Why does the history of economic thought neglect Post-Keynesian economics?. (January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Guizzo, Danielle
• Is Part Of: Review of Keynesian economics. Volume 8:Number 1(2020)
• Page Start: 119
• Page End: 137
• Publication Date: 2020-01
• Subjects: Post-Keynesian economics -- history of economic thought -- history of recent economics -- post-war macroeconomics -- traditional heterodoxy -- new heterodoxy; Keynesian economics -- Periodicals; 330.15605
• DOI: 10.4337/roke.2020.01.09
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2049-5323

Abstract

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.