It is widely recognized that economic crises can trigger enormous change, with regard to both economic theory and the politics of governance. Today, the global economy is struggling with the fall-out from the financial crash of 2008 and the Great Recession of 2007–2009. The economic crisis that these events have generated, combined with the failure of the mainstream economics profession, has again put the question of change on the table. Reasonable people do not expect economists to predict the daily movements of the stock market, but they do expect them to anticipate and explain major imminent economic developments. On that score, the profession failed catastrophically, revealing fundamental theoretical inadequacies.
This intellectual failure has prompted us to launch the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE), the first issue of which is fully available here. At a time of journal proliferation, some may wonder about the need for another journal. We would respond there is a proliferation of journals, but that proliferation is essentially within one intellectual paradigm. As such, it obscures the fact that the range of theoretical inquiry is actually very narrow. A journal devoted to Keynesian economics is therefore needed, both to correct this narrowness and because events have once again confirmed the profound relevance of Keynesian theory. As noted by Robert Solow, a member of the board of ROKE, our project is “counter-cultural, and god knows the current culture needs to be countered.”
Reflection upon the intellectual history of macroeconomics over the past 75 years can help to understand the current predicament and need for this new journal. That history traces an arc, which first saw the eclipse of classical macroeconomics by Keynesian macroeconomics, and then saw the eclipse of Keynesian macroeconomics by a revived and re-tooled classical macroeconomics.
Adherents of classical macroeconomic theory never accepted the legitimacy of Keynesian economics and they forged a counter-revolution, centered upon the University of Chicago and the work of Milton Friedman. In the 1960s and early 1970s the counter- revolution took the form of monetarism, and thereafter it evolved into new classical macroeconomics. The intellectual link between monetarism and new classical macroeconomics was animosity to Keynesianism and a dogmatic predisposition to laissez-faire conclusions. The counter-revolutionaries were successful in their project and recaptured control of macroeconomics in the late 1970s.
Most importantly, the counter-revolutionaries opportunistically exploited the intellectual confusions created by the oil supply shocks of the early 1970s. Those shocks unleashed a new supply-side phenomenon of stagflation, which the counter-revolutionaries asserted disproved Keynesian macroeconomics. In retrospect, we know those assertions were false and Keynesian theories of conflict inflation gave a good account of developments, but the dispiritedness of the late 1970s initiated an era of reaction, which included reaction in economics.
The consequences of the return of classical macroeconomics have been enormous. For society it has entailed an era of neoliberal policy dominance that has contributed to wage stagnation and massive income inequality, which is significantly responsible for the Great Recession and the prospect of stagnation. Economic theory and politics often march hand-in-hand, with theory reinforcing politics and politics reinforcing theory. Together, they both drive policy, making economic theory vitally important for society.
In the end, economic theory is a contested terrain that is fought over by different intellectual tendencies, which may reflect different political and ethical values. In the years after World War II Keynesianism was ascendant, but since the late 1970s classical macroeconomics has been ascendant. Such ebbs and flows are reasonable, and even desirable, in an open society. However, what troubles us is that the period of classical re-ascendance has been characterized by what we think is a closing and monopolization of intellectual space, whereas the period of Keynesian ascendancy was marked by intellectual pluralism.
As the name signals, the journal is intended to promote research in a particular paradigm — the Keynesian paradigm. We have intentionally titled the journal Keynesian without any qualifying adjective or prefix. Our aim is to encourage research and discourse in Keynesian economics – be it old Keynesianism, fundamental Keynesianism, neo-Keynesianism, Post Keynesianism, Sraffian Keynesianism, Kaleckian Keynesianism, or Marxist Keynesianism. The journal is open to all forms of Keynesianism, which we define as (1) holding that output and employment are normally constrained by aggregate demand, (2) holding that the problematic of aggregate demand shortage exists independently of price, nominal wage, and nominal interest rate rigidities, and (3) rejecting the claim that the real wage is equal to the marginal disutility of labor.
This openness to all forms of Keynesianism reflects a desire to avoid intellectual sectarianism. In our view circumstance and ability certainly contributed to the success of the classical macroeconomics counter-revolutionaries, but so too did intellectual and sociological failure among Keynesians. Their tendency to apply arbitrary litmus tests and engage in intellectual sectarianism did a disservice to their project, and in doing so did disservice to society. We want to avoid repeating that history.
Thomas Paley is the Associate of the New America Foundation’s economic growth program. He was formerly Chief Economist of the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission. Louis-Philippe Rochon is Associate Professor of Economics and Director of the International Economic Policy Institute, Laurentian University, Canada. Matias Vernengo is a Triple Crisis regular blogger. He is an Associate Professor inthe Department of Economics, University of Utah.
Triple Crisis Welcomes Your Comments. Please Share Your Thoughts Below.