Wither Post Keynesianism?

Engagement with the Mainstream in the Future of Post Keynesian Economics

“…Dunn, 2000;Pasinetti, 2005) is also likely to fit with the desire of business school staff and students to develop holistic and integrated approaches to education where the relationship between the perspectives of different business disciplines is important. Ariely (2009) argues that the insights of behavioral economics provide a powerful perspective for students in MBA programs that may be offered alongside and compared with traditional microeconomic frameworks, and O'Donnell (2010) argues that equipping students with multiple ways of viewing any particular problem also enhances both critical thinking and other desirable graduate skills.…”

“…Over the last ten years or so, a number of authors including Davidson (2003 -04), Davis (2008), Dunn (2000), Fontana & Gerrard (2006), King (2002), and Pasinetti (2005) have considered why Post Keynesian economics has been, and continues to be, sidelined within the academic economics profession, despite winning some important intellectual battles. They also consider whether the continuation of this treatment implies an approaching limit to the life of the Post Keynesian perspective and its research agendas, and whether any action on the part of Post Keynesian scholars has the potential to alter this outcome.…”

Comparing responses to critical realism

“…Their apparent preference, to retain Sraffa and leave out critical realism, however, was not shared by a number of other contributors to the debate, reflecting the on-going controversy over whose work fits within the Post Keynesian tradition and whose work should be excluded. For example, Dunn (2000) identifies his preference for defining PKE in terms of methodology, even if this alienated specific research programmes, such as the Sraffian School:…”

Book reviews

“…Post-Keynesian economics has suffered particularly in this regard, and has responded by focusing on methodology. It has in fact been suggested that Post-Keynesianism (and, by extension, heterodoxy) should be defined methodologically (Dunn, 2001), and that the methodology adopted should be one that explicitly advocates pluralism. Some discussion, in this collection, of methodological work such as that of Dow and Lawson would have been highly useful in establishing a methodological approach that embraces pluralism.…”