On the post-Keynesian tradition and industrial economics^∗

Abstract

Abstract In this paper it is first argued that there are significant inconsistencies between industrial economics and neoclassical economics, and that there is a substantial degree of common ground between industrial economics and the postkeynesian tradition. There are, however, some deep-seated differences between post-Keynesian economists over matters such as motivation of firms and the relationship between profits and investment. The nature of competion is discussed and it is argued that the post-keynesian approaches have tended to under rate the role of rivalry. There is then some consideration of the institutional realities of the late twentieth-century industrialized economies. It is argued that there is an essential complementarity between post-keynesian industrial economics (based on imperfect competition) and keynesian macroeconomics, emphasizing that micro-and macroeconomic analyses cannot be separated. ∗This is a revised version of a paper prepared for the Review of Political Economy conference held at Malvern 16–18 August 1988. I am grateful to participants at that conference, Philp Arestis, Frederic Lee and Nina Shapiro for comments. ∗This is a revised version of a paper prepared for the Review of Political Economy conference held at Malvern 16–18 August 1988. I am grateful to participants at that conference, Philp Arestis, Frederic Lee and Nina Shapiro for comments. Notes ∗This is a revised version of a paper prepared for the Review of Political Economy conference held at Malvern 16–18 August 1988. I am grateful to participants at that conference, Philp Arestis, Frederic Lee and Nina Shapiro for comments.