Commenting on 'Heterodox United vs. Mainstream City? Sketching a Framework for Interested Pluralism in Economics'

摘要

This comment relates to Leonhard Dobusch and Jakob Kapeller's (2012, 1035-1058) meaningful and provocative paper, "Heterodox United vs. Mainstream City? Sketching a Framework for Interested Pluralism in Economics," published in this journal, and pertaining to their views on the post-Keynesian movement and its major interests (problems) and solutions. My commentary particularly concerns columns 1 and 4 of their Table 1 (Dobusch and Kapeller 2012, 1039), titled "paradigmatic aspects" and "Post-Keynesian paradigm" respectively, which I condense to the table below for the sake of simplicity. Also, for brevity, I refer to "paradigmatic aspects" simply as problems and to "post-Keynesian paradigm" as solutions in this comment.