The Cambridge School of Keynesian Economics
探讨了《剑桥经济学杂志》与剑桥凯恩斯学派的关系，分析了凯恩斯革命未能成为持久成功范式的原因，并指出该学派的分析工具可作为主流经济学的可行替代。
There have been strong ties between the Cambridge Journal of Economics (CJE) and the Cambridge School of Keynesian Economics, from the very beginning. In this paper, the author investigates the environment that saw the birth of the CJE at Cambridge (UK), in 1977, and the relationship that linked it to the direct pupils of Keynes. A critical question is explicitly examined: why didn't the 'Keynesian revolution' succeed in becoming a permanent winning paradigm? Some behavioural mistakes of the members of the Keynesian School may explain this lack of success, but only to a certain extent. In any case, there were and there still are remedies too. But what we are inheriting is a unique set of analytical building blocks (the paper lists eight of them) that makes this School of economics a viable (and in some directions definitely superior) alternative to mainstream economics. Admittedly, there is some important work still to be done. The paper highlights the need for a two-stage approach, addressing pure theory and extensive institutional analysis. It is argued that a combination of the two would strengthen the coherence of the theoretical foundations, and at the same time would provide a fruitful extension of economic analysis to empirical, institutional and economic dynamics investigations. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.