{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03889334402566159, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03488372093023256, 'mean_word_length': 5.854395604395604, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Heterodox Theoretical Convergence: Possibility or Pipe Dream?

A substantial number of papers presented at the 2006 AFEE meetings and published in the Journal of Economic Issues (lEI) in June 2006 10 out of 30 recognized the continuing proliferation of heterodox schools in our discipline. Most of these papers expressed regret at the absence of, and a desire for, "centrality and integrative discipline" within evolutionary social analysis (Stanfield 2006, 250). Ron Stanfield (250) foresaw the merger of "Old Institutional Economics" and "New Institutional Economics" into a comprehensive "Evolutionary Economics." Kenneth Jameson (2006, 370) called for combining the "New Old Institutional Economics" with the "New New Institutional Economics" to create a "Modern Institutionalism of Development." Chris Niggle (2006, 405) compared and contrasted "Evolutionary/Institutionalist" and "Post Keynesian Economics," the synthesis of which he proposed calling "Evolutionary Keynesianism." Emre Oz<;:elik, and Eyiip Ozveren (2006, 418) proposed an institutionalist synthesis of political economy based on the work of Polanyi, Schumpeter, and Braudel. Richard and June Brinkman (2006, 439) tried to advance toward a "grand union" of all knowledge, embracing the hard sciences, the soft sciences, and ethics. Wolfgang Kerber (2006, 457) analyzed competition, knowledge, and institutions, in part to promote greater integration of institutional and evolutionary economics. Robert Waters (2006, 471) urged bringing the insights of Kenneth Boulding back into the dialogue about evolutionary models and development. David Dequech (2006,473-79) compared how sociologists and institutionalists use the terms institutions and norms. Mary Wrenn (2006, 489) argued that five groups of heterodox analysts share a "common theoretical ground with respect to the conceptualization of the individual." And Olivier Brette (2006, 493) suggested using Veblen's methodology as a framework for dialogue to promote convergence between institutional economics and contemporary evolutionary economics. This is a mass of energy seeking convergence. Does it mean there is an active possibility of achieving "centrality and integrative discipline" among these heterodox schools, or is it an idle pipe dream? The answer to this question resides largely in the preconceptions on which divergent theories rest. Veblen rejected the preconceptions of other theoretical positions, and any convergence with Veblenian theory requires