IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Keynesian interpretations of the financial crisis


  • Carlo Zappia



A by-product of the recent financial crisis has been the renewed interest in Keynes's works. Both in the press and in scientific journals, a crowd of commentators has emphasised the need to scrutinise the General Theory in order to gain a better understanding of the actual macro-dynamics of the economy and of the policy measures apt to help the economy recover from the downturn. But Keynes's thought has been given central prominence also with respect to the understanding of what went wrong at the microeconomic level, with specific reference to the role played by “irrational” agents animated by animal spirits. This paper supplements the influential analysis of George Akerlof and Robert Shiller’s Animal Spirits by arguing that a Keynesian explanation of the actual behaviour of individual agents is to be based more on the Treatise on Probability than on the General Theory itself. Indeed, while it is well-know that the rationale of Keynes's rejection of “Benthamite calculus” is best provided in the Treatise, less attention is usually given to the constructive analysis emerging from his criticism of contemporary probability theory. Through an assessment of Keynes's examination of “the application of probability to conduct” in the Treatise, the paper shows that most of the developments of what is usually referred to as behavioural finance have a Keynesian origin. In particular Keynes hinted at a decision rule different from mathematical expectation, a rule intended to mimic the behaviour of actual agents making decisions under uncertainty. The understanding of the current financial crisis, the paper concludes, would gain from a Keynesian assessment of the rationale for actual decisions as much as from the usual one concerning macroeconomic policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlo Zappia, 2010. "Keynesian interpretations of the financial crisis," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 1110, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
  • Handle: RePEc:usi:depfid:1110

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    uncertainty; crisis; Keynes.;

    JEL classification:

    • B21 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - Microeconomics
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty


    Access and download statistics


    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:usi:depfid:1110. 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: (Carlo Zappia). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.