Post Keynesianism,Heterodoxy and Mainstream Economics

After briefly presenting the concepts of orthodox, mainstream and heterodox economics, and applying them to the contemporary period, this article discusses the Post Keynesian school and its relation to contemporary orthodox and mainstream economics. While opposed to the neoclassical orthodoxy, the Post Keynesian school has some positive unifying ideas, although some internal tensions remain. There are also some overlaps between Post Keynesianism and other approaches, and a careful combination of contributions from different approaches and different disciplines is not only possible, but also necessary. Post Keynesianism is located outside current mainstream economics, although this argument partly depends on a more precise specification of the concept of uncertainty. The non-mainstream character of Post Keynesian economics has at least two types of important implications. The first involves the approach's ability to influence the economy and the danger of ‘the scholastic fallacy’; the second refers to a reproductive difficulty inside academia.     

Uncertainty and Economic Sociology:

A BSTRACT . The paper discusses the role of uncertainty in economic sociology, aiming to clarify some controversial issues in the related literature. Initially, some conceptual remarks are made about the relation between economic sociology, neoclassical economics, and rational choice theory. Next, in light of the existing literature on uncertainty and economic sociology, we distinguish between complexity and different types of uncertainty. We also identify different versions of the maximization hypothesis and examine their relations to the different types of uncertainty. Then we defend a concept of fundamental uncertainty that emphasizes the role of institutions. A theory that combines fundamental uncertainty and institutions should emphasize not only the existence of behavior in accordance with institutions, but also the possibility of creative, bold, unconventional behavior, discussed next, as people may use the knowledge provided by institutions to go against the tide. Finally, we suggest that the primary distinction should be that between approaches to economic issues, not between disciplines.     

Confidence and alternative Keynesian methods of asset choice

Abstract

This article elaborates the analysis of asset choice proposed by Keynes and later adopted by Post Keynesians such as Paul Davidson and Hyman Minsky. The article incorporates the essential aspects of the theory of confidence presented in Dequech (1999) Dequech, D. 1999. Expectations and confidence under uncertainty. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 21: 415–430. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], first into an investigation of the relation between confidence and the liquidity premium and then into the broader theory of asset choice. Keynes considered two methods of determining planned investment expenditures: one method is based on the comparison between the marginal efficiency of capital and the interest rate; the other is based on the comparison between the demand price and the supply price of a particular capital good. Both methods can be generalized for asset choice, with investment as a particular case. The article refines and develops these two methods so as to specify more precisely the influence of confidence and speculation on the determination of liquidity premia and hence on the several assets' profitability.     

Uncertainty: individuals, institutions and technology

In an attempt to refine the concept of uncertainty, this paperelaborates an ontology of the social world concentrating onindividuals, institutions and technology. It shows the strongentwinement of the ontological aspects of the conceptualisationof uncertainty and epistemological ones. It highlights the ontologicaland epistemological dimensions of different concepts of uncertainty,such as fundamental uncertainty, procedural uncertainty, ambiguityand weak uncertainty (or risk). It also comments on a few writingsthat distinguish varieties of uncertainty with adjectives suchas ‘ontological’ and ‘epistemological’or ‘epistemic’.     

Institutions, social norms, and decision-theoretic norms

This article attempts to contribute to the debate on how to define and theorize institutions, particularly regarding normativity and explanations for conformity. Firstly, it proposes some distinctions and concepts: it separates moral from epistemic values, leading to different types of legitimacy and social norms; then it distinguishes different meanings of the term ‘normative’ and introduces the concept of decision-theoretic norm. Secondly, the article defends a broad concept of institutions by arguing that some institutions are neither social norms nor decision-theoretic ones, a point that matters for institutional change and stability. Some conventions from which innovators break are highlighted as an example.     

The Concept of Development Conventions: Some Suggestions for a Research Agenda

Development conventions are broadly defined as socially shared systems of rules of thought or behavior (institutions) regarding development, with the properties of conformity with conformity and arbitrariness. Conformity with conformity means that the fact that others have adopted a convention, or are expected to adopt it, plays a role in leading someone else to adopt it. Arbitrariness means that a non-inferior alternative exists or is conceivable. This article identifies several social mechanisms through which the conformity of others leads one to conform. It also relates arbitrariness to the possibility of assessing development from various viewpoints, to the inconclusiveness of evidence, and to uncertainty about future consequences.     

Institutions in the economy and some institutions of mainstream economics: From the late 1970s to the 2008 financial and economic crisis

This article proposes a conceptual and theoretical institutional approach to the relations between the economy and economics and uses it to examine, through a structured survey of the literature, the relations between institutions in the economy and the institutions of mainstream economics, macroeconomics, and financial economics, highlighting issues related to the financial and macroeconomic crisis and focusing on the United States from the late 1970s to 2008. Institutions are socially shared systems of rules of behavior or of thought. Some systems of mental and behavioral rules are socially shared among economic agents and policymakers in part because they are socially shared among academic economists. They may exert on economic agents and policymakers some of the same types of influence they have on economists. On the other hand, there are important limits to the influence of the institutions of economics outside academia, and institutions in the economy also influence the institutions of economics.