However, both of these factors also consider some major contradictory factors to reveal the difference of orthodox Keynesian assumptions from the mainstream theoretical agenda of the neoclassical approach.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper investigates the major tools of the orthodox Keynesian approach and the critical discussion for that approach based on mainstream assumptions covering both classical dichotomy and the neoclassical thoughts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While the study reveals the difference of orthodox Keynesian arguments from the others in the presence of the importance of uncertainty and expectations, the counter-arguments are formed by way of examining three different assumptions: (i) the Lucas critique, (ii) the new Keynesian approach and the small menu cost theory, and (iii) the heterodox reflections.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, both of these factors also consider some major contradictory factors to reveal the difference of orthodox Keynesian assumptions from the mainstream theoretical agenda of the neoclassical approach.
This paper investigates the major tools of the orthodox Keynesian approach and the critical discussion for that approach based on mainstream assumptions covering both classical dichotomy and the neoclassical thoughts. While the study reveals the difference of orthodox Keynesian arguments from the others in the presence of the importance of uncertainty and expectations, the counter-arguments are formed by way of examining three different assumptions: (i) the Lucas critique, (ii) the new Keynesian approach and the small menu cost theory, and (iii) the heterodox reflections. Moreover, it briefly explains the core elements of Keynesian investment theory concerning the components of financial markets. However, both of these factors also consider some major contradictory factors to reveal the difference of orthodox Keynesian assumptions from the mainstream theoretical agenda of the neoclassical approach.
ÖZDEMİR, O. (2020). Keynes and the Modern Economy: Analogies, Differences, and Contradictions. Florya Chronicles of Political Economy, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 141–157. https://ajindex.com/articles/758585
Crotty, J. (1993). “Neoclassical and Keynesian Approaches to the Theory of Investment”. Available at: https://people.umass.edu/crotty/ JPKE1993.pdf
Crotty, J. (1994). “Are Keynesian Uncertainty and Macrotheory Incompatible? Conventional Decision Making, Institutional Structures, and Conditional Stability in Keynesian Macromodels”. Available at: https://people.umass.edu/crotty/Keynes,%20Uncertanty%20and%20 Macro-theory.pdf
Davidson, P. (2007). John Maynard Keynes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York, Harcourt, Brace, reprinted as The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 7 (1973), London, Macmillan. All references are to the reprint
Keynes, J. M. (1964). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. San Diego, New York, London: A Harvest Book
Lucas, R. (1976). “Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1(1): 19-46
Mankiw, G. (1985). “Small Menu Costs and Large Business Cycles: A Macroeconomic Model of Monopoly”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100(2): 529-537
Marx, K. [1976] (1982). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol
Translated by Ben Fowkes. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Bo oks
Skidelsky, R. (1983), John Maynard Keynes: Hopes betrayed, 1883- 1920 and The Economist as Saviour, 1920-37, London: Macmillan Press
Skidelsky, R. (1996). Keynes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.