Publication: The place of The General Theory in the economics canon
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2020
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
This paper presents in non-technical language an interpretation of the argument of The General Theory, which is the importance of effective demand and its relation to human agency. It argues that The General Theory is not only a treatise on economic theory, but also, and more importantly, a treatise on methodology, i.e. how economists should reason when dealing with the complexity of the real world. Implicit in this analysis is a distinct position on the remit of the economist and the nature of economic advice and policy. This interpretation suggests that this understanding forms a new paradigm of thinking about the economy at large, centred around the concept of uncertainty. This insight developed into a new analytical tradition in economics, the Post-Keynesian School of economic thought that sees uncertainty and effective demand as the key analytical long-term concepts for understanding how the economy evolves through time.
Este artículo presenta en un lenguaje no técnico una interpretación del argumento de The General Theory, que es el de la importancia de la demanda efectiva y su relación con la agencia humana. Abunda en la idea de que The General Theory no es solo un tratado sobre teoría económica, sino también, y lo que es más importante, un tratado sobre metodología, es decir, sobre cómo los economistas deben razonar cuando tratas la complejidad del mundo real. En este análisis hay implícita una posición sobre las competencias de un economista y la naturaleza de la política y asesoramiento económicos. Esta interpretación sugiere que ello forma parte de un nuevo paradigma de pensamiento económico, centrado en el concepto de incertidumbre. Esta se convirtió en una nueva tradición analítica en economía, la Escuela de pensamiento económico poskeynesiano que considera la incertidumbre y la demanda efectiva como los conceptos analíticos clave a largo plazo para comprender cómo evoluciona la economía en el tiempo.
Este artículo presenta en un lenguaje no técnico una interpretación del argumento de The General Theory, que es el de la importancia de la demanda efectiva y su relación con la agencia humana. Abunda en la idea de que The General Theory no es solo un tratado sobre teoría económica, sino también, y lo que es más importante, un tratado sobre metodología, es decir, sobre cómo los economistas deben razonar cuando tratas la complejidad del mundo real. En este análisis hay implícita una posición sobre las competencias de un economista y la naturaleza de la política y asesoramiento económicos. Esta interpretación sugiere que ello forma parte de un nuevo paradigma de pensamiento económico, centrado en el concepto de incertidumbre. Esta se convirtió en una nueva tradición analítica en economía, la Escuela de pensamiento económico poskeynesiano que considera la incertidumbre y la demanda efectiva como los conceptos analíticos clave a largo plazo para comprender cómo evoluciona la economía en el tiempo.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Al-Amoudi, I., J. Latsis, 2014, “The arbitrariness and normativity of social conventions”, The British Journal of Sociology, 65(2), 358-378. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12042.
Chick, V., 1983, Macroeconomics After Keynes. A Reconsideration of the General Theory, Cambridge: MIT Press. Cord, R., 2007, Keynes, London: Haus.
Clarke, P., 2009, Keynes. The Twentieth Century’s Most Influential Economist. London: Bloomsbury.
Davidson, P., 1991, “Is Probability Theory Relevant for Uncertainty? A Post Keynesian Perspective”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 129-143. DOI: 10.1257/jep.5.1.129.
Davidson, P., 2007, John Maynard Keynes, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davidson, P., 2011, Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, 2nd ed., Cheltenham: Edgar.
Dow, S. C., 1988, “What happened to Keynesian Economics?” in Hamouda and Smithin (eds.), Keynes and Public Policy after fifty years. Volume I, Economics and Policy. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 101-110.
Dow, S. C., 1990, “Beyond Dualism”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14(2): 143–157. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035123.
Dow, S. C., 1996, The Methodology of Macroeconomic Thought, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dow, S. C. 2010. “Was there a (methodological) Keynesian revolution?”, in Dimand, R. W., Mundell, R. A. and Vercelli, A. (eds), Keynes’s General Theory after Seventy Years, London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 268–86.
Gotti, M., 1994, “”The General Theory” as an Open-Ended Work” in Marzola A. and F. Silva, (ed.) John Maynard Keynes. Language and Method, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 155-192.
Harcourt, G.C., 1987, ‘Theoretical Methods and Unfinished Business’, in D. A. Reese (ed.), The Legacy of Keynes, Nobel Conference XXII, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1-22.
Harcourt, G.C., 1987A, “Post-Keynesian Economics” in John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman, The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics, London: Macmillan, Vol. 3, 924-7.
Harcourt, G. C. 2001. “How I do economics” in 50 Years a Keynesian and Other Essays, London: Palgrave, 323–33.
Harcourt, G.C., 2006, The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics: The Core Contributions of the Pioneers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harcourt, G.C. and P.A. Riach (eds), 1997, A ‘Second Edition’ of The General Theory, 2 volumes, Routledge: London and New York.
Harrod, R., 1951, The Life of John Maynard Keynes, London and New York: Macmillan.
Hayes, M.G., 2019, John Maynard Keynes, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kahn, R.F., 1931, “The Relation of Home Investment to Unemployment”, Economic Journal, 41 (162) pp.173-98. DOI: 10.2307/2223697.
Kahn, R.F., 1984, The Making of Keynes’ General Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalecki, 1943, “Political Aspects of Full Employment”, Political Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 322-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.1943.tb01016.x.
Keynes, 1933, “Open Letter to the President”, originally published in The New York Times reprinted in Vol. XXI , The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Activities 1931-1939: World Crises and Policies in Britain and America, 1987, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289-304.
Keynes, J.M., 1919, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, republished as Vol. II of The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 1971, London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society.
Keynes, J.M., 1933, “Thomas Robert Malthus”, republished in Vol. X of The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 1972, London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society, 71-108.
Keynes, J.M., 1936, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, reprinted as Vol. VII of The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 1973, London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society.
Keynes, J.M., 1937, “The “ex ante” theory of the rate of Interest” Economic Journal, 47: 663-9. DOI: 10.2307/2225323.
Keynes, J.M., 1937A, “The General Theory of Employment” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 51:2, 209-223. DOI: 10.2307/1882087.
Keynes, J.M., 1938, “My Early Beliefs” in Vol. X of The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 1972, London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society, 433-450.
Keynes, J.M., 1972, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. X: Essays in Biography, London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society.
Keynes, J.M., 1973, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. XIII: The General Theory and After: Part I, Preparation, London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society.
Latsis, J.S. 2005, “Is there redemption for conventions?” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29: 709-727. DOI: 10.1093/cje/bei023.
Latsis, J., 2006, “Convention and Intersubjectivity: New Developments in French Economics”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36:3, 255-277. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2006.00307.x.
Latsis, J., G. de Larquier and F. Besis, 2010, “Are conventions solutions to uncertainty? Contrasting visions of social coordination” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 32:4, 535-558. DOI: 10.2753/PKE0160-3477320402.
Lawson, T., 1997, Economics and Reality, London: Routledge.
Lawson, T., 2003, Reorienting Economics, London: Routledge.
Lee F.S., and T.H. Jo, 2011, “Social Surplus Approach and Heterodox Economics” Journal of Economic Issues, 14 (4), 857-875. DOI: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624450406.
Martins, N., 2011, “The Revival of Classical Political Economy and the Cambridge Tradition: From Scarcity Theory to Surplus Theory”, Review of Political Economy, 23 (1), 111-131. DOI: 10.1080/09538259.2010.510319.
Martins, N., 2013, “Classical Surplus Theory and Heterodox Economics”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 72:5, 1205-1231. DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12045.
Martins, N., 2013A, “The Nature of the Cambridge Heterodoxy”, Revue de philosophie économique, 14 (1), 49-71. DOI: 10.3917/rpec.141.0049.
Martins, N., 2014, The Cambridge Revival of Political Economy, London and New York: Routledge.
Pasinetti, L.L., 2007, Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A ‘Revolution in Economics’ to be Accomplished, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Repapis, C. (2014) ‘J.M. Keynes, F.A. Hayek and the Common Reader’. Economic Thought, 3.2, pp. 1-20.
Ricardo, D., [1817] 1911, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London; New York: J.M. Dent and Sons.
Robbins, L., [1932] 1935, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: MacMillan and Co.
Sheehan, B., 2009, Understanding Keynes’ General Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Skidelsky, R., 2006, “Hayek versus Keynes: The road to reconciliation”, in E. Feser (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hayek, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 82-110.
Skidelsky, R., 2010, Keynes: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press Sraffa, P., 1960, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.