ABSTRACT
It is impossible to discuss the merits of critical political economy (CPE) and post-Keynesian (PK) perspectives in detail. However, we highlight some aspects in this concluding chapter. Whilst in general PK work shows ‘what is wrong’ with Europe’s economy and what should be done in order to return to stable economic growth (Springler 2013), CPE explains why this does not happen and under which conditions it could happen. However, within the PK perspective especially the strand with a strong focus on Kalecki (1943) is very useful for understanding why the crisis was managed after 2010 in an anti-Keynesian way. The policies led to further increasing unemployment and thereby favoured capital over labour. Complementary to this, CPE insists that an abstract class interest does not transform itself automatically into class agency but is always mediated. Moreover, CPE points to some additional economic aspects, such as the material dimension of economic growth or the role of industry and productivity growth in development. A European development model also has to deal with the question of how productivity can be increased in the periphery, as for large parts of the periphery neoliberal strategies have failed. Contrary to PK approaches, CPE argues that growth is not an ultimate goal but at the best a means for emancipatory strategies which aim at the reduction of power asymmetries. However, from a PK perspective income policies in favour of workers and lower income groups are considered to be beneficial for economic growth and for counteracting measures such as strong austerity programmes which might account for even deeper recessions (see e.g. Ederer and Reschenhofer 2013; Stockhammer and Köhler, Chapter 2 in this volume).
