First, for the beginner, these make excellent reading:
Robert Skidelsky, “The Relevance of Keynes,” January 17, 2011, www.skidelskyr.com. (also published as Robert Skidelsky, “The Relevance of Keynes,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 35.1 [2011]: 1–13).For Post Keynesian blogs and multimedia resources (including talks, lectures and conferences), see
Mark Hayes, “The Post Keynesian (Policy) Difference,” 2010.
“Neoclassical Synthesis Keynesianism, New Keynesianism and Post Keynesianism: A Review,” July 7, 2010.
Davidson, Paul. 2009. The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity (1st edn), Palgrave Macmillan, New York and Basingstoke.
Skidelsky, R. J. A. 2010. Keynes: The Return of the Master (rev. and updated edn.), Penguin, London.
Post Keynesian Economics Study Group (PKSG).For an excellent history of the Post Keynesian school, to be read with the critical reviews by Paul Davidson, see
Steve Keen’s Debtwatch.
New Economic Perspectives.
King, J. E. 2002. A History of Post Keynesian Economics since 1936, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA.If you want short, concise articles on the Post Keynesian position on specific economic issues (e.g., uncertainty, incomes policy, inflation, etc.), see
Davidson, P. 2003–2004. “Setting the Record Straight on ‘A History of Post Keynesian Economics,’” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 26.2 245–272.
Davidson, P. 2005. “Responses to Lavoie, King, and Dow on what Post Keynesianism is and who is a Post Keynesian,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 27.3: 393–408.
King (ed.), J. E. 2003. The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA.For those looking for more advanced work, see
Keen, S. 2011. Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor Dethroned? (rev. and expanded edn), Zed Books.For modern Post Keynesian treatment of issues in, and analysis of, Keynes’ General Theory, see
Arestis, Philip. 1992. The Post-Keynesian Approach to Economics: An Alternative Analysis of Economic Theory and Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, Hants, England.
Arestis, Philip. 1994. Post-Keynesian Approach to Economics: Alternative Analysis of Economic Theory and Policy (new edn), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lavoie, Marc. 1992. Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
Lavoie, Marc. 1994. Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis (new edn), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Davidson, Paul. 1994. Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory: Foundation for Successful Economic Policies for the Twenty-First Century, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot.
Palley, Thomas I. 1996. Post Keynesian Economics: Debt, Distribution, and the Macro Economy, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Davidson, Paul. 2011. Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory: Foundation for Successful Economic Policies for the Twenty-First Century (2nd edn), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Godley, W. and M. Lavoie. 2007. Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, England and New York.
Wray, L. R., 1990, Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies: The Endogenous Money Approach, E. Elgar, Aldershot, Hants, England and Brookfield, Vt., USA.
Wray, L. R., 1998, Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Harcourt, G. C. and P. A. Riach (eds), 1997. A “Second Edition” of The General Theory (Vol. 1), Routledge, London.For the debt deflation theory of Irving Fisher (who was not a Post Keynesian) and its development by Hyman Minsky in the Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH) (which is a major part of Post Keynesian theory of business cycles), see
Harcourt, G. C. and P. A. Riach (eds), 1997. A “Second Edition” of The General Theory (Vol. 2), Routledge, London.
Fisher, I. 1933. “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,” Econometrica 1.4: 337–357.
Minsky, H. P. 1982. Can “It” Happen Again?: Essays on Instability and Finance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.
Minsky, H. P. 1986. Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, Yale University Press, New Haven and London. N.B. Steve Keen thinks this is Minsky’s worst book. Consult Minsky (1982) and (2008) [1975] instead for the best statements of the FIH.
Minsky, H. P. 1992. The Financial Instability Hypothesis, Working papers (Jerome Levy Economics Institute) ; no. 74.
Minsky, H. P. 2008 [1975]. John Maynard Keynes, McGraw-Hill, New York and London.
Geoff Tily 'Keynes Betrayed'
ReplyDeleteHey can you tell me which conference has the talk from Mark Hayes? Links?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if it was a conference paper. Details here (first paper under "Selected podcasts"):
ReplyDeletehttp://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/mgh37/
What about Hyman Minsky's "Stabilizing an Unstable Economy" or "Can 'It' Happen Again?", LK? Those books are classics!
ReplyDeleteWhat about Hyman Minsky's "Stabilizing an Unstable Economy" or "Can 'It' Happen Again?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I have fixed that.
Lord Keynes,
ReplyDeleteI found it here
http://www.postkeynesian.net/keynes.html
Good work, yes, it appears it was a talk for the "Keynes Seminar" at the Post Keynesian Economics Study Group:
ReplyDelete19 October Mark Hayes, Robinson College, Cambridge The Post Keynesian Difference
discussant: John McCombie, Downing College
I just ordered Steve Keen's Debunking Economics book.
ReplyDeleteI also thought you might find this quote by Keen of interest:
"Hi Karmaisking,
If by Austrian you meant Schumpeter, then you might classify me as 75% Austrian. Unfortunately most Austrians seem to reject the one I regard as their most brilliant son.
I am miles from pure Rothbard–I find most of his analysis mediocre at best.
I have sympathy for the anti-equilibrium side of Austrian thinking–since I’m clearly non-equilibrium in my own analysis–but see their theory of value as a fellow traveller with the neoclassicals.
Subjectivism works in some domains of economic analysis, but a subjectivist theory of value doesn’t cut it as an analysis of production–for reasons that I explain in the chapter “The holy war over capital” in my Debunking Economics. We need a hybrid theory which can be both objectivist and subjectivist in appropriate domains, and I derive my own from my interpretation of Marx–which annoys Marxists almost as much as my critiques of the theory of the firm annoy neoclassicals.
There are so many beliefs in Austrian economics that I regard as theoretically or empirically hollow, from Say’s Law to the analysis of money (including the belief that we can have a commodity-based [gold/silver] monetary system), that I could never wear an Austrian cloak (you’ll find that Schumpeter rejects these same points, if you read his Theory of Economic Development).
In the end, I don’t regard any of the existing schools as adequate–as you’ll see from the post before the one you comment on here where I take a stick to Post Keynesians. My problem with them is that they also refuse to learn new tricks.
So in that sense it doesn’t matter that I don’t see myself as an Austrian–because I don’t see myself as an (entirely) Post Keynesian either."
http://karmaisking.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/why-isnt-steve-keen-an-austrian/
Also,
"For modern Post Keynesian treatment of issues in, and analysis of, Keynes’ General Theory, see
Harcourt, G. C. and P. A. Riach (eds), 1997. A “Second Edition” of The General Theory (Vol. 1), Routledge, London.
Harcourt, G. C. and P. A. Riach (eds), 1997. A “Second Edition” of The General Theory (Vol. 2), Routledge, London. "
Is this a "analysis" or "interpretation" of what Keynes said in his general theory? I have the General Theory, but I don't want to read it, mainly because I would rather read people's interpretation's/analyses of what he explicitly said in the book before I try to make my own conclusions.
"Is this a "analysis" or "interpretation" of what Keynes said in his general theory? "
ReplyDeleteBoth.
"If by Austrian you meant Schumpeter, then you might classify me as 75% Austrian. Unfortunately most Austrians seem to reject the one I regard as their most brilliant son."
That is right: the Austrians mostly don't regard Schumpeter as "Austrian". He spoke too much good sense to be an authentic Austrian.
Reagrding this:
"Why isn’t Steve Keen an Austrian?"
http://karmaisking.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/why-isnt-steve-keen-an-austrian/
Someone in the comments ays: "Austrians don’t use equilibrium models."
Not true: The Hayekian version of the Austrian business cycle theory is deeply reliant on neoclassical equilibrium theory.
Hayek himself was essentially an equilibrium theorist before 1937.
The post "Why isn’t Steve Keen an Austrian?" is an interesting one, but in my view the only intellectually respectable Austrian subgroup - the Lachmann wing - eventually leads to positions supportive of certain government interventions:
ReplyDeletehttp://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/07/ludwig-lachmann-on-government.html
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/07/startling-admission-from-ludwig.html
If they would only dispense with dogmatic hostiliy to government, it would be a short step to Post Keyensianism.
Also, there was a schism in the early Austrian school. There was one group who were clearly progressive liberals or sympathetic to Fabian socialism:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-are-there-no-austrian-socialists.html
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/10/friedrich-von-wieser-and-eugen-von.html
Dear Lord Keynes : Thanks a lot for putting this list of books. This would help to grasp Keynesian Economics in a much better way.
ReplyDeleteKeep writing. Cheers!
LK,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this useful reading list. A couple of questions/comments:
1. The link to Paul Davidson's site appears to be broken.
2. Will Hutton wrote a book called "The Revolution that Never Was". I have not read it but it appears to make arguments similar to those made by Post-Keynesians about the non-acceptance of Keynes's core claims into mainstream. However I haven't heard of PKs claiming Hutton as one of their own.
3. What are your views on Roy Harrod's work, and how it fits into the PK tent?
Cheers,
Francisco
(1) Paul Davidson's staff page seems to be unavailable. I'll delete this link until I can find out what is going on.
ReplyDelete(2)Yes, I know Will Hutton's work. He does indeed have insights similar to Post Keynesians.
(3) Roy Harrod is usually grouped with the "Cambridge Keynesians" (Robinson, Nicholas Kaldor etc) who were the founders of the Post Keynesian school:
http://homepage.newschool.edu/~het/schools/postk.htm
You can look in the index of John Edward King's A history of post Keynesian economics since 1936 to see his role in the school.
You also have to be aware that Roy Harrod's work also seems to have been associated with the neoclassical synthesis Keynesians too and IS-LM.
ReplyDeleteSee John Edward King, The Elgar companion to post Keynesian economics, p. 25.
He had his foot in both camps, as it were.
I don't think any modern post Keynesian reading list is complete without Godley & Lavoie's Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth (2007). It's basically the most complete resource on Godley's stock-flow consistent macroeconomic modeling, which has been integral to the analyses of post Keynesians like Keen. It's also pretty critical to a thorough understanding of MMT.
ReplyDeleteI have now added W. Godley and M. Lavoie. 2007. Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, England and New York.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
LK,
ReplyDeletehave you read Lachmann's paper: 'Uncertainty and Liquidity Preferences'? It arguably a proto-Chartalist paper...at least thats the way i see it, worth a read.
"That is right: the Austrians mostly don't regard Schumpeter as "Austrian". He spoke too much good sense to be an authentic Austrian."
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit of a straw man... Austrians do not consider him Austrian because Schumpeter never claimed to be Austrian and he was more of a Walrasian, even his understanding of marginalism is through a Walrasian scope.
May I ask though, what do you like about Schumpeter? I thought you would have hated him for his stance for general equilibrium and his stance for a gold standard (which you claims to be a cultish position.)
I'll have a look at L. M. Lachmann, 1937. "Uncertainty and Liquidity-Preference," Economica n.s. 4.15: 295-308.
ReplyDelete"This is a bit of a straw man... Austrians do not consider him Austrian because Schumpeter never claimed to be Austrian and he was more of a Walrasian, even his understanding of marginalism is through a Walrasian scope."
ReplyDeleteYes, yes - my comments above are tongue-in-cheek.
Isaac"Izzy"Marmolejo,
ReplyDeleteMost Post-Keynesians like Schumpeter because he understood that banks had the power to create purchasing power out of nothing, and that this was necessary for a capitalist economy to grow.