Search results

Using recent literature, examines developments in seven macroeconomic schools of thought: orthodox Keynesian, monetarist, new classical, real business cycle theory, new Keynesian, Austrian and post‐Keynesian. Describes all of these and classifies them as orthodox, new or radical. After setting out the differences, discusses the degree of agreement between the schools of thought. Concludes that macroeconomics is constantly evolving, resulting in new disagreements requiring a new consensus.

Looks at the impact John Maynard Keynes and the movement (Keynesian) he started had on the theory and practice of economics in the 1930s and onwards. Identifies respective problems about capitalism and discusses them in depth. States that the monetary and fiscal policies recommended by Keynes have helped the West escape severe social consequences in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Goes on to show how economists after Keynes carried his work forward and upward in the 1940s and 1950s. Closes by stating there is a further, third revolution in economic thinking on the rise.

Macroeconomics has an important role to play in understanding the forces at work in the world today, and how they can be harnessed to meet national as well as industrial economic goals. Mr. Smith sorts out popular macroeconomic theories into schools, explains their forecasting limitations, and highlights a few public issues where the media and policymakers tend to want answers instead of forecasts.

Introduction It has been said that the word imperialism is no word for scholars. It is too value‐laden and uncertain in its meaning, a meaning which has altered with the passage of time. Nevertheless, taking account of its current use, the definition given by Benjamin Cohen (1974, p. 16) seems to be relevant. He defines imperialism as “any relationship of effective combination or control, political or economic, direct or indirect, of one nation over another”. This definition covers old and new imperialism and neo‐colonialism or neo‐imperialism even though it can be charged that it is too wide to be helpful (Mommsen, 1981) especially bearing in mind that the political or economic dependence of one state or set of states on another is relative (Barratt Brown, 1974). Indeed, unequal economic and political relations between nation states appear to be normal or usual, some might even say inescapable, no matter what is the economic system of the day and it is debatable whether all international political and economic relationships involving some degree of one‐way dependence should be described as involving imperialism.

In order to explain change and growth at the aggregate levels, three levels: macro, meso and micro must be taken into account. Applying the theories from Keynesian and post‐Keynesian economics (PKE) best explains the macro level and applying those from Schumpeterian and neo‐Schumpeterian economics (NSE) best explains the micro level. Besides this, the meso level can be further explained by merging both post‐Keynesian and neo‐Schumpeterian theories. Such a unifying approach has been missing from the literature so far. Bringing these schools of thought together is important for mutual learning and further development of innovation theory. This paper aims to effect this.

The paper presents a survey of the relevant secondary literature of the aforementioned schools of thought, identifying their methodological practice and key contributions to innovation theory.

A combination of these schools of thought offers a richer approach to studying innovation. It is found to exist in particular in the evolutionary, institutional and long‐run perspectives, in combination with emphasis on the role of finance in production.

One is invited to develop one's own theoretical and empirical approach that combines the advantages of all the schools of thought presented.

The paper is exploratory, as it reconsiders how a comprehensive approach to studying innovations can be built. It examines the existing literature. It will be of value to researchers in innovation.

This paper presents, both diagrammatically and algebraically, a two‐sector model that exemplifies and shares some of the basic characteristics to be found in the work of Kalecki, Joan Robinson, Kaldor and, in general, the “Post‐Keynesian” school of writers.

An interview with Milton Friedman in 1996 ‐ presents his reflections on some of the important issues surrounding the evolution of, and currrent debates within, modern macroeconomics. A world‐renowned economist and prolific author since the 1930s, Milton Friedman has had a considerable impact on macroeconomic theory and policy making. Associated mostly with monetarism and the efficacy of free markets, his work has ranged over a broader area ‐ microeconomics, methodology, consumption function, applied statistics, international economics, monetary theory, history and policy, business cycles and inflation. In the interview discusses Keynes’s General Theory, monetarism, new classical macroeconomics, methodology, economic policy, European union and the monetarist counter‐revolution.

This analysis attempts a comparative specification of certain aspects of the country studies contained in this volume. The point of departure is the banking crises of the early 1990s (deep in Finland, Norway and Sweden, mini-crisis in Denmark and absent in Iceland) and the contrast to Iceland's financial meltdown in 2007/2008 (no crisis in the three, a new mini-crisis in Denmark). Detailed process tracing of the Icelandic crisis is provided. The case account is then used to shed light on the different roles of neoliberalism, economics expert knowledge and populist right-wing party formation in the five Nordic political economies.