I think there's a category error in DR'd article. Why should making the economics profession more gender and ethnically inclusive influence the underlying tenets of economic theory? Inclusivity is an ethical issue, economic theory is supposed to be 'ethically neutral', objective. There are no inherent gender or ethnic co-variants to economic theory. More female economists could (in theory) assure that researchers pay more attention to gender issues, which are, of course, legion in micro-economics. But greater inclusion will have little or no influence on trade, monetary, or industrial economics. The 'changing face of economics' is a theoretical issue, not one of inclusivity regarding gender and diversity. For sure, most of us would like to hear more from female, non-Caucasian / Judeo-Christian / non-Western economists and to look more closely at issues that have been either ignored or understudied and under-theorised.

But by far my main concern is that the 'changing face of economics' ignores entirely the fundamental challenge to economic theory posed by climate change, or rather catastrophe, a silence that has been inherent in mainstream economics from Smith to date. Exchange value has been the sole focus of economics and treating nature as a virtually unlimited free good has made the discipline complicit with the capitalism that is not only NOT delivering (inequality, poverty, psychological and health effects...), but is silent when it comes to the impact of economic growth on nature. If there is a case to be made for more 'inclusive' economics, it should focus on the imminent collapse of our eco-systems and listen to those few heterodox economists who have made this their business (incidentally, they are mostly Marxists). The main solution to climate change proposed by economists - a carbon tax, cap and trade - betrays the above blindness to the role of 'negative externalities' since Smith that have brought us to the brink of disaster.