The thing I have noticed is that most upper-level students in or approaching their dissertation stage are interested in working in non-academic settings. IMF/WB, etc. I can't speak for all students, but this appears to be somewhat of a trend. It is difficult to tell if they are 'rational maximizers' trying to maximize their salary or just disgruntled with radicals in academia. Some have told me that they think the potential to make changes is greater working for the WB than writing articles for obscure journals.
The future of the few (and I mean few, myself included) who focus on social economics, methodology, history, and other non-technical fields looks curious. In fact, most graduate economics programs don't even have history/methodology seminars. Most radical graduates. don't go on to teach at Harvard. Its as if we are pseudo-economists because we either take the Post-Austistic view (mathematics within reason) or because we just don't do technical study after technical study. And if you don't want to differentiate consumption functions...well, you are just plain weird.
What appears to be happening is that the radicals who enter into teaching jobs are forming very tight-knit and strong alliances with others in simialar predicaments. I know of a few professors who graduated from radical programs and then pick up teaching jobs at the same university. Yet, similar to the critics of the Institutionalists, they are attending conferences, writing articles, but seem to lack a coherent body of thought...aside from the fact that they are unstaisfied with the mainstream. None the less, its a start with visible ties to other radicals...including those outside of academia.
Perhaps radical economists are trying to build a solid base in which to start springing all these great things from. But I haven't seen much as of yet. That is not to say I am pessimistic. Just observant.
Aaron