General Theorizing and Historical Specificity in the 'Keynes Versus the Classics' Dispute.

IF 1.1 Q3 ECONOMICS

Eastern Economic Journal Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-06 DOI:10.1057/s41302-020-00177-1

Teodoro Dario Togati

引用次数: 2

Abstract

This paper addresses the issues of general theorizing and historical specificity in the 'Keynes versus the Classics' dispute and puts forward two main arguments. First, the current macroeconomic orthodoxy wins the 'relative' generality contest because it implies that institutions influence outcomes, such as the natural rate of unemployment, in contrast with Keynes's 'internalist' approach, which neglects historical specificity. Secondly, mainstream macro is not truly general in an 'absolute' sense since it only makes sense under very special real-world institutional conditions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

“凯恩斯与经典”之争中的一般理论化与历史特殊性。

本文论述了“凯恩斯与经典”之争中的一般理论化和历史特殊性问题，并提出了两个主要论点。首先，当前的宏观经济正统理论赢得了“相对”一般性竞赛，因为它暗示制度会影响结果，比如自然失业率，这与凯恩斯的“内部主义”方法形成鲜明对比，后者忽视了历史特殊性。其次，主流宏观在“绝对”意义上并不是真正普遍的，因为它只在非常特殊的现实世界制度条件下才有意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Eastern Economic Journal ECONOMICS-

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Eastern Economic Journal, a quarterly publication of the Eastern Economic Association, was established in 1973. The EEJ publishes papers written from every perspective, in all areas of economics and is committed to free and open intellectual inquiry from diverse philosophical perspectives. It welcomes manuscripts that are methodological and philosophical as well as empirical and theoretical. Readability and general interest are major factors in publication decision.