The economic profession faces a significant challenge: an overwhelming uniformity in thought, particularly in macroeconomics and finance. This intellectual monoculture—characterized by over-reliance on specific models, limited scrutiny of central bank policies, and minimal integration of insights from other fields—risks missing alternative explanations for economic phenomena and narrowing policy options during crises. The dominance of certain academic affiliations may also stifle innovation, while the underrepresentation of practitioners and international perspectives leaves valuable real-world insights out of academic debates.

Diversifying Economic Research: A Structured Approach

One way to counter this homogeneity could involve deliberate efforts to diversify economic research through multiple coordinated strategies. This might include actively funding researchers across the ideological spectrum, hosting structured debates that force engagement between opposing viewpoints, and regularly convening interdisciplinary forums that integrate insights from sociology, political science, and finance. Additionally, expanding engagement with economists from different academic traditions and strengthening connections between practitioners and academics could bridge the gap between theory and real-world applications.

For example:

• Conferences could be designed with "debate panels" where opposing methodologies must defend their views on specific policy questions.
• Funding bodies might prioritize interdisciplinary research projects that include non-economists as key contributors.

Execution and Validation

A phased approach could help test and refine the idea. A minimal viable product (MVP) might start with small interdisciplinary working groups tackling specific policy topics. Success could then be measured by tracking whether these discussions lead to novel research insights or policy recommendations. Over time, this could expand to larger conferences and formal partnerships with universities and journals.

Key assumptions to validate early on include:

1. Whether economists actively engage with opposing viewpoints in good faith.
2. Whether diverse research teams produce more actionable policy insights.
3. Whether practitioners find academic collaboration worthwhile.

Comparison with Existing Efforts

Unlike conventional research organizations like the NBER, which generally operate within established methodological boundaries, this approach would actively seek to cross them. It would also differentiate itself from existing heterodox initiatives by systematically structuring interdisciplinary debates and practitioner involvement rather than merely funding alternative research.

Overall, fostering a more pluralistic approach to economic research could lead to richer academic debates and more resilient policy frameworks, benefiting economists, policymakers, and the broader public alike.