Title: Towards an assertive pluralist code of conduct for economists

The idea of a code of conduct for economists has been under discussion in heterodox economic circles for several years. It was raised by George De Martino (2008) and re‐iterated by Freeman (2010) in a contribution on the reform of the ‘Subject Benchmark Statement’ for economics (SBSE) – the guidelines drawn up for teaching economics in UK Higher Education institutions by the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). Economics is quite distinct, among professional institutions, in having no formal internal regulatory standards of conduct. Such standards – accompanied by means of enforcement including withdrawal of recognition – are commonplace among professions whose members are frequently contracted for public and also private service: lawyers, accountants, medical practitioners, engineers, social workers, teachers, and many others. Yet economists’ decision and judgments have a major impact on the lives of millions of citizens, arguably greater than that of many much more highly regulated professions. This paper, originally presented to the Association for Heterodox Economics (AHE) 2011 conference, sets out possible guidelines for a formal code of conduct for the economics profession by means of which the profession may offer safeguards to the public against malpractice, together with guidelines for internal conduct in publication, appointment, research and funding to raise the general standard of the output of economics, primarily through the mandatory application of consistent pluralism. These guidelines were included in the AHE’s formal submission to the 2011 UK parliamentary selection committee on the journal peer review system. The root problem lies, we argue, in the adverse selection procedures which economics treats as ‘normal’. These in fact select, not for quality, but for conformity. The standard corrective proposed by most wings of heterodox economics do not address this, in that they merely proposes the substitution of a new orthodoxy for the old orthodoxy. The solution, we argue, is an end to all orthodoxy; that is to insist on pluralism as a requirement of economic practice. This involves in effect a new contract between decision‐makers and economists, in which the duty of the economist is seen, not as providing the ‘one correct answer’ but the range of answers that are offered by the different relevant approaches and assumptions to the problem. This radical shift of perspective would place the responsibility of making decisions back into the hands of the decision‐makers, who have been party to the system that the produced ‘systemic failure’ of economics, by treating economists as technical experts and thereby absolving themselves of the duty to make decisions and to be accountable for them. We argue against the external imposition of a formal code by a regulatory body, which would not solve the root problem. Instead, we propose that the code of conduct should act as a ‘kitemark’; as a sign of quality, to be verified by anyone who makes a contract with an economist be it a university, business, or public body. This should in particular apply to bodies such as journals which act as the elemental gatekeepers of the profession which leads to selection for conformity. Author details: Alan Freeman, London Metropolitan University, UK; Email: [email protected]