Re: Keynesianism and the Theory of the State

Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:44:39 +1100
Bruce R. McFarling (

Regarding the query regarding potentials for theoretical
interaction between WST and post Keynesian economics, two participants in
the post keynesian thought discussion list (PKT) writes as follows. Any
response to pass back to PKT (keeping in mind that I am hoping not to
start a cross-list flame war)?


Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:55:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Gernot Kohler <>
Subject: Re: Keynesianism and the Theory of the State

On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Gregoire de Nowell (ci-devant) wrote:
> World systems theory, on the other hand, is
> "irrelevant" (in terms of everyday discourse) for
> several reasons. First, it grounds its analysis of
> economic behavior on observations of state behavior
> and class relations which, while compelling in the
> long run, are not amenable to quantification or
> prediction. Second, to engage the arena of

Along the same line, the world system school
uses a range of methodologies which is very much
tilted toward historiographic and sociological
methods and weak on quantification as common in
economics. Secondly, that school is strong on
critical thinking (good) but weak on constructive
proposals (bad) -- e.g., what incomes policy?
what investment policy? what monetary policy?
what exchange rate system? etc.
(Samir Amin seems to be the major exception,
with his concept of a "polycentric world",
which, if translated into Post Keynesian terms,
is something like "regional Keynesianisms",
e.g. Europe as a regional Keynesianism,
NAFTA as a regional Keynesianism, etc.)

There appears to be plenty of room for
Post Keynesians to fill their ideas into the vacuum.

Gernot Kohler
Oakville, Canada