|
on Post Keynesian Economics |
| By: | Heise, Arne |
| Abstract: | The push to pluralise the economic discipline involves making informed decisions about which paradigm to adopt, requiring a deep understanding of each paradigm's characteristics and affiliations. Once paradigmatic choices are made, different theories can either collaborate effectively or require clear discrimination if they belong to distinct paradigms. Therefore, economic theories and models need to be compared with respect to their paradigmatic localisation. Based on a hermeneutic comparison, the common assessment that the champions of Post Keynesian economics - John Maynard Keynes, Michal Kalecki and Hyman P. Minsky's share a unified Post Keynesian paradigm must be questioned. Kalecki's economics, with its closed system perspective, differs fundamentally from Keynes's open system approach. This distinction suggests that Kalecki's work is not merely a variant of Keynes's monetary production paradigm but could align more closely with new-Keynesian imperfect competition models based on the traditional real-exchange paradigm. Minsky's dynamic approach, however, shares Keynes's open system ontology, making them compatible. This analysis suggests that the term 'Post Keynesianism' might inaccurately imply a coherence that does not exist. |
| Keywords: | Keynes's economics, Kalecki's economics, Minsky's economics, paradigms, comparison |
| JEL: | B40 B59 E12 P59 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:cessdp:300692 |
| By: | Heise, Arne |
| Abstract: | Controversy is vital in the pursuit of knowledge. Constructive dispute can drive intellectual growth and deepen understanding within a field. However, mutual respect, thorough engagement, and intellectual humility are necessary for productive exchanges. In this vein, I clarify in my response to Tom Palley's critique of my article that I did not argue against his claim regarding social conflict in Keynesian economics. However, I questioned whether social conflict is the sole ontological fault line, as Palley suggests. Additionally, I highlighted the distinction between Keynes' economics and Keynesian economics, challenging Palley's lumping them together as part of a liberal project. In conclusion, Palley's assertions regarding the absence of social conflict in Keynesian economics and its implications for economic laws lack foundation. |
| Keywords: | Keynes, social conflict, paradigm shift |
| JEL: | A14 B40 B51 E11 E12 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:cessdp:300689 |
| By: | Allen, Amy; Apostolidis, Paul; Azmanova, Albena; Ypi, Lea |
| Abstract: | In a discussion of Albena Azmanova’s book Capitalism on Edge (Columbia University Press, 2020), Amy Allen, Paul Apostolidis, Lea Ypi and Albena Azmanova debate key issues critical social theory confronts today. How should critical theorists re-engage with the critique of capitalism without entrapment in old ideological certainties? They revisit the classical debates about transformative agency, direction and methods of change, and the place of normative ideals and of moral theory in the critique of capitalism in light of the current historical juncture. |
| Keywords: | capitalism; crisis; critical theory; revolution; utopia |
| JEL: | P10 |
| Date: | 2023–01–29 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:118154 |