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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 119-137 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Review of Keynesian Economics |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 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