For at least the last twenty-five years neo-Keynesian economists have been conducting economic analysis in general, and of income distribution in particular, on principles which they regard as fundamentally different from those underlying neoclassical economics.1 The leading economists of this school now regard the approach as having developed to such a stage that it represents a new ‘paradigm’ for the further development of economics and one which is devoid of both the inconsistencies and the empirical irrelevance which, they maintain, characterise the neoclassical conceptual framework (see, for example, Pasinetti, 1974, and Robinson and Eatwell, 1973). The main distinguishing characteristic of this group is the extension and elaboration of certain ideas initially formulated by Keynes (1930, 1936) in the Treatise and The General Theory.2 However, despite this common basis there are certain differences between the various theories so far developed, and some of these differences are important. We concentrate on the work of Robinson and Pasinetti, though references to Kalecki and Kaldor will be made where particularly appropriate. The reason for this emphasis is that Robinson provides the most comprehensive system of analysis and Pasinetti that which has proved the most controversial in recent years.
Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
- The Neo-Keynesian Analysis of Income Distribution
M. C. Howard
- Macmillan Education UK
microm, Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Avaloq/© Avaloq Evolution AG, Avaloq/© Avaloq