Missing bridges: a pluralist analysis of the debate on Capital in the Twenty-First Century Online publication date: Sun, 09-Oct-2016
by Hannes Fauser; Felix Kersting; Finn Müller-Hansen; Alexander Sacharow
International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education (IJPEE), Vol. 7, No. 3, 2016
Abstract: This article analyses the debate surrounding Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century and asks whether it can be characterised as pluralist, understood as a practice of mutual engagement between researchers from different schools of thought. We review the theoretical framework of Piketty and the responses his work received in the economics community, both mainstream and heterodox. We argue that Piketty's theory remains ambiguous. It builds on ideas of mainstream economics but creates a space for broader discussions by referring to non-mainstream concepts, mainly from other disciplines and not heterodox school of thoughts. Neither the book nor the discussion around it can be characterised as pluralist: Piketty, as well as his commentators, hardly build any bridges between different schools of thought, although the topic of inequality seems to be relevant for all of them. Therefore, this analysis serves as an example for habits and problems in the economic debate.
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education (IJPEE):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com
Our Blog 
Follow us on Twitter 
Visit us on Facebook