• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of institutional economics >General theorising and historical specificity: Hodgson on Keynes
【24h】

General theorising and historical specificity: Hodgson on Keynes

机译：一般理论和历史特殊性：凯恩斯大学的霍奇森

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In relation to Keynes's thought on general theorising, consumption theory and institutions, this paper closely examines Geoff Hodgson's views as set out in his magisterial work, How Economics Forgot History. While in full agreement with its advocacy of the institutionalist programme, it finds that Keynes's position has been misunderstood in all three areas, and that deep compatibilities exist between the General Theory and institutionalist analysis. Using all his available writings, it is argued that Keynes's conception of a general theory is very different from that underpinning neoclassical economics so that criticisms of the latter are irrelevant to the former, that Keynes's 'fundamental psychological law' was never advanced as a universal law applicable to all economies, and that Keynes expressly analysed a historically specific economic institution and its assemblage of sub-institutions. Keynes is an ally, not an enemy, of institutionalism in pursuing better economic theory.
机译：关于凯恩斯关于广义理论，消费理论和制度的思想，本文仔细研究了杰夫·霍奇森（Geoff Hodgson）在其权威著作《经济学如何忘记历史》中提出的观点。在完全赞同其对制度主义计划的主张的同时，它发现凯恩斯的立场在所有三个领域都被误解了，通论和制度主义分析之间存在着深厚的兼容性。使用他所有可用的著作，有人认为凯恩斯的一般理论概念与支撑新古典经济学的概念大不相同，因此对后者的批评与前者无关，凯恩斯的“基本心理学法”从未作为普遍法得到发展。适用于所有经济体，凯恩斯明确分析了历史上特定的经济制度及其子制度的集合。凯恩斯在追求更好的经济理论时是制度主义的盟友，而不是敌人。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号