Reviving Keynesianism: the modelling of the financial system makes the difference

Peter Bofinger
Additional contact information
Peter Bofinger: Universität Würzburg, Germany

Review of Keynesian Economics, 2020, vol. 8, issue 1, 61-83

Abstract: Keynesian economics is not dead. Instead, it is in a similar condition to Sleeping Beauty after she pricked her finger on the spindle. A large hedge of thorns has been laid over the original Keynesian building so that it is hardly recognizable today. Keynesian economics has suffered from a failure to sufficiently identify the core of the Keynesian revolution. This paper argues that the core concerns the distinction between real and monetary exchange economies, and that a proper understanding of money's role requires identifying the mechanisms of the financial system. Doing so reveals the fundamental incompatibility between real and monetary analysis.

Keywords: Keynesianism; Neoclassical Synthesis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B22 B26 E12 E13 E44 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/roke/8-1/roke.2020.01.06.xml (application/pdf)
Restricted Access

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:elg:rokejn:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p61-83

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Keynesian Economics is currently edited by Thomas Palley, Matías Vernengo and Esteban Pérez Caldentey

More articles in Review of Keynesian Economics from Edward Elgar Publishing
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Phillip Thompson ().