by Ric Holt
We all are familiar with the letter that John Maynard Keynes sent to George Bernard Shaw on New Year's Day 1935 where he said that he believed himself to be writing a book that "will largely revolutionize.the way the world thinks about economic problems." Since 1996 marks the 60th anniversary of Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money it might be helpful for us to evaluate briefly where the Keynesian revolution stands, and whether Post Keynesians have taken this revolution seriously. Sadly, I have to admit it doesn't look very good. For it's a revolution that has been attacked, ignored and distorted by both mainstream and heterodox economists. Today most economists still believe that the Keynesian revolution was presented by such economists as Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, James Tobin, James Meade and J.R. Hicks who were more concerned with preserving the status quo of general equilibrium analysis than understanding Keynes. The consequence is that in the 1950s and 1960s "Keynesian" macroeconomics looked like a cook book where you change a tax policy here, a monetary policy there and presto! -- as quick as logical speed can take us, we're back to full- employment. Life was so much easier then. But something happened on our way to prosperity - stagflation of the 1970s. Though stagflation could be explained in the models of the "old" Keynesians, they were now being confronted with a younger generation of economists who had not experienced the Great Depression or the "New Deal" of Roosevelt and who found their career opportunities coasting on the Reagan and Thatcher revolutionary wave of the past - the past of classical economics.
Actually, the "old" Keynesians made it easy for a new generation of economists to go back to the past for they never really left it themselves. Going through intermediate macroeconomics textbooks from the 1950s and 1960s you find that long run equilibrium is never questioned - it is assumed that the economy has a central tendency and Say's Law will prevail. The Solow Growth model represents this very well. You have an economy that is steadily growing through logical time where particular techniques of production are chosen under market forces that determine the marginal productivity conditions which determine the distribution of income. There's no discussion about historical structural changes or the role of demand, for it's all supply side determined with shifts of the production function caused by technological changes which are just given. Where the "old" Keynesians got their "Keynesians" in their mind was by looking at the short run where they saw problems of asymmetrical information, limited rationality, price stickiness and other imperfections of the markets. If these imperfections could be substituted for perfect competition then all would be right and the economy would find itself back to general equilibrium. There was never any question about this by the "old" Keynesians. But unless one is willing to seriously evaluate Neo-Walrasian general equilibrium analysis based on Say's Law, then the essence of Keynes's revolution is loss and aborted which it has been by the economic profession. The following quote pretty much represents where the profession stands today with regard to Keynes:
"General Theory is an obscure book. We are in a much better position than Keynes was to figure out how the economy works. Classical economics is right in the long run. Moreover, economists today are more interested in the long-run equilibrium." (Mankiw, 1992: 560-61)
The Keynesian revolution hasn't been helped by many heterodox economists either, even by those who claim to be Post Keynesians where you would expect at least some adherence to the Keynesian" of Post Keynesian economics. Covering different surveys of Post Keynesian economics, one gets the impression that there is more of an effort by Post Keynesians to try and separate themselves from Keynes than showing a common bond even though there are still those who claim that "Post-Keynesian economics is based on Keynes's ideas with the clear intent to extend them to their logical full development. As such it purports to complete the aborted Keynesian revolution in economics." (Arestis,1992: ix) But much of the Post Keynesian literature seems to be based now on what has been called the "Babylonian tradition" or a "horses for courses" which really means that any methodological approach you want to use is fine. The virtue that is claimed here is an appreciation for pluralism. The consequence is that a single paradigm might not be obtainable. For example, Malcolm Sawyer made the following comment in a paper titled "Post Keynesian economics: the state of the art" at the 10th annual conference of the Dutch-Belgian Association of Post-Keynesian Studies in 1989:
"In some circumstances, it may be found appropriate to assume that individuals are well informed about the future, whereas on other occasions stress may be placed on the uncertainty of the future (and different views can be taken on the extent of such uncertainty and how individuals respond to uncertainty). It also means that conflicting modes of analysis co-exist under the general heading of post Keynesian economics. Some find equilibrium analysis of assistance, whilst others argue that such analysis is of little use; some find formal mathematical modelling of use whilst others would reject such modelling. The multi-paradigmatic nature of post Keynesian economics can lead to intense conflict between the adherents of different paradigms.Any emergence of a single encompassing and coherent post Keynesian paradigm would appear to be a long way off." (Sawyer, 1995: 51)
Then there are the Post Keynesians who argue that a coherent methodology or "new" paradigm is possible but can only be achieved by a synthesis of "various streams of post-classical economics" and in many cases circumventing Keynes:
"This, after all, may be the appropriate definition of what post-Keynesianism is. Such a position may, however, require relinquishing the most extreme views [of Keynes] which cannot be entertained within the synthesis, however fundamental these views seem to be from the point of view of their proponents." (Lavoie, 1992b,:3)
"Keynes may have had good strategic reasons for presenting his analysis the way he did. These reasons are no longer valid. The economics derived from Kaldor and Kalecki, and because of the latter, from Robinson, are the better bridge between the classical and the post-Keynesian analysis." ( Lavoie, 1992b: 5-6)
"Kalecki can be considered the real founder of post-Keynesian theory." (Dostaler, 1988: 134)
The most common view of those in this camp is that the Keynesian revolution is limited and for a "new" paradigm to emerge Post Keynesians need to go beyond Keynes and turn to Marx, Sraffa, Kalecki and the Cambridge economists of the 1950s. The primary problems they see with Keynes are that he has no long-run analysis and his price theory seems to be too neoclassical. The irony of this attempt to form a synthesis between "various streams of post-classical economics as well as "post-Keynesian economics" (besides having a circular definition of Post Keynesian economics) is that instead of achieving a coherent general framework or a "new" paradigm it has led Post Keynesian thought to a "Babylonian tradition" or the "horses for courses" where a "coherent post Keyensian paradigm would appear to be a long way off." Jan Kregel points out in his book, The Reconstruction of Political Economy: An Introduction to Post- Keynesian Economics, that many in the economics profession look at Post Keynesian economics as a gadfly buzzing around trying to be a nuisance by providing negative comments and critiques on such minor problems like the Cambridge controversy, but when it comes to the hard questions or providing a serious alternative theory to neoclassical economics Post Keynesians have nothing to say.(Kregel, 1973) Given the "Babylonian" approach that we seem to be at today with Post Keynesian economics, one can see why many in the mainstream have this view, or at least are confused about what is Post Keynesian economics. This is unfortunate because I believe Post Keynesians have a powerful message to present that is badly needed today, and that message in my opinion can be traced back to 1936 with Keynes's hope of providing an "economic theory which will revolutionize.the way the world thinks about economic problems." For Post Keynesians to bring back that "revolution" it's important to develop some solidarity among us, and to understand what we are fighting for. To be able to do this we need to find some common ground.
What I would like to do for the rest of this paper is to lay out in very general terms what I consider to be the four fundamental features of Post Keynesian economics. By defining the features very generally, I hope that we can all agree on them and possibly see what are the logical consequences of holding such features.
The first feature that I hope we can all agree to is that the primary goal of Post Keynesian economics is to understand the nature of the capitalist system and to develop a practical understanding of how to deal with economic problems in the present-day world. Such a position has been stated very clearly and consistently by such diverse Post Keynesian economists like Hyman Minsky, Paul Davidson, Ed Nell, Jan Kregel, Joan Robinson, Vicky Chick, Alfred Eichner, Malcolm Sawyer, Marc Lavoie, Sidney Weintraub just to name a few. The focus of these Post Keynesians has always been on developing an explanation or an "account of the working and misworking of the capitalist system." (Nell, 1980) The objective has always been to develop a model or paradigm that helps us understand how economic processes function in the real world through historical time.
To see how revolutionary this objective is lets compare the definition of neoclassical economics with Post Keynesian economics from The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics. First, the neoclassical definition:
"Economists have traditionally adopted two approaches in analysing economic systems. The simpler approach associated with the name of A. Marshall, has been that of partial equilibrium, where only a part of the system is examined (e.g. the market of oranges), on the assumption of unchanged conditions in the rest of the economy.
The second and more difficult approach, both in conception and in its use of mathematical tools, is general equilibrium analysis, which looks at an economic system as a whole and observes the simultaneous determination of all prices and quantities of all goods and services in the economic system. Economists have paid particular attention to three questions which arise in the context of general equilibrium systems, usually on assumption of perfect competition. These are (1) does a general equilibrium system have a solution, in the sense that the values for the variables are consistent with each other? (2) is the solution unique, in that there is just one value for each variable consistent with the overall solution? And (3) is the system stable, so that it will return to the equilibrium values after some disturbance? Theoretical work has enabled definitive statements to be made on these questions." (Pearce, 1989: 167)
Now compare the above definition of economic analysis with the Post Keynesian definition:
"[Post Keynesians]. stress the dynamic nature of an economy which uses money and which is subject to uncertainty. The nature of time is such that markets do not always clear. Individuals in those markets do not always receive the correct signals to encourage optimal behaviour. Post Keynesian economists emphasize the institutional setting of the economy and the social relationships therein." (Pearce, 1989: 333)
Compare also the neoclassical definition with Paul Davidson's discussion of economic analysis:
"Economic decisions taken in the present will require actions which cannot be completed until some future day (or days). In such a world, economic decision makers are continuously involved in sequential decisions and actions which are coloured not only by their expectations of the unknowable future but also by the inherited stocks (which embody correct previous guesses as well as past errors) which they possess. Consequently decisions rarely if ever are made on a clean slate. Thus Post Keynesians will emphasize the role of heterogeneous expectations and the importance of non-fully anticipated events." (Davidson, 1982,:9)
Now I know I'm not talking to a completely unbiased audience, but you tell me which one sounds richer, less abstract and part of the real world and can tell us something about how the economy really functions in everyday life. My point here is that Post Keynesians recognize that the world is messy and uncertain, and economic analysis should try to understand and capture that messiness and uncertainty instead of just developing models that tell us how things "should" be given certain conditions.
It's important to remember that Post Keynesian analysis can be traced back to Keynes by his efforts to try and develop a general theory of how the capitalist system functioned during his time. As Tom Asimakopulos puts it:
"Keynes tried to develop a theory that would be relevant to the capitalist economies of his day, economies that existed in historical time. The basic framework for his theory was thus conditioned by his vision of the operation of such economies. Activities occur in a present the technical capabilities of which have been determined by past investment in plant and equipment, and in the education and training of a labor force. The degree of utilisation of the existing productive capacity and the level of employment, depends on the (short-term) expectations of the proceeds to be obtained from the sale of the resulting output." (Asimakopulos, 1991:3)
If we can agree that the primary feature of Post Keynesian economics is concerned with understanding how economic processes function in the real world through historical time, I think that we can go on to the other three features. The first is the importance of historical time; the second is that the future is uncertain where expectations have a significant and unavoidable impact on economic events; and finally the importance of institutions, economic and political forces in shaping economic events. There is an interdependence between all three that's important in understanding the nature of Post Keynesian economics.
The starting point of Post Keynesian economics is with historical time. Of all the features of Post Keynesian economics that can be listed, this in my mind, is the most important. For it's from here that we see the commitment to understand how economic processes function in the real world. From here we can understand the methodology and the importance of other Post Keynesian features like uncertainty, money and the role of institutions. Though Post Keynesians share with other schools like the Austrians, the Marxists and the Institutionalists the importance of historical time (compared to the mainstream school of neo-Walrasian theory where history is a single event), none of the other schools have historical time playing the pivotal role that it does for the Post Keynesians. Also, Post Keynesians have a very clear definition of what historical time is and the role it plays in economic theory. Historical time can be defined as events occurring in a unidirectional sequence. That is, an event existing in the present needs to be defined in context of what has gone on before, or its history, and that the sequence leading up to the present event matters greatly. A present event has the traces of its past which cannot be removed. This also means that the future outcome of an event cannot be predestined for this would make the past of the event totally irrelevant. If history does matter then the future of an event cannot be based on theories of perfect foresight as we find in the Rational Expectations models. The acceptance of historical time is a major feature of Post Keynesian economics, and it is one of the major differences between Post Keynesian economics and the general equilibrium analysis of mainstream economics.
The neo-Walrasian model of Arrow-Debreu-MacKenzie is a system of simultaneous equations where the past, present and future are determined simultaneously.
Besides everything happening at once in the neo-Walrasian model, the system can change back and forth with no trace of the processes its going through. If the system is in equilibrium and there's a shock and its removed then everything is back as it was as if nothing happened. Economic processes and decisions in the real world do not act this way. And the neo-Walrasians don't deny this as Marc Lavoie points out:
"There is no effort in putting forward hypotheses that are realistic. Axioms are chosen, not for their likelihood, but for their ability to allow the existence of an equilibrium or its uniqueness. Neo-Walrasians describe the world as it should be rather than as it is." (Lavoie,1992b: 42)
This is important. Though mainstream economics wants to consider itself a science that is concerned with understanding the real world through hypothesis testing, it's very careful what hypotheses it chooses for testing. The primary hypotheses of neo-Walrasian economics are never questioned, but simply accepted as being true because they are logically possible. Where the science comes in is with "auxiliary hypotheses", supposedly about the real world, that can be formed and tested. (Lavoie, p. 42). But the major assumptions or parables are never questioned because this could lead to the whole system crumbling. And so they are never questioned in any serious manner by mainstream economists. This is not true with historical models where causal relations and other dimensions about the real world are defined.
As Joan Robinson said:
"In a historical model, causal relations have to be specified. Today is a break in time between an unknown future and an irrevocable past. What happens next will result from the interactions of the behavior of human beings within the economy. Movement can only be forward." (Robinson, 1962:26)
As Peter Reynolds points out:
"In order to construct a historical or causal model it is necessary to specify the institutional structure of the economy, the technical conditions within it and the behavioural reactions of its economic agents and then starting from a specific historical context, work out what will happen next." (Reynolds,1987: 51)
Finally, we have Keynes who was very much aware of the irreversibility of time and the importance of historical time in economic analysis:
"During the lengthy process of production the business world is incurring outgoings in terms of money - paying out in money for wages and other expenses of production - in the expectation of recouping this outlay by disposing of the product for money at a later date." (Keynes 1923,:33)
"The state of long-term expectations, upon which our decisions are based, does not solely depend, therefore, on the most probable forecast we can make. It also depends on the confidence with which we make this forecast - on how highly we rate the likelihood of our best forecast turning out quite wrong." (Keynes, 1973,: vii, 148)
The last two quotes by Keynes are important. Keynes has been often criticized by the mainstream and many Post Keynesians for simply providing a short-run theory of aggregate demand and using many of the traditional techniques of classical economics like Marshallian comparative-static analysis. It's true that in the very short run Keynes did believe that all expectations could be fulfilled and traditional equilibrium analysis could be used. But this isn't what made Keynes's work revolutionary. It was his views about "the lengthy process of production" and the "state of long-term expectations" with its range of issues like uncertainty, investment, expectations, the role of money and shifting from equilibrium to historical and causal models for long run analysis. One of the ironies of all of this ( and I won't go into great detail here) is that it's supposedly the neo- Ricardians and the Kaleckians that came to the rescue and provided Post Keynesians with a long run analysis. But if you look at the long run models of these post-classical economists, like their neoclassical counterparts, they are wedded to some notion of "equilibrium" as their basic tool of analysis with its gravitational deterministic "laws." While Keynes in his analysis of the "lengthy process of production" brought in uncertainty, money and credit, investment, the role of political and economic institutions and history in general.
If one accepts the view of some Post Keynesians that what is needed is a synthesis of "Keynes's effective demand, set in the short run" and the "central tendencies" of the "long period" of the neo-Ricardians, then it seems to me that you have simply conceded to the mainstream that equilibrium analysis is all that you need. But the world is messy and the future uncertain, and such a concession gives up a lot, particularly in trying to understand the nature of capitalism with its institutions that are constantly changing, or as Ed Nell tells us "transforming." Or as Stephen Rousseas tells us:
"All notions of "equilibrium" and "central tendency" are rejected out of hand. It is the innovations and adaptations of capitalism that command attention. Historical conditions and historical time take precedence over mechanical equilibrium models operating in logical time. And since capitalism is essentially and profoundly a credit-money economy, financial structures and their innovations over historical time are of prime importance." (Rousseas, 1986,: 12)
The importance of historical time in its model building, particularly for the long run, is one of the key features of Post Keynesian economics. It leads to many ramifications for Post Keynesians and is consistent with the first feature we mentioned of looking at how economic processes function in the real world.
The third feature that I hope we can all agree on comes logically from the second feature. If one accepts that economic processes go through historical time, we find ourselves accepting that the future is uncertain and the past is immutable. The past and the future have a critical role to play in influencing the present where expectations have a significant and unavoidable impact on economic events. So our third feature is that because the economy is a historical process heading to an uncertain future, expectations play an important role in economic events.
Given the overall concern so far about understanding a production economy governed by markets, and how it develops over time, we need to take into consideration how the different economic participants act in the real world of uncertainty. For neoclassical economics the answer can be found by examining the behavior and the "rational" choices of consumers and firms in their request to maximize utility or profits in a world of constraints. Let's again turn to The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics to see how the mainstream defines the role expectations for economic agents:
"[Expectations are] the principle of rational maximizing behavior to the acquisition and processing of information for the purpose of forming a view about the future. It suggests that individuals do not make systematic forecasting errors; on the contrary that their guesses about the future are on average correct. Thus the theory suggests that individuals use all the available and relevant information when taking a view about the future and at a minimum use information up to the point at which the marginal costs of acquiring and processing information equal the marginal benefits derived from this activity. In the case where information is complete and there is no uncertainty this hypothesis reduces to one of perfect foresight." (Pearce,1989:360)
Let's look at Paul Davidson's definition of an ergodic system which fits in quite nicely with the above quote:
"In a ergodic environment, knowledge about the future involves the projecting of calculated averages based on the past and/or current cross section and/or time-series data to forthcoming events. The future is merely the statistical reflection of the past. Economic activities are timeless and immutable. There can be no ignorance of upcoming events from those who believe the past provides reliable statistical information (price signals) regarding the future, and this knowledge can be obtained if one is willing to spend the resources to examine the existing evidence regarding past patterns." (Davidson, 1982: 90)
The consequence of such a view by the mainstream is stated by Lucas: "In cases of uncertainty, economic reasoning would be of no value." (Lucas 1981,: 224). This last statement is important, for again, the mainstream simply cannot allow any serious discussion here. The importance of expectations being fulfilled is absolutely essential for the neoclassical notion of equilibrium. If economic decisions are made and they turn out to be incorrect then equilibrium is not achieved. The mainstream can only allow the economy to function in an ergodic world.
The relevance of fundamental uncertainty is a key feature of Post Keynesian economics and represents one of its striking differences with mainstream economics. Turning first to Keynes, we can see his insistence on recognizing that the future is uncertain and that it cannot be reduced to some "calculus of probability":
"The calculus of probability. was supposed to be capable of reducing uncertainty to the same calculable status as that of certainty itself.This false rationalisation follows the lines of the Benthamite calculus. The hypothesis of a calculable future leads to a wrong interpretation of the principles of behavior which the need for action compels us to adopt." (Keynes, 1973,: xiv,112,122)
"Nor can we rationalize our behaviour by arguing that to a man in a state of ignorance errors in either direction are equally probable.For it can easily be shown that the assumption of arithmetically equal probabilities based on state of ignorance leads to absurdities." (Keynes, 1973,:vii,152)
"By uncertain knowledge. I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known for certain from what is only probable. About these matters there is no scientific basis to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know." (Keynes, 1973,: 113-14)
Keynes believed that fundamental uncertainty is a crucial element in any economic processes. And that under most circumstances, even if probabilities could be estimated they were meaningless for long period decision making. The nature and power of market forces cannot deal with the unpredictability of the long run and relying on them to do so will lead to incomplete information.
Given Post Keynesians commitment to understanding how economic participants act in the real world, they are interested in looking at the decision-making process in a world of uncertainty. There has been some interesting work with bounded rationality and with what has been called procedural rationality where when faced with uncertainty or the inability to process complex amounts of information economic agents form rules to follow. As Marc Lavoie states:
"Because these procedures do not rely on optimizing behaviour, they are usually considered as instances of market failures and are called, sometimes disdainfully, rules of thumb. However, in a world of ignorance and of complexity, these rules of thumb are rational. There are many examples of rules of thumb in the real world: mark-up pricing; financial ratios of all sorts, and all bureaucratic rules." (Lavoie,1992b: 55-59)
The above quote leads us directly to our last feature that I hope we can all agree to and that is the importance of institutions in Post Keynesian economics. The role of institutions in Post Keynesian economics play a dialectical role at two different levels. The first looks at the general development and institutional structure of capitalism over a variety of time and societies. I believe the work of Ed Nell on transformational growth which looks at institutions, technology and social and political forces in understanding the development of capitalism represents this level very well:
"Transformational growth is the study of how the processes and problems generated by the normal operation of the market, when production is organized according to one dominant format, lead to technological innovations which transform that format into another, thus changing the structure of human costs and leading, therefore, to a new and different pattern of normal business responses, and so to a new pattern of adjustment." (Nell, 1994)
"We have to see that in modern times we face a new kind of problem in coping with the world, one that only emerged with the development of the industrial economy. For this was a change that transformed not just industry, but the whole society, and it did so in a way that continued, and carries on to the present." (Nell, 1994)
"In a static world, in which technology is simple and small-scale, the parts will tend to replicate the essential relationships of the system as a whole; the principles of household management in microeconomics will not hold in a complex world. With technology large-scale and production aims at the global market, the principles which explain the workings of the part will no longer hold for the whole. At times the whole will appear to work in a manner almost exactly opposite." (Nell, 1994)
The second level is looking at the role and nature of institutions in the economy during a particular era: Paul Davidson explains this when he talks about "the role of economic and political institutions in the economic system":
"In the logical world of general equilibrium there are no significant real world economic institutions - not even commodity or financial markets. (this is true despite lengthy neoclassical discussions of market forces.) In a post keynesian world, on the other hand, economic and political institutions are influential and prominent in determining output, employment and the money price level. These institutions include (a) the banking and monetary systems, (b) time-oriented markets for goods, factors of production, and financial assets, ( c) the institution of money contracts for spot and forward transactions, and especially (d) the money wage contract as a necessary condition for liquidity over time for a market-oriented, monetary, entrepreneurial production economy." (Davidson, 1982: 14-15)
Of course, the two different levels interact with one another. The first gives us a sense of the role that institutions play in forming and transforming economic systems. The second looks at the nature and role of institutions during a specific era. Both levels can also be appreciated by the writings of John Kenneth Galbraith from such books as A Journal Through Economic Time and The New Industrial State. This is another area in which neoclassical economics will not allow the profession to explore. The mainstream has continuously fought efforts by such economists as Gunnar Myrdal in their efforts to broaden the method of economic analysis to include the power and influence of social and political institutions. Though the mainstream has ignored this area Post Keynesians haven't for it gives them insights in how to deal with the uncertainties of an ever changing economic system moving through time. It also gives them a realistic view of the influence that institutions have on the behavior of individuals and how they participate in the economy as Malcolm Sawyer points out from his work on industrial economics:
"Much of the discussion of behaviour has taken place at the level of the individual in isolation, but in doing so there is considerable danger of forgetting the role of organisations and institutions. Economists from the Austrian school as well as some post Keynesians have been particularly prone to this. But the large corporation is a clear factor of the developed capitalist world, as are governments, trade unions, households, etc. One part of the significance of large (and no so large) organisations is that such organisations wield considerable economic and political power. There is a sense in which it is individuals and not organizations who make decisions, though even then the interaction between individuals in the decision-making process may be a significant influence on the decisions made. Even so, the decisions that are made are carried out in the name of the organisation. The organisation continues when individuals leave, and indeed the corporation can be infinitely lived. The impact of decisions made by individuals within an organisation (especially on investment) can live on because of the continuation of the organisation." (Sawyer, 1995: 61)
It is also important to recognize the importance that institutions play for the Post Keynesian view of the long run. Given the precarious nature of the future, Keynes recognized that long-term development required institutional arrangements where we have public servants trained in policy issues. This has always been a very important part of Post Keynesian economics. This has been represented by such Post Keynesian policies like TIP, policies to control speculation on the dollar, and to have banking policies to guarantee the security of deposits. This in some sense defines the Post Keynesian view of the long run.
Again, returning to Ed Nell:
"Incomes policies may help to prevent wage-inflation, but even with inflation under control and employment high, in the long run things could turn sour if investment is inadequate or wrongly directed. So there will have to be investment policies to encourage the right amount and type of capital expansion, and, as well, to control its volatility. So investment and incomes policies will have to be developed together, to prevent the kind of cumulative interaction we found between the slowdown in demand and the slowdown in productivity growth." (Nell, 1994)
I recognize that the four different features given here are put in very general terms and avoid many of the complicated debates and issues that we must confront surrounding these issues, but in my mind they represent the essence of what Post Keynesian economics is all about. I also believe that these four features can be traced back to Keynes, and if we stray too far away from these features then we end up with the "Babylonian" approach which leads us to a professional position of simply being a "gadfly" without offering any serious alternative explanation of how the economic processes function in the real world through historical time.
Arestis, P. (1992), The Post Keynesian Approach to Economics, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Asimakopulos, A. (1991), Keynes's General Theory and Accumulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, P. (1978), Money and the Real World, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan.
Davidson, P. (1981), "Post Keynesian Economics", in D. Bell and I. Kristol (eds), The Crisis in Economic Theory, New York: Basic Books.
Davidson, P. (1982) International Money and the Real World, London: Macmillan.
Davidson, P. (1988) "A Technical Definition of Uncertainty and the Long-run Non-neutrality of Money", Cambridge Journal of Economics.
Davidson, P/ (1994), Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Dostaler, G. (1988), "La theorie post-keynesienne, la :Theorie Generale" et Kalecki", Cahiers d'Economie Politique.
Galbraith, J.K. (1973), "Power and the Useful Economist", American Economic Review, March.
Galbraith, J.K. (1978), "On Post Keynesian Economics", Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Fall.
Galbraith, J.K. (1985), The New Industrial State, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Galbraith, J.K. (1994) A Journal Through Economic Time: A Firsthand View, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Hamouda, O.F. and Harcourt, G.C. (1988), "Post Keynesianism: From Criticism to Coherence?" Bulletin of Economic Research, January.
Harcourt, G.C. (1972), "A Teaching Model of the "Keynesian" System", Keio Economic Studies, vol. 6.
Harcourt, G.C. (1984), "A Post-Keynesian Development of the 'Keynesian" Model", in E.J. Nell (ed.),
Growth, Profits, and Property: Essays in the Revival of Political Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keynes, J.M. (1920) The Economic Consequences of the Peace, London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J.M. (1923) A Tract on Monetary Reform, London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J.M. (1930) A Treatise on Monetary Reform, London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J.M. (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J.M. (1937), "The General Theory of Employment", Quarterly Journal of Economics, February.
Keynes, J.M. (1973), The General Theory and After, Collected Writings, vol. XIV, London: Macmillan.
Keynes, J.M. (1980), Activities, 1940-46: Shaping the Post-War World: Employment, Collected Writings, vol. XXVII, London: Macmillan.
Kregel, J.A. (1973), The Reconstruction of Political Economy: An Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics, London: Macmillan.
Kregel, J.A. (1976), "Economic Methodology in the Face of Uncertainty: the Modelling Methods of Keynes and the Post Keynesains", Economic Journal, June.
Lavoie, M. (1992a), "Towards a New Research Programme for Post Keynesianism and Neo-Ricardianism Economics", Review of Political Economy, January.
Lavoie, Marc (1992b), Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Lucas, R. (1981), Studies in Business Cycle Theory, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Mankiw, N.G.(1992), "The Reincarnation of Keynesian Economics", European Economic Review, 36. Quote taken from Davidson, (1994).
Meade, J.E. (1937), "A Simplified Model of Mr. Keynes' System", Review of Economic Studies, no. 4.
Minsky, H.P. (1975), John Maynard Keynes, New York: Columbia University Press.
Minsky, H.P. (1986), Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Moore, B.J. (1988), Horizontalists and Verticalists: The Macroeconomics of Credit Money, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myrdal, G. (1957), Economic Theory and the Underdeveloped Regions, London: Duckworth.
Nell, E.J. (1980), "The Revival of Political Economy", in E.J. Nell (ed.), Growth, Profits and Property: Essays in the Revival of Political Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nell, E.J. (1988), Prosperity and Public Spending: Transformational Growth and the Role of Government,Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Nell, E.J. (1994), "Conversation", Review of Political Economy, June.
Pearce, D.W. (1989), The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reynolds, P.J. (1987), Political Economy: A Synthesis of Kaleckian and Post Keynesian Economics, Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books.
Robinson, J. (1952), The rate of Interest and Other Essays, London: Macmillan.
Robinson, J. (1954), "The Production Function and the Theory of Capital", Review of Economic Studies, vol. 21.
Robinson, J. (1956), The Accumulation of Capital, 1st edn, London: Macmillan.
Robinson, J. (1961), "The Economics of Disequilibrium Price", Quarterly Journal of Economics, May.
Robinson, J. (1962a), Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, London: Macmillan.
Robinson, J. ( 1962b) "Review of H.G. Johnson, Money, Trade and Economic Growth, 1962.
Robinson, J. (1970), "Quantity Theories Old and New: a Comment", Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, November.
Robinson, J. (1972), "The Second Crisis of Economic Theory", American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May.
Robinson, J. (1974), "History Versus Equilibrium", Thames Papers in Political Economy, Autumn.
Robinson, J. (1977), "What Are the Questions?", Journal of Economic Literature, December.
Rousseas, S. (1986), Post-Keynesian Monetary Economics, London: Macmillan.
Samuelson, P.A. (1948), Foundations of Economic Analysis, Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
Sardoni, C. (1987), Marx and Keynes on Economic Recession: The Theory of Unemployment and Effective Demand, Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books.
Sawyer, M.C. (1989), The Challenge of Radical Political Economy: An Introduction to the Alternatives to Neo-classical Economics, Hemel Hempstead, Herts.: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Sawyer, M.C. (1995), Unemployment, Imperfect Competition and Macroeconomics: Essays in the Post Keynesian Tradition. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Shackle, G.L.S. (1955), Uncertainty in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, N. (1977), "The Revolutionary Character of Post-Keynesian Economics", Journal of Economic Issues, September.
Skott, P. (1989), Conflict and Effective Demand in Economic Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Solow, R.M. (1956), "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth", Quarterly Journal of Economics, February.
Sraffa, P. (1960), Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steindl, J. (1979), "Stagnation Theory and Stagnation Policy", Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 3.
Stigler, G. (1939), "Production and Distribution in the Short Run", Journal of Political Economy, June.
Tobin, J. (1972), "Inflation and Unemployment", American Economic Review, March.
Weintraub, S. (1966), A Keynesian Theory of Employment, Growth and Income Distribution, Philadelphia: Chilton.