Changing definitions: a comment on Davidson's critique of King's history of Post Keynesianism
In a review of John King's book, Paul Davidson has argued that King had been in error when including Sraffians and Kaleckians in his Post Keynesian classification. Davidson seems to believe that Post Keynesianism should be restricted to Fundamental Keynesianism. It is shown that King followed the taxonomy proposed by Davidson in the 1970s and early 1980s. Hence, Davidson cannot blame King for using these definitions. The paper concludes by claiming that despite their idiosyncrasies, heterodox theories contain a large amount of commonalities that ought to be underlined.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 27 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://mesharpe.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&id=109348|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mes:postke:v:27:y:2005:i:3:p:371-376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Nguyen)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.