摘要：The first part of this review of the Pasinetti’s (2010) book on the Keynesian school summarizes the reasons why the Kyenesian theory was an “unaccomplished scientific revolution”. As explained by Pasinetti, Keynes neglected some essential building blocks of his theoretical construction, and the Cambridge Keynesians did not fill the gap completely. This prevented the classical/Keynesian paradigm to prevail with respect to its Marginalist-Neoclassical rival. The present theoretical impasse – Pasinetti argues – can be overcome by the adoption of the methodological device of the “separation principle” by distinguishing the phase of “pure theory”, to be elaborated at a logical stage that precedes institutions, from the (applied) institutional analysis. In the second part of the paper I show that, while Pasinetti’s suggestion is fully valid, the theoretical strength of a paradigm is a necessary but not sufficient condition for becoming dominant. As the last decades show, the success or failure of a paradigm is also crucially dependent on social and power relations in society.
