ABSTRACT
The position of neo-Ricardian economics2 remains controversial. Specifically, there is significant debate regarding the extent to which neo-Ricardianism can be incorporated within a coherent PostKeynesian perspective. Related to this, though as a prior concern, is the question of whether coherence in Post-Keynesian economics is achievable on any conception. While some authors express misgivings regarding the search for coherence,3 others claim that an adequate account of Post-Keynesian economics can be identified at a substantive level.4 But the argument that appears to have gained most ground is that coherence must rather be located at a methodological or philosophical level and specifically rooted in a common adherence to critical, realism. T.Lawson (1994), in particular, suggests that if anything can render intelligible the most important nominal features of Post-Keynesian economics, including its opposition to orthodoxy, relative openness towards methodological reflection, emphasis upon institutions and historical processes, and sensitivity to agents’ own conceptions and their expectations, then it must be something like a shared commitment to a broadly critical realist perspective.5 Much of the time neo-Ricardian authors appear to share a similar set of concerns. They repeatedly emphasise the importance of history, the role of social institutions and express a deep-rooted distrust of orthodox economics.6 But, despite such apparent correspondences, one discerns within Post-Keynesianism a continuing sense of disquiet regarding neo-Ricardian economics.
That is to say the Post-Keynesian-neo-Ricardian relationship appears to represent a long-standing puzzle within this literature.7 It is significant to note that Lawson, when elaborating the key characteristics of Post-Keynesianism, consciously sets to one side neo-Ricardian economics. This strategy is defended precisely on the basis that the relationship between neo-Ricardianism and PostKeynesianism constitutes a highly contested issue. Lawson writes:
