Reviewed by: Cheryl LaGuardia, Research Librarian, Widener Library, Harvard University
The Review of Keynesian Economics (RKE) was established in 2011, the seventy-fifth anniversary of Keynes' General Theory. The editors consider that the founding of the journal “is a fitting tribute and celebration of this anniversary. It is also part of the deeper response needed to meet these challenging economic times.” For a detailed description of what the journal is about, one cannot do better than to read this excerpt from the About This Journal section on the journal’s website: “As the name signals, the journal promotes research in a particular paradigm -- the Keynesian paradigm. We make no apologies for this. Journals on international economics promote research in international economics: journals on finance promote research in financial economics. We have no objection to journals promoting particular types of economic research or thinking. What we object to is general-purpose and field journals only permitting research in a particular paradigm. This journal is about Keynesian economics – without any qualifying adjective or prefix. Our aim is to encourage research and discourse in Keynesian economics – be it old Keynesianism, fundamental Keynesianism, neo-Keynesianism, Post Keynesianism, Sraffian Keynesianism, Kaleckian Keynesianism, or Marxist Keynesianism. The journal is open to all forms of Keynesianism, which we define as (1) holding that output and employment are normally constrained by aggregate demand, (2) holding that the problematic of aggregate demand shortage exists independently of price, nominal wage, and nominal interest rate rigidities, and (3) rejecting the claim that the real wage is equal to the marginal disutility of labor.”
If this seems to be a fairly passionate declamation about the nature of this journal, another portion of the About This Journal section provides the background for it: “In the end, economic theory is a contested terrain that is fought over by different intellectual tendencies, which may reflect different political and ethical values. In the years after World War II Keynesianism was ascendant, but since the late 1970s classical macroeconomics has been ascendant. Such ebbs and flows are reasonable, and even desirable, in an open society. However, what troubles us is that the period of classical re-ascendance has been characterized by what we think is a closing and monopolization of intellectual space, whereas the period of Keynesian ascendancy was marked by intellectual pluralism.”
Selected articles from the October 2017, Issue 4 of the journal further illustrate RKE’s focus. “Critical thinking within a multi-paradigmatic approach: introduction to the symposium on innovations in heterodox economics education,” “Teaching the Greek crisis (and more) from the perspectives of competing models,” “Blasphemy in the classroom: in search of microeconomics textbooks for heterodox instructors,” and “Estimating Keynesian models of business fluctuations using Bayesian Maximum Likelihood” are representative of what scholars can expect to find in RKE.
Given the journal’s highly-defined focus, it is suggested for libraries with exhaustive collections in economics.