A vast variety of aspects of civilisation and our everyday lives have been strongly affected by economics since its inception. and heterodox and Orthodox economics, despite the fact that there are numerous different schools of economics, are unique in their antagonism. To Marx, orthodox economics includes individualism and optimization as well as an abstract and codified technique, economic equilibrium, a commitment to economic growth, and the idea of homo economicus (289). For example, a non-market view that examines social identity as well as economic phenomena, power relationships and cooperative collective action, as well as psychological biases, tends to be more non-market than the mainstream approach (Veblen 800). Comparing economic schools of thought should be based on how they explain economic phenomena, on the debate over Marxism vs marginal utility, as well as on how they go about studying human behavior.

The application of heterodox economics differs significantly from that of conventional economics. All assumptions are specified mathematically, and theories may be disproven using traditional economics' methods. It doesn't matter whether the data is accessible or not; they can still be compared. It is possible that economic heterodoxy is neither mathematically or intellectually acceptable. In spite of its lack of scientific foundation, it is based on several historical interpretations and readings. In economics, the term "orthodoxy" refers to the traditional schools of thinking. According to conventional economics, people are rational actors who make decisions based on their information rather than their feelings (Smith et al. 1780).

Humans are considered as social animals influenced by their surroundings, social status, and culture based on the heterodox economics model. Heterodox thinkers Thorstein Veblen and John Commons clearly show this. According to them, we are just like persons Veblen et al. since we are entrenched in social, historical, and legal contexts (766). Theories based on assumptions about human economic behavior reflect a belief that it is not motivated by self-interest, but rather is impacted by other forces.

The marginal value of an orthodox and a heterodox outlook differs, as does that of Marxism. As long as a person is able to distinguish between wanting anything and not wanting something, the concept of labor value is made meaningless by the marginal utility principle.

Prices and values, on the other extreme, aren't going to change (Jevons et al). A major focus of Marxism is on the notion of labor value, which he says can be used to objectively judge the worthiness of a thing by looking at the average number of hours required to manufacture it. He cares about putting people to work so that capitalists may make money (Smith et al 1776).

Because one is founded on a person's desire, the other on the value of their work, both concepts are diametrically opposed.

The third point of difference among heterodox and orthodox economics is the difference in how they see human behavior. It is based on the idea of "rational economic man," or "homo economicus," as it is often called. The term "Homo economicus" refers to a theory of human behavior that holds that an individual's potential to make rational judgments is unbounded. It was John Stuart Mill, in a work on politics and economics published in the late 1800s, who originated the concept as it is presently used in economics. Perfect rationality, infinite cognitive capability, precise knowledge, constrained self-interest, and desire consistency are only a few of the virtues that people may possess.. Humans are expected to act in a certain way regardless of the conditions since this is how orthodox economists views human behavior and predicts it. To the contrary, the Keynesianism of the John Maynard Institute for Heterodox Economics maintains that our economic well-being is governed by uncertainty. According to Keynes, human action is influenced by two things: time and ignorance. One component is the passage of time, because today's decisions are often influenced by one's hopes and dreams for the future. Another factor is disinformation, since we know what the future holds. It's the "wild spirits" of human nature, in contrast, according to Keynes, that drive individuals to make risky economic decisions and therefore keep capitalism rolling (Marx 960.). To comprehend and forecast human behavior, conventional economic theory relies on a set of assumptions; alternative economic ideas do not. Heterodox economics, on the other hand, bases its conclusions on human circumstances and the economy's influence on ambiguity and spontaneity.

Heterodox economics implies that rationality is in harmony with the surrounding environment in the sense of thinking. Because of the lack of a 'real' framework for processing current knowledge and the possibility that it does not exist, people have very limited ability to collect and comprehend information. It is possible that decisions taken today might affect the spectrum of possible future situations. Complex or crucial ambiguity often leads to the formation of expectations. This is in contrast to orthodox theory's presumption of model-consistent rationality and optimization. Using a trustworthy economic model, individuals may accurately predict economic consequences in the present and future state of the economy (Veblen 238). In this setting, it is assumed that they are well-informed and have logical assumptions. Heterodox methods are founded on organicism and holism in terms of technique. Class, gender, culture, institutions, social conventions, and history shape how they think about individuals. Methodological individualism is the foundation of the orthodox approach. Profit maximization under restrictions and utility serves as the micro basis for macroeconomics and organizations in macroeconomics.

Heterodox schools place a high priority on promoting growth and development. Modern economists are concerned with resource utilization because commercial production economies typically operate below maximum employment, while classical economics was engaged in resource generation via the accumulation of a share of surpluses and technical improvement.

Here, the costs of attending a heterodox institution are considered to be reproductive costs. Traditional thinking is built on and revolves on principles like commerce, scarcity, and allocative justice. This view of economics is based on the premise that it is all about allocating scarce resources efficiently. The trade serves as the fundamental unit of economic appraisal, and production and growth are only extensions of this fundamental perspective. Values indicate scarcity. At the absolute least, heterodox schools need regulated markets and ongoing state involvement in the economy to achieve their political goals. Regardless of the degree to which prices may be flexible or inflexible, unregulated markets are seen to lead to instability, unacceptable inequities, and inefficiency. Free markets are considered to be a myth since the economic system has always relied on an organizational framework that has always existed.

According to some, competition is inevitably followed by monopoly and oligopoly, which undermines itself (Jevon et al. 656). Thus, the state need constant market and demand regulation. Unrestrained markets are often stable and provide the most efficient resource allocation at optimum employment levels, according to popular wisdom. According to orthodox economics, state intervention is only acceptable if there are externalities or dominant abuses, which are deemed inefficiencies.