Metaphor and Dogma in the History of Macroeconomics
Chapter 8: The dissenters, part I: the Post Keynesians
8.1 INTRODUCTION Of all the various schools of heterodox economics, the Post Keynesians might have been expected to take a clear and highly critical position on the microfoundations dogma. First and most obviously, their theoretical allegiance to Keynes and/or Kalecki, supplemented in many cases by Marx and Sraffa, should have rendered them immune to the doctrines of methodological individualism and micro-reduction and made them profoundly suspicious of any project that envisaged the elimination of macroeconomics as an autonomous scientiﬁc discipline. Second, Post Keynesians have always tended to take a much greater interest in questions of methodology than their mainstream opponents, many of them endorsing the Critical Realist position of Roy Bhaskar and Tony Lawson, which (as we shall see in Chapter 10) cannot be reconciled with any version of microfoundations. Finally, their systematic and sustained hostility to mainstream economic theory should have made them very suspicious of the (admittedly often tacit or poorly formulated) philosophical basis of the New Neoclassical Synthesis. However, as I shall demonstrate in this chapter, it has not worked out like this. The disagreements, uncertainties and ambiguities of the Post Keynesians on this fundamental issue testify again to the ability of the microfoundations metaphor to generate confusion and to mislead people who really should have known better. I have to include myself in this category. Several of the Post Keynesians with whom I had conversations in 1992–3 referred approvingly to microfoundations without being challenged, and I myself criticized the neoclassical nature of Keynes’s supposed...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.