The Treatment of Post Keynesian Economics in the History of Economic Thought Texts

Abstract

The history of economic thought does not write itself. It is constructed by historians of economic thought and, among others, by nonspecialist economists. Much of the coverage is obvious but at least some is not, or is optional, such as inclusion and exclusion, weight, and angle of interpretation. With regard to each school or writer, the corpus of ideas and its relations to other ideas are sufficiently complex and variegated that different elements can be emphasized and different nuances elicited. Much depends on the interests, expertise, and selective perception of the historian of economic thought. Much also depends, of course, on the material with which the historian of economic thought must work; what does not exist, or is not recorded, or is not recognized as relevant, cannot or will not be reported. How a school enters the history of economics strongly depends on its treatment by historians of economic thought and by specialists in the field in which its practitioners believe they are working. Inclusion of a school in the textbooks of the field functions to certify, as it were, the existence of the school, its disciplinary and professional relevance, and its doctrinal identity. That identity is defined by the texts insofar as they present one or another possible configuration of content-but only insofar as they include the school.'