Our story so far is of heterodox economics that is pluralist: drawing on ideas from different schools of thought (from Marxian to post- Keynesian and institutionalist) and different disciplines (from history to sociology and philosophy), and using alternative methods (qualitative and quantitative). A diversity of scholarly approaches is explored in contrast to the narrow confines of neoclassical orthodoxy. As it stands, delivering on this pluralism presents a considerable challenge to heterodox economists operating on the margins of mainstream economics; but there is an additional challenge that needs to be faced. If heterodox economics is to become truly plural, it has to be open to the needs and voices of marginalized and unrepresented groups (Strassmann & Starr 2009: 61). This is a challenge for all economists, heterodox or otherwise. In investigating the openness of economics to postcolonial ideas, Kayatekin (2009: 1113) finds “economics to be the discipline most resistant to change”.

As argued by Kvangraven and Kesar (2022), a decolonization of economics requires two main things. First, there needs to be a consideration of colonial history in order to understand how societal imbalances of power came into being. Second, there needs to be a consideration of the subjection of women to these power imbalances, requiring a feminist response. Both dimensions are argued here to be core to heterodox economics.

In addition to covering strands of heterodox economics that incorporate different voices, the chapter also considers the critical role of the planet: the natural environment that has no voice.