Engagement with the Mainstream in the Future of Post Keynesian Economics

This paper examines the reasons for the difficulties Post Keynesian economics has had in supplanting mainstream neoclassical theory and for its resulting marginalization. Three explanations are given: intellectual, sociological and political, where the latter two are largely responsible for the current relationship of Post Keynesian economics to the mainstream. The paper also reviews various strategies for improving the future of Post Keynesian economics, including a focus on methodological issues by maintaining an ‘open systems’ approach; a strategy of ‘embattled survival’; the development of a positive alternative to mainstream economics; a strategy of ‘constructive engagement’ with the mainstream; and a dialogue with policymakers. While the global financial crisis has increased the potential for constructive engagement with the mainstream, significant barriers remain to the effectiveness of this approach. The crisis has, however, enhanced the possibility of engaging directly with policymakers and gaining a greater role in management education.     

回到凯恩斯还是回到熊彼特？——基于主流宏观经济学发展历程的理论反思

大萧条爆发后,嘬终占据主流地位的是系统提出摆脱大萧条方案的凯恩斯主义经济学。20世纪70年代以后,凯恩斯主义因无法解释“滞胀”现象而日渐式微。20世纪80年代以来,新古典主义和新凯恩斯主义共同占据主流地位,它们都要对2008年全球金融危机的爆发负责。危机爆发之后,“回到凯恩斯”的声音日渐高涨。但是凯恩斯主义宏观政策只能防止经济深度下滑,并不能带来经济长期繁荣,也不能帮助人们理解市场经济运行的本质特征。在后危机时代,我们需要“回到熊彼特”,以熊彼特的创新理论为基本框架来理解经济周期和金融危机,从而找到走出危机的治本之道。     

School Expenditures and Educational Discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment

This paper examines the decline in use of the Knight-Keynes uncertainty concept in mainstream economics. Using electronic archives, it shows that the frequency of its appearance in leading journals of economics has fallen rapidly from the 1950s. As well as to the declining popularity of Keynesian ideas since about 1970, the decrease in this use of the uncertainty concept is additionally related to the increasing mathematical formalization of economics and to the prevalence of a positivist emphasis on prediction. Some possible causes of this formalization are examined. Finally the essay discusses the prospects for a broadening of economics within universities, beyond a relatively narrow preoccupation with predictive formalism and including a reinvigorated Keynesianism.     

The economics of ageing and the political economy of old age

Economic discussion of ageing has been largely neoclassical in approach. Ageing has become a specialism within population economics, which is itself a specialism within the neoclassical mainstream. An alternative view has come from authors in sociology and social policy, who have produced their own ‘political economy of old age’. In contrast with neoclassical individualism, sociological depictions of ageing have stressed the social construction of old age and the structured dependency of the elderly. Non-neoclassical economists have had little to say about ageing, despite some relevant work in the early days of Keynesianism. This paper argues that a combination of structural ideas from sociology and disequilibrium ideas from Keynesian and non-neoclassical economics can provide a suitable framework for the economics of ageing.     

试论凯恩斯经济学研究方法的新取向

随着主流凯恩斯主义经济学的流行，原创性的凯恩斯经济学实际上已经“夭折”了，它的革命思想并没有得到真正的阐发与传播。从范式角度比较和分析原创性凯恩斯经济学和三个凯恩斯经济学流派之间的本质关系后发现，后凯恩斯经济学对原创性凯恩斯经济学的研究提供了重要启示；但是后凯恩斯经济学的理论局限性说明，必须探索一种新的研究方法，即一种制度的演化的经济学范式，从而推动凯恩斯经济学的进一步发展。     

马克思主义与后凯恩斯主义经济增长理论比较研究*——从经济增长基本方程说起

本文从设定经济增长基本方程出发，探讨了马克思主义与后凯恩斯主义经济学构建闭合增长模型的不同思路，进而对两种增长理论进行详细的比较分析。研究发现，马克思主义与后凯恩斯主义增长理论都对收入分配给予了特别的关注，并且都坚持阶级、制度、非均衡的分析方法；然而，两者在所依据的理论基础、经济增长的最终决定因素、资本主义经济增长是否存在极限以及增长过程中的市场结构等问题上仍存在明显分歧。与后凯恩斯主义增长理论相比，马克思主义增长理论在理论基础、研究视阈及内在逻辑一致性等方面都更具优势。全面比较马克思主义与后凯恩斯主义经济增长理论对于构建中国特色发展经济学具有重要的借鉴意义。     

Intermediate macroeconomics: The importance of being post Keynesian

Post Keynesians should not be afraid to teach what they believe represents the best explanation of macroeconomic fluctuations. Our colleagues in the mainstream certainly are not and, realistically speaking, it is hard to imagine that any student would be handicapped by not having had a full dose of IS-LM, the accelerationist hypothesis, Phillips Curves, and so on. Furthermore, there may not be a more opportune time to introduce post Keynesianism to undergraduate students with Neoclassicals still recovering from their inability to explain the financial crisis. This article argues for a post Keynesian-focused intermediate macroeconomics and offers a sample plan. It reviews the state of post-financial crisis mainstream macro teaching and references pedagogical literature in showing how a post Keynesian transformation and reorganization can be made most effective.     

Theory creation and the methodological foundation of Post Keynesian economics

For the last 15 years there have been extensive discussionsabout the foundations of Post Keynesian economics. From thesediscussions, Post Keynesians have reached the consensus thattheir economics is based on a philosophical foundation of realismand critical realism. However, the methodological foundationof Post Keynesian economics, which refers to the methodologicalguidelines used for creating and developing theory, has receivedrelatively less discussion and development. The aim of thispaper is to stimulate discussion in this area by advocatingthat the method of grounded theory is consistent with criticalrealism and is a better and more developed set of guidelinesfor theory creation than the currently accepted alternatives.     

James M. Buchanan: An appreciation

James M. Buchanan co-founded the field of Public Choice. He was influenced by Austrian economics, and in turn influenced Austrian economics. In particular, he advanced the understanding of subjectivist cost theory. His individualist approach to public policy making has been adopted by many Austrian economists. With Richard Wagner, he analyzed the politics of Keynesian economics. They explained why Keynesianism in practice led to a larger government, permanent deficits and inflationary monetary policy.     

Is ‘new’ behavioral economics ‘mainstream’?

When comparing ‘new’ and ‘old’ behavioral economics (BE), many argue that ‘new’ BE has close ties with what is often called ‘mainstream’ economics. The aim of this paper is to reframe the ‘old’ vs. ‘new’ BE debate and investigate the nature of the relationship between psychologists, behavioral economists, and ‘mainstream’ economists. This will lead us to develop the concept of ‘space of interaction’, building on Galison’s metaphor of ‘trading zones’, to emphasize the role of outsiders, strategic thinking, and negotiation in ‘new’ BE. By discussing some often implicit arguments in an otherwise disconnected literature, we seek to bring new arguments to the discussions through a careful study of those relationships in the history of ‘new’ BE and its more recent developments. Leaving aside the orthodox/heterodox contrast and comparative approaches, we hope to provide a different account of the changes in ‘new’ BE and its relationship with the ‘mainstream’.     

The neglect of comparison income: An historical perspective

Abstract

Theories of social comparison have a long presence in the social sciences and have provided many useful insights. In economics, the idea of comparison, aspiration or relative income belongs to this theoretical framework. The first systematic usages of this notion can be found in the works of Keynes and Duesenberry. After these works the concept was relatively ignored by orthodox theorists until its recent re-appearance, mainly in the fields of labour and macroeconomics. To the contrary, however, income comparisons continued to play a role in much of Keynesian inspired and non-mainstream economics literature. In the past few years it has made a strong comeback in the literature of job satisfaction and of the economics of happiness. This paper attempts to trace the development of the concept in the modern history of economic thought. It also discusses the main theoretical implications of adopting income comparisons and possible reasons for its relative disregard by orthodox economics.     

Labor supply: Toward the construction of an alternative conception from post Keynesian and institutional economics

Post Keynesian and institutional economics have traditionally maintained a critical stance toward the orthodox model of labor supply, questioning many of its underlying assumptions. Nevertheless, this critical view has not led to the formulation of an alternative conception of labor supply that is sufficiently coherent and structured to be generally accepted within these branches of the literature. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the construction of such an alternative. To do so, the article starts by analyzing the relationship between the reasons that lead to individuals offering their labor and what that activity can bring to human beings in return. Secondly, the authors present an alternative concept of what workers contribute at work. They then analyze how the decision-making process regarding the labor supply actually takes place. Finally, the article concludes by briefly presenting certain additional points, in particular how differentiation is an inherent feature of the labor supply.     

Keynes against Kalecki on economic method

In the past twenty years, there has been considerable debate on the “coherence” of post Keynesian economics, in view of post Keynesian economists’ ambitions to develop a paradigmatic alternative to neoclassical economics. Given the growing importance of methodological aspects in this discussion, this article addresses the differences of approach to economic theory between the fathers of the two most important strands in post Keynesian economics. We thus focus on Keynes’s criticism of Kalecki’s theory of the business cycle and the tensions between Keynes’s logical approach and Kaleki’s formal modeling. We show that in criticizing Kalecki’s theory, Keynes made use of the same methodological criticism (based on detecting logical fallacies in reasoning) he had employed to attack both the classical theory and contemporary “pseudo-mathematical” models. After illustrating these fundamental differences between Keynes and Kalecki about the proper way of doing economics, we draw some conclusions on the possible future evolution of post Keynesian economics.     

Team reasoning without a hive mind

The theory of team reasoning has been developed to resolve a long-lasting niggle in orthodox game theory. Despite its intuitive appeal, the theory has received little attention from mainstream game theorists and economists to date. We believe that this is so because of two theoretic issues, which the theory of team reasoning itself needs to resolve. One of these presents a worry that the theory achieves its explanatory and predictive success by abandoning ontological individualism — a fundamental precept in mainstream economics, including game theory. Here we argue that the theory of team reasoning is compatible with ontological individualism. We show that the core principles of the theory — those that give rise to the above worry — are in fact implicitly assumed in some branches of orthodox game theory itself. We also argue against the methodological approach that construes team reasoning as involving a transformation of the interacting players’ payoffs in modelled games.     

The breakdown of the IS–LM synthesis: implications for post-Keynesian economic theory

The monetarist and the new classical economics attack routed the IS–LM version of Keynesian theory and the large scale econometric models from the centre of macroeconomic research. However monetarism and the new classical economics were more successful as a critique of the IS–LM orthodoxy than as a basis for fruitful research and policy analysis.

Post-Keynesian economists also attack the IS–LM orthodoxy, mainly because it misspecified ‘… the economic society in which we actually live’. Post-Keynesians that emphasized financial and labour markets argued that properties of the real world economy made instability normal results ofmarket interactions.

The vacuum in main line theory that developed as the shortcomings of monetarism became evident led to a revival of interest in basic Keynesian propositions. This has spawned what is now labeled a new Keynesian economics. New Keynesian economists conform to the modeling standards set by the new classical rational expectations school but claim to get Keynesian results. To a degree these results are compatible with propositions of post-Keynesian economics.

It is suggested that a convergence between the new and the post-Keynesian economics can be expected, and the result is likely to be fruitful.     

Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology

Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.     

Endogenous Money: An Analytical Approach

The paper proposes a constructive interpretation of the Post Keynesian debate between horizontalists and structuralists. Both approaches defend an endogenous money theory, but they discriminate between different analyses of the credit market and the reserve market. A more general model encompassing both approaches is presented here and some of its implications are discussed.     

A history of post-Keynesian economics

John King, in his A History of Post Keynesian Economics Since1936, raises the question of whether there exists a body ofwork which can be called, collectively, post Keynesian. Thispaper presents some criteria for addressing this question, beginningwith the vision and the origins of some of the post-Keynesianideas, leading to an examination of certain features of thevarious groups, including their methodology and their approachesto uncertainty, their pricing theories and their growth theories.It is concluded that, although there is much diversity in thevarious groups, they are reconcilable when seen as referringto different aspects of the economic process and at differinglevels of abstraction.     

The Limits of Organizational Change

The paper builds on the Marxist concept of exploitation to explore the meaning of the Post Keynesian notion of uncertainty. Uncertainty is mediated by institutions and is distributed unevenly among different social groups. As different historical social formations entail different institutional structures, the distribution and nature of uncertainty will also differ. The social configurations between class relations and uncertainty are analyzed for the capitalist, feudal and slave modes of production. It is demonstrated that modes of production do not only imply specific exploitative relations but also different relative distributions of uncertainty amongst classes. The joining of Marxian and Post Keynesian approaches allows for a richer understanding of exploitive relations and illuminates the full societal impact of uncertainty. It is shown that only in capitalism is the exploited class exposed to a substantial degree of economic uncertainty.