Keynesian business cycle theory is correct then, that is his business cycle behaves no matter what values people have. The moral philosophy itself is not taught in most modern econ programs but in philosophy majors  
> **username_5**: I think it's funny that under the question asking about lack of diversity in Econ there are two answers: one is by the #1 user on the site, and the other one was deleted by the #1 user, who happens to be a mod (:  
> **username_5**: To be clear, I don't think there is anything shady going on, but it is rather funny.  
> **username_1**: @username_5 The other answer does not attempt to answer the question (and was flagged as not an answer) so by rules it has to be deleted. How is that reducing diversity? If some user would post another question as an answer is deleting that reducing diversity? Or what about spam? I don't see any irony here, this site has its rules. No answer on this site was ever deleted by me just for providing alternative point of view to mainstream. Numerous MMT answers by BrianRomanchuck prove that point. In academia also if journal does not publishes paper that has math mistake thats not reducing diversity  
> **username_1**: at least not academic diversity, it is just basic due diligence.  
> **username_4**: "Empirics in turns weeds out theories from science that cannot be empirically verified." Marx and/or Keynes in essence state that legal (power) and financial (money and credit) relationships dominate the behavior of intelligent agents in capitalist systems. Also these legal and financial relations influence behavior and determine outcomes (allocate gain and loss due to the "sins" of coordination problems). Go ahead and prove that law and finance do not exist in capitalism!  
> **username_1**: @username_4 1. Keynes is literally mainstream. Virtually all 101 macro models taughti basically build on his ideas. 2. I know Keynes work, I read probably all he has written and I never seen him talking about legal power dominating capitalist system whatever is that even supposed to mean. 3.Marx’s work wasn’t primarily about legal systems nor even finance. 4. Nobody is saying that finance or law do not exist in capitalism. Both financial economics and economics in law are mainstream economics subjects. 5. Nowhere in my answer I even talk about law or finance so that’s just straw man argument  
> **username_1**: I don’t even talk about capitalism so again just straw man with a  red herring. Also the Keynes thesis was literally opposite. His main argument was that human behavior or  “animal spirits” dominate financial markets not other way around. You should consider maybe reading at least some of Keynes’ work because you are clearly not familiar with his economic writing. You should start with the General Theory to get familiar with his main contributions.  
> **username_1**: Btw this sort of going off the rails about tangents or even completely unrelated topics is why your account has already several strikes and why your content is often flagged by various members of the community. If you are not willing to follow our most basic rules (i.e. not being completely off topic) then this site is not for you, contributing here is not mandatory. There are various other sites that do not penalize off topic contributions where you can just post whatever, but here you need to try to follow the rules in help center and our community rules on answers  
> **username_1**: @username_4 your answer was not censored, your answer was breaking basic rules & policies of SE. Also comments are not for off topic discussion either (see the help center). Especially read the thread on why some answers are deleted https://economics.stackexchange.com/help/deleted-answers, btw also your answer violated the community guidelines which would also result in deletion although only after 3 days so maybe check the community guidelines as well https://economics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2113/faq-on-community-standard-for-answers  

---

