Why does the history of economic thought neglect Post-Keynesian economics?

Danielle Guizzo*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)119-137
Number of pages19
JournalReview of Keynesian Economics
Volume8
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Jan 2020

Bibliographical note

The acceptance date for this record is provisional and based upon the month of publication for the article.

Keywords

  • History of economic thought
  • History of recent economics
  • New heterodoxy
  • Post-Keynesian economics
  • Post-war macroeconomics
  • Traditional heterodoxy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why does the history of economic thought neglect Post-Keynesian economics?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this