Search

While modeling macroeconomic interactions, post-Keynesians propose rationales to verbally motivate the choice of behavioral equations. This informal approach to microfoundation results in inconsistencies and fuzzy arguments. The rationales for different behavioral rules are mutually inconsistent, require strong and nontransparent assumptions, or refer to highly endogenous variables that are not part of the model. The postulated behavioral rules are invariant to endogenous changes in the microenvironment, whereas the rationales imply that they adjust endogenously. The prevailing assumption of purely backward-looking expectations is neither theoretically nor empirically satisfying. The article concludes that revisiting the issue of microfoundation within the post-Keynesian framework may be a rewarding line of research. Furthermore, post-Keynesians should be open to various microfoundations as long as models feature the core of post-Keynesian theory—the principle of effective demand. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Frederic Lee has been a major contributor to post-Keynesian economics, mainly to its theory of pricing. This article summarizes his objections to the neoclassical view of the firm and pricing, as well as his view that changes in quantities, rather than in prices, provide the important information to firms. It also outlines Lee's views on competition, and examines the three pricing doctrines Lee carefully analyzed—markup pricing (associated with Kalecki), normal-cost pricing or full-cost pricing (associated with Andrews), and target-return or administered pricing (associated with Means). The article then discusses the relationship between Lee and three strands of post-Keynesianism: Kaleckian, Sraffian and Eichnerian pricing theories. It explains why Lee objected to some features of each of these. The article concludes by discussing why, towards the end of his life, Lee felt (mistakenly) that his ideas had been dismissed by heterodox economists. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]