IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ekm/repojs/v36y2016i1p70-90id173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflections on the method of Keynes

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando Ferrari Filho
  • Fábio Henrique Bittes Terra

Abstract

The question of method raises probably some of the most controversial discussions of the work of John Maynard Keynes. Briefly, the controversies fall into three main areas: (i) the unit of analysis, i.e., whether Keynes’ economic theory is atomistic or organic; (ii) whether or not there is continuity in Keynes’ philosophical foundations throughout his work; and (iii) speculation about the scientific method Keynes used. In that context, this paper aims to explore the latter of these lines of controversy. The idea is to show that, considering his insights related to the inductivism, mainly in the Treatise on Probability, there are evidences that Keynes’ method was historical and inductive. JEL Classification: B2; B4; E12.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando Ferrari Filho & Fábio Henrique Bittes Terra, 2016. "Reflections on the method of Keynes," Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, Center of Political Economy, vol. 36(1), pages 70-90.
    • Handle: RePEc:ekm:repojs:v:36:y:2016:i:1:p:70-90:id:173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://centrodeeconomiapolitica.org.br/repojs/index.php/journal/article/view/173/162
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Keynes; Keynesian Theory; Scientific Methodology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B2 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925
    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
    • E12 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian; Modern Monetary Theory

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ekm:repojs:v:36:y:2016:i:1:p:70-90:id:173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Brazilian Journal of Political Economy (Brazil) (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://centrodeeconomiapolitica.org/repojs/index.php/journal/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.