Abstract
ABSTRACT Certain post-Keynesian (PK) authors consider Means as one of the founding figures of PK theory and a notable contributor to heterodox economic thought in general. Paradoxically, many surveys of PK economics do not mention his name at all. It is the purpose of the current study to scrutinize the possible reasons behind the contradictory evaluations of Means’ contributions among PK authors. Based on a critical analysis of his stance on Keynesian and political economics traditions as well as his labor analysis, I argue that Means’ ideas and PK theory remain in harmony on the surface but conflict at a more fundamental level.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
