Gordon Brady might find N. Gregory Mankiw's 1992 European Economic Review article titled, "The Reincarnation of Keynesian Economics," helpful on this. Mankiw discusses 6 "Dubious Keynesian Propositions" and concludes: "New Keynesian economics is far different from old Keynesian economics -- so different, in fact, that today the label 'Keynesian' may generate more confusion than understanding. With new Keynesians looking so much like old classicals, perhaps we should conclude that the tern 'Keynesian' has out-lived its usefulness. Perhaps we need a new label to describe the school of macroeconomics that accepts the existence of involuntary unemployment, monetary non-neutrality, and sticky wages and prices. Until a new label is found, however, we can safely say that Keynesian economics is alive and well."

Of course, if Mankiw read the classicals (including Alfred Marshall and A.C. Pigou before 1950) in their original rather than Keynes's distorted version of what they wrote, he would have found that the label that fits what he is looking for is "Classical Macroeconomics."

James Ahiakpor

On 5/8/2011 7:56 PM, Gordon Brady wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Dear Sir:

I have heard several economists say they are part-time Keynesians, part-time Monetarists, and part-time All-Schools-of-Thought. Under what conditions are Keynesian approaches relevant and good policy? What work is good on this?

Gordon L. Brady, Ph.D., M.S.L.
Senior Economist
Joint Tax Committee
U.S. Congress
244 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20505
202.225.6024

-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair 
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542

(510) 885-3137 
(510) 885-4796 (Fax: Not Private)