The question remains as to what the defining characteristic of the set "Keynesian" may be. Or maybe rather than a clearly defined concept with precise denotation, it is a more amorphous one like Wittgenstein elucidated in his notion of language games. Is there some rule or set of rules that underlies this language game through which Keynesians can be distinguished from non-Keynesians. Or is it so amorphous as to be porous? According to Wittgenstein, meaning is determined by use it context, and on this basis, "Keynesian" has a wide range of uses, and no single "correct" one.
Naked Keynesianism
Matias Vernengo | Associate Professor of Economics, Bucknell University
No comments:
Post a Comment