The Nation has an article about the mafia-like nature of economics: it's too rigid, too right-wing. Like any science, there are those who think the current mainstream is really wrong about big issues. But these overbroad criticisms are lame because they offer nothing specific as an alternative, just a critique of the imperfect status quo. There's mention of recognizing customs, norms, etc., but that's just sociology, and that 'science' has hardly been more successful than economics. If it worked, more economists would be stealing sociology ideas, but it is the other way around.

Further, the article asserts economics has been rapidly laissez-faire. I think the average econ department is no more Republican than America, but this stands out compared to the average academic department (isn't that a good thing?). Major economists have been used forever to point out exception to free trade arguments (eg, infant industries), Paul Krugman being only the latest. Remember that Milton Friedman was, for much of his career, an outsider, not the establishment which is clearly center-left.

They have never made a statue in honor of a critic, and they shouldn't. I remember a high school course, where for the first few weeks we all were to present a critique of a famous philosopher, so Lebniz, Plato, Hegel, all were easily put in their place by a bunch of 17 year-olds. Then we were told to present our own theory, and it had to be novel. Well, that didn't go so well. Where previously we were all cock-sure of our superiority, now we all floundered with ideas we knew were not new, true, and important (we were lucky to get 1 out of 3). And so it is with 'heterodox' economists. It's easy to say economists can't explain so much, but really, why not just say, here's my theory--economists ignore it at your loss.