ABSTRACT
In Chapter 1 it was argued that Keynesian economists are dissenters who question the characteristic Neoclassical proposition that market economies automatically self-adjust to the full employment level of output. It has also been argued that starting from its origin in the middle 1930s the Keynesian dissent has assumed a variety of forms and meanings, including IS-LM Keynesianism, Disequilibrium Keynesianism, New Keynesianism and Post Keynesianism. Drawing on recently published biographies of Keynes (e.g. Davidson 2007, Dostaler 2007) and new historical accounts of early Post Keynesian contributions (e.g. King 2003, also Harcourt 2006, Pasinetti 2007), this chapter examines the origins and the historical development of dissent in Post Keynesian economics. The distinction between the romantic age and the age of uncertainty is proposed. The former describes the period of optimism and excitement of the 1960s and 1970s, when Post Keynesian economics was seen as a comprehensive theoretical system alternative to the dominant Neoclassical paradigm. The end of this period was marked by an increasing awareness of the importance of the methodological features of the new paradigm. Post Keynesian economics was still viewed as possessing the potential to become an alternative to the dominant paradigm, but the transformation came to be considered more fundamental than initially envisaged. Post Keynesian economics had now to be an alternative theoretical and methodological paradigm to Neoclassical economics. This awareness of the methodological features of Post Keynesian economics initiated a period of doubt and deep internal divisions, the age of uncertainty, which still exists today. The chapter concludes discussing what lessons can be learned from the successes and failures of the romantic age and the age of uncertainty.
