IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v15y2019i04p733-740_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Keynes and the historical specificity of institutions: a response to Rod O'Donnell

Author

Listed:
  • Hodgson, Geoffrey M.

Abstract

This is a response to the criticism by Rod O'Donnell of the account of Keynes’ notion of a general theory in the book How Economics Forgot History (Hodgson, 2001). Several points of full agreement are noted, including the fact that Keynes’ work contains much discussion of historically specific institutions, including the financial and market institutions of modern capitalism. But it is argued here that even copious discussion of historically specific institutions is insufficient to indicate an adequate understanding or conceptual appreciation of historical periodisation or evolution, as developed in various ways by Karl Marx, the German historical school and the original American institutionalists. Keynes’ General Theory is best understood as a theory of modern capitalism. But Keynes did not have sufficient acquaintance with these historically oriented schools of thought to even define the concept of capitalism, or to make that specific historical association clear.

Suggested Citation

  • Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 2019. "Keynes and the historical specificity of institutions: a response to Rod O'Donnell," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 733-740, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:15:y:2019:i:04:p:733-740_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137418000528/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teodoro Dario Togati, 2021. "General Theorizing and Historical Specificity in the ‘Keynes Versus the Classics’ Dispute," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 273-294, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:15:y:2019:i:04:p:733-740_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.