On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes Once More
8th May 2012: Prof. Roger E. Backhouse
In the final event of the academic year, prominent economic historian Prof. Roger Backhouse was invited to speak on the evolution of Keynesian economics and the contrast to Keynes’s original writings, enriching the society’s understanding of mainstream economic ideas. At a dinner discussion afterwards, attended by the speaker and Cambridge economists of contrasting schools of thought, the talk inspired an animated debate on what constituted the key ideas of Keynesian economics and laid a foundation for further engagement between the occasionally disparate economic communities in Cambridge University.
The talk presented a clear and challenging summary of the changes in economic thinking that followed the publishing of Keynes’s general theory. Echoing the thoughts of current post-Keynesian thinkers, Prof. Backhouse was keen to stress the deep contrast between the original ideas of Keynes of those ideas now currently labelled as Keynesian economics. I particular he highlighted the IS-LM model as the main product of the Keynesian revolution: it was this that provided the lens through which economists view not only Keynesian economics but the theories that went before. However, this synthesis and formalisation of Keynes’s General Theory simplified and dropped many ideas in a process that was far from random. In interpreting Keynesian ideas today it is therefore essential to question which part of Keynes’s message was forgotten or ‘misinterpreted’ and the extent to which this is relevant for the current state of economics.
It was the nature of this question that formed the heart of Prof. Backhouse’s talk. He argued persuasively that it would be incorrect for post-Keynesians or anyone else to claim to proponents of Keynes’s ‘original’ ideas and Keynes own approach was much more broad and tolerant than is often allowed. It follows that in seeking to capture the spirit of the general theory economists should shy away from strict adherence to any particular framework or model but instead look to develop, in Prof. Backhouse’s words ‘the central intuitions about capitalist economies that Keynes was trying to capture with his theory.’
For those interested in a more detailed analysis of these ideas, an illuminating summary and discussion of Prof. Backhouse’s recent presentation at the Robinson College Keynes Seminar series is available at http://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/Backhouse/RS240511.pdf
About the speaker
Roger E. Backhouse is Professor of the History and Philosophy of Economics at the University of Birmingham. He is a noted scholar in the history of economics and economic methodology and has published in the economics of Keynes, disequilibrium macroeconomics, and the history of recent (post-1945) social science. He is an Associate Editor of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008) and is also Book Review Editor of the Economic Journal, an editor of the Journal of Economic Methodology and an Associate Editor of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought.
The talk presented a clear and challenging summary of the changes in economic thinking that followed the publishing of Keynes’s general theory. Echoing the thoughts of current post-Keynesian thinkers, Prof. Backhouse was keen to stress the deep contrast between the original ideas of Keynes of those ideas now currently labelled as Keynesian economics. I particular he highlighted the IS-LM model as the main product of the Keynesian revolution: it was this that provided the lens through which economists view not only Keynesian economics but the theories that went before. However, this synthesis and formalisation of Keynes’s General Theory simplified and dropped many ideas in a process that was far from random. In interpreting Keynesian ideas today it is therefore essential to question which part of Keynes’s message was forgotten or ‘misinterpreted’ and the extent to which this is relevant for the current state of economics.
It was the nature of this question that formed the heart of Prof. Backhouse’s talk. He argued persuasively that it would be incorrect for post-Keynesians or anyone else to claim to proponents of Keynes’s ‘original’ ideas and Keynes own approach was much more broad and tolerant than is often allowed. It follows that in seeking to capture the spirit of the general theory economists should shy away from strict adherence to any particular framework or model but instead look to develop, in Prof. Backhouse’s words ‘the central intuitions about capitalist economies that Keynes was trying to capture with his theory.’
For those interested in a more detailed analysis of these ideas, an illuminating summary and discussion of Prof. Backhouse’s recent presentation at the Robinson College Keynes Seminar series is available at http://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/Backhouse/RS240511.pdf
About the speaker
Roger E. Backhouse is Professor of the History and Philosophy of Economics at the University of Birmingham. He is a noted scholar in the history of economics and economic methodology and has published in the economics of Keynes, disequilibrium macroeconomics, and the history of recent (post-1945) social science. He is an Associate Editor of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008) and is also Book Review Editor of the Economic Journal, an editor of the Journal of Economic Methodology and an Associate Editor of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought.
