What Is Radical Political Economics?

1. Radical Political Economics Critiques Neoclassical Economics and Capitalism

Most all the interviewees confirmed that radical political economics critiques and rejects much of mainstream economics. It approaches “the idea of understanding economics from an especially critical perspective on the development of the mainstream profession, and its tendency toward sophisticated mathematical models and focus on theory,” Tom Riddell said. He continued, “Radical economics is interdisciplinary and understands economics not in isolation from social reality.”

Mary Stevenson put it succinctly: it offers “a way of questioning all of the received wisdom I had been fed in graduate school.”

“To understand how the economy works, you need to understand how capitalism is deeply flawed, and [that] what is needed to solve these problems is deep change,” Jim Campen said. He added, “The need for fundamental change [stems] from these deep-rooted problems.”

Sam Bowles helpfully explained how this critique of mainstream economics and capitalism ties into URPE:

Historically, URPE was an intersection of many things. It was a rejection of neoclassical economics. If you have a Venn diagram, that would be in one circle: rejection of neoclassical economics. Another circle would be a critique of capitalism as a system and exploration of a better alternative. Another circle would be a sense that important topics had been excluded from economics, among them political and economic inequalities based on race, gender, and nation. The intersection of these three sets—rejection of neoclassical economics, the critique of capitalism, and the insistence that economics focus on problems of central importance—was URPE. (Sam Bowles in communication with author, January 2018)

Anwar Shaikh agreed with the need for critique but, for him, forging new theories was also essential:

First and foremost in URPE was the radical politics, which meant questioning and criticizing institutions and norms. Second was the questioning of received economic and political theories. . . . The original URPE Prospectus ² criticized the tendencies to “genuflect before the twin deities of marginalism and equilibrium, while the world around us suffers from extreme disequilibrium. . . . This is not said to deny the value of some of the tools and concepts of modern economics” but rather to question the problems to which they are applied and the manner in which these tools are used.

I always believed that it was necessary to have a different theoretical foundation and not just to change the focus of the existing one. I did not see the problems of the world as arising from disequilibrium small or large, or imperfections small or large, but rather from the proper workings of capitalism itself. Hence the need for a different theoretical foundation. (Anwar Shaikh in communication with author, February 2018)

2. Radical Political Economics Examines the Structure of the Economy and Power

Unlike neoclassical economics, which focuses on individuals and firm behavior, radical political economics interrogates the economic structure and how to change this structure and the structure of power. Arthur MacEwan described it as:

Not taking the existing economic structure for granted and [not] working within these economic structures. Our approach is not philosophically the marginal approach. Standard economics would ask, “How can things be adjusted?” We ask, “How can things be changed in various property relationships, the rights of businesses, and who has property rights and what kind? What kind of incentives in society exist?” It’s not managing society as it is, but changing society. If this requires changing social structures, so be it. The mainstream works within the existing structures. (Arthur MacEwan in communication with author, January 2018)

Heidi Hartmann expanded this notion to different segments of society. Radical political economics examines the following:

The causes of things from multiple perspectives, including power, class, and gender. Economics is not all about competitive markets and scarcity. You need to look beyond this: where do the markets come from? Why is there scarcity? How can we provision differently? This is a different focus when you shift the lens to these questions about power, about women and men’s relationships to each other, and the structural position of women and men. And, why is that structured as it is? Why are markets structured as they are? What are the power dynamics and cultural values embedded within labor markets, among workers as well as with employers? What are the economic structures that affect men and women’s relationships? You need to look at structures, not just individuals. (Heidi Hartmann communication with author, January 2018)

3. Radical Political Economics Goes to the Root of Problems and Structures

Radical political economics investigates the sources of economic problems and conditions, and this focus informed the onset of URPE. Michael Zweig, one of URPE’s founders, said that URPE was established to support and sustain economists getting at the root of social issues such as the Vietnam War. He said, “We thought of ourselves as ‘radical’ economists, by which we meant doing an economics that went to the root of social conditions, like racism and imperialist wars, and demanding a curriculum that would do that” (Kim 2018).

Several members such as David Laibman and MacEwan also described radical political economics as “going to the root.” MacEwan explained, “Radical means root, it means going to the roots of the basic structures of society. It doesn’t mean Marxist economics necessarily; it includes Marxist economics, but it includes other types of economics—Marxism isn’t the only one.”

4. Radical Political Economics Investigates Different Issues and Employs Different Methods

Radical political economics often examines issues ignored by mainstream economics, and it investigates these issues in fundamentally different ways. “We looked at poor people, power, discrimination, and oppression in ways different than standard economics,” Lane Vanderslice said. He elaborated, “We looked at people at the bottom and from the point of view of people at the bottom. We provided a home for Marxist economics, and allowed that to stay alive in the United States.”

Examining issues from the perspective of those at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy can involve utilizing different research methods. To empower the oppressed, participatory action research is often used. To understand the social conditions and underlying economic and social structures, radical political economists often employ interviews, focus groups, or archival or historical research. Sometimes these methods are used in combination with traditional economic (mathematical) modeling or econometric research methods, and sometimes they are used to the exclusion of these traditional economic methods.

In addition, radical political economics is often interdisciplinary, and integrates and addresses underlying political dynamics constitutive of economic issues. Political economy to Bob Pollin is “Economics that is serious but committed to a broader political project. Serious meaning that you are committed to economics and to more egalitarian societies—in opposition to imperialism and the Vietnam War, which was how imperialism was [expressed in the 1970s]. We opposed the Vietnam War not just because of the mistakes of foreign policy, but also because of our understanding of imperialism. Harry Magdoff’s The Age of Imperialism (1969) was important and others developed it further.”

Achieving more egalitarian outcomes in wealth, income, and earnings is more prominent in radical political economics than concern about efficiency and profit maximization. Barry Bluestone, who taught political economy at three universities in Boston over forty-eight years, explained:

Political economy investigates the economy and the institutions embedded in it. The focus is more on equality and distribution, and not simply what determines economic growth. It goes well beyond simple standard models of economics that focus on how market prices are determined and wealth created.

Essentially, political economy examines the sources of power, and how the political system is used to determine the level of income and wealth inequality in a nation. What are the social, economic, and institutional factors that keep people from being upwardly mobile? What keeps people poor? Trying to answer these questions for my generation began in URPE fifty years ago. (Barry Bluestone in communication with author, January 2018)

5. Radical Political Economics Embraces Transformation through Social Movements

Often, radical political economics studies how social movements transform economic and power structures. The Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Movement, and Labor Movements are examples of movements in which the oppressed—women, racial and ethnic minorities, and workers—gained power and changed society through collective action (Piven and Cloward 1977). Thus, radical political economics is “economics in the service of democratic social transformation,” said Laibman. He stated further that radical political economics is “A transformation of society that meets human needs, and this entails organization from below and active and collective struggle. That keeps [the definition] broad enough [to include Marxism and other heterodox economics].”

Peter Bohmer said:

To me, the anti-capitalist perspective is a big part of [radical political economics]. We need to go beyond capitalism. Political economy is about power. Seeing class as important. Challenging white supremacy, racism, and seeing these in structural analyses and creating change through grassroots movements—change from the bottom up. Seeing Marxism not as science but seeing power, capital, class. (Peter Bohmer in communication with author, January 2018)

MacEwan said:

What makes radical political economy distinct from what is practiced by those who accept the orthodoxy is our constituency. Whom are we speaking to and whom are we hoping to help/influence? The answer for me is that our constituency is the people engaged in social movements that are trying to bring about a more democratic and egalitarian society. Those who accept the orthodoxy have a very different constituency—government officials or managerial elites, or both. Of course, many of the ideas of radical economists might bear on government policies (e.g., radicals’ work on the minimum wage), but our primary concern is giving ammunition to the social movements, not simply directly affecting the approach of those in power. This difference in constituency is closely tied to the issue of changing the economy/society, as opposed to managing the society. (Arthur MacEwan in communication with author, January 2018)

Thus, praxis is a key component of radical political economics. Research and actions aim to improve society, and change social and economic structures. Many radical political economists are actively involved in policy research and debates, or in the political or organizing spheres.

6. Conclusion: A Broad Definition of Radical Political Economics and a Big Tent

Few interviewees argued that Marxist ideas are critical to defining radical political economics, even though this was a major debate fifty years ago (Kim 2018). Many spoke of a broad definition that includes Marxism as well as other theoretical viewpoints in economics. I am struck by this, and also by the notion that radical political economics has always meant “going to the root”—of militarism, imperialism, environmental issues, and oppression by gender, race, and class. This early embrace of a broad definition and full range of issues allowed URPE members (and former members) to produce important, paradigm-shifting work—on such diverse topics as the social structure of accumulation, inequality, gender, economic justice, education and inequality, low income work and workers, deindustrialization, how race divides workers, and how the minimum wage can help, not harm, workers (Kim 2018).

Howard Wachtel (2018), writing on the occasion of the Review of Radical Political Economics’ semicentennial, described how many of the themes outlined above were implied in URPE’s early years. Early meetings of URPE affirmed that “no one Left political ideology is dominant”—“new approach[es] to social problems” were all welcomed (Wachtel 2018: X, X). Not only did URPE address topics ignored by mainstream economics, it was interdisciplinary. This journal provided “a critical view of capitalism,” and it:

Published articles about the issues largely neglected by traditional economics: poverty and inequality, the environment and economics, international economic disparities (economic imperialism), feminist economics, and the economics of race. . . . The journal’s vision. . . [also]. . . challenge[d] the profession’s methodological orthodoxy in its quest for theories of stable and static equilibrium when the world around us was one of dynamic and unstable disequilibrium. (Wachtel 2018: X)

The original intentions of URPE and its founders are just as critical today: radical political economics and thus URPE examine structures in the economy such as institutions, power, and oppression; investigate how institutions and unequal power create and perpetuate oppression and inequality by race, gender, class, and geography; criticize mainstream economics; and construct alternative theories and analyses to explain the world as it exists—as hegemonic, not as perfect markets with outcomes decided by preferences and numerous assumptions to make the math work.

As URPE looks toward its next fifty years, I believe that going back to its early roots provides its path forward. Rather than prescribe a narrow definition of radical political economics, with a limited set of acceptable theoretical frameworks and issues, we should instead return to what it initially meant when URPE was first formed. URPE members interrogated the roots of the economy, social and economic structures, and issues of power. They addressed oppression and inequality globally, and by race, gender, class, and geography. They took on the environment, war, imperialism, and economic justice. Under such a big tent, a pluralism of voices articulated new theory and ideas that were taught, shared, and published around these important topics. Because issues of unequal power and hegemony are just as pressing and widespread today, so too is the need for a multiplicity of voices examining these issues. Only this broad definition of radical political economics allows the inclusion of these voices—which are plentiful and are among us—to continue our important work.