ABSTRACT
Alfred Eichner, in his foreword to a collection of papers in post-Keynesian theory, indicated an important point of tension among scholars as one that derives from the "difference between those who place a greater emphasis on monetary factors and those who see real factors as being more important—which still remains to be resolved to the full satisfaction of the leading figures within both groups" (Arestis and Skouras, 1985, p. xii). This is a well-known controversial question among Keynes's contemporary followers, particularly between those who see the innovative power of Keynes's ideas, and their incompatibility with the neoclassical mainstream, in the context of the theory of growth and distribution, and those who attribute to monetary analysis the distinctive character of Keynes's revolution.
