 Why does the history of economic thought neglect Post-Keynesian economics?Review of Keynesian Economics, 2020, vol. 8, issue 1, 119-137 Abstract: Despite receiving increased interest after the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 and consolidating itself as an established research program, Post-Keynesian economics remains under-represented within publications on the history of economics. When compared to other traditional heterodox approaches such as Marxist, Institutionalist, and Austrian economics, Post-Keynesian economics falls behind considerably, contradicting the Post-Keynesian appreciation for the history of the discipline. This article explores some reasons behind this detachment by considering two main factors: first, the recent disciplinary and institutional changes experienced by the history of economics in the last ten years; and, second, the recent 'maturing state’ of Post-Keynesian economics and its unique treatment of the history of economic thought. The article concludes by suggesting a new research agenda for Post-Keynesianism, making use of the 'applied’ turn proposed by the recent history of economic thought as one of the strategies for Post-Keynesians to engage with the economics discipline. Keywords: Post-Keynesian economics; history of economic thought; history of recent economics; post-war macroeconomics; traditional heterodoxy; new heterodoxy (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:elg:rokejn:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p119-137 Access Statistics for this article Review of Keynesian Economics is currently edited by Thomas Palley, MatÃas Vernengo and Esteban Pérez Caldentey More articles in Review of Keynesian Economics from Edward Elgar Publishing |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.