I've had a couple recent posts highlighting distinctly (and sometimes, I argue, not so distinctly) Post Keynesian ideas that have drawn in commentary from self-identified Post Keynesians. I've followed a few of their links and blogrolls and have a couple blogs I haven't been following but that might be of interest to readers here:
- Robert Vienneau's blog
- Barkley Rosser's blog, which I've been meaning to add to my Google Reader for a while but haven't gotten around to it until now.
- John T. Harvey's (I think...) blog, Post Keynesian Observations
- The Levy Institute blog
I am following these now, and of course I'll share any interesting content here. Of course one that I've really enjoyed and have been linking to lately is Social Democracy for the 21st Century. That blog has two more posts on the Keynesian uncertainty point since I last discussed it, here and here.
I haven't invested the requisite amount of time reading the Post Keynesians, but my initial impression is that claims that "Keynes would have been a Post Keynesian" are somewhat weak. I think all branches of modern Keynesianism (with the exception of the few New Keynesians that pass off sticky wages as the entire story) are heirs to Keynes to a large extent. The strongest case that Keynes would not have embraced the neoclassical synthesis is that he himself rejected Hicks's formulation of joint determination of the interest rate in the loanable funds and money market while he was still alive. OK, so Keynes and Hicks are different. There was a time when I said "Hicks definitely had it right", but I'm not so sure how declarative we should be about that anymore. The point is, neither of them (and none of the neoclassical synthesis Keynesians) were strict Wicksellians on the interest rate. That's the salient point. I have no real interest in fixing Keynes in stone on this point an beating the neoclassical synthesis over the head with it. The other thing you hear Post Keynesians say to distinguish themselves is that they put special emphasis on uncertainty. This is weak too, I think. The absolute most important role that uncertainty played for Keynes was in driving liquidity preference and money demand. New Keynesians have not dropped this. They may say they embrace rational expectations, but as you all should know "rationality" is a very slippery term in economics. A rational optimizer that demands liquidity still provides a substantially Keynesian story. Do Post Keynesians talk about uncertainty more frequently? I wouldn't be surprised if they do. But as far as I know they are not unique in their consideration of liquidity preference, and that is the real significance and application of Keynesian uncertainty.
That's my take, but I am happy to admit that I am even less well read in Post Keynesianism than I am in, say, the Austrian School.