- Have written popular books (Ormerod 1994 and Keen 2001) explaining that neoclassical economics is incorrect
- Mention Lipsey and Lancaster's theory of the second best
- Emphasize that mainstream economists studying the theory of General Equilibrium have demonstrated the theoretical untenability of neoclassical economics
- Recommend an approach to economics based on the mathematics of complexity theory
- Publish original criticisms of mainstream economics first in their popular books (Ormerod 1999 and Keen 2001) and then later in a physics journal (e.g., Keen and Standish (2006) and Ormerod and Mounfield (2000))
They differ in that they express different opinions on Piero Sraffa in their popular books. Keen (2001) praises Sraffa, while Ormerod (1999) snarks.
I find that Ormerod and Keen have teamed up with two other authors for a recent paper (Gallegati et al. 2006). This paper contains an approving reference to Sraffa. A major theme of this paper is to question whether the evidence for power laws, in particular in the tails of certain distributions of certain economic variables, is as definite as seems to be claimed sometimes in the econophysics literature.
- Gallegati, Mauro, Steve Keen, Thomas Lux, and Paul Ormerod (2006). "Worrying Trends in Econophysics", Physica A
- Keen, Steve (2001). Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences, Zed Books
- Keen, Steve and Russell Standish (2006). "Profit Maximization, Industry Structure, and Competition: A Critique of Neoclassical Theory", Physica A
- Ormerod, Paul (1994). The Death of Economics, London: Faber & Faber
- Ormerod, Paul (1999). Butterfly Economics: A New General Theory of Social and Economic Behavior, Pantheon
- Ormerod, Paul and Craig Mounfield (2000). "Random Matrix Theory and the Failure of Macro-Economic Forecasts", Physica A