Post-Keynesian economics in Germany since the 1970s: A detailed mapping of the landscape

Hein, Eckhard Working Paper Post-Keynesian economics in Germany since the 1970s: A detailed mapping of the landscape FMM Working Paper, No. 116 Provided in Cooperation with: Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK) at the Hans Boeckler Foundation Suggested Citation: Hein, Eckhard (2025) : Post-Keynesian economics in Germany since the 1970s: A detailed mapping of the landscape, FMM Working Paper, No. 116, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK), Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM), Düsseldorf This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/324481 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.de FMM WORKING PAPER No. 116 • April 2025 • Hans-Böckler-Stiftung POST -KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IN GERMANY SINCE THE 1970S – A DETAILED MAPPING OF THE LANDSCAPE Eckhard Hein 1 ABSTRACT This paper maps the intellectual and institutional landscape of post-Keynesian economics in Germany since the 1970s. It reviews the contributions of academics based in Germany, irrespective of their nationality, to post-Keynesian economics viewed from a broad tent perspective and to the different strands within this broad-tent post-Keynesian economics. The focus is on the contributions and it is not implied that the authors consider themselves to be post-Keynesians or to adhere to some of the different strands of post-Keynesian economics. Based on the assessment of the contributions, some light is shed on the institutional development of post-Keynesian research and teaching in German higher education, on academic associations, networks, and institutes, as well as on academic journals and publishers open to post-Keynesian research in Germany. It is concluded that the generational transition, associated with the retirement of those researchers who got into the university sector in the 1970s and 1980s, has been managed with relative success and post-Keynesian economics has been consolidated, albeit at a low level, and that it remains an embattled minority in Germany. ————————— 1 Institute for International Political Economy (IPE), Berlin School of Economics and Law, email: [email protected] 1 Post-Keynesian economics in Germany since the 1970s – a detailed mapping of the landscape Eckhard Hein Institute for International Political Economy (IPE), Berlin School of Economics and Law ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-6630 Abstract This paper maps the intellectual and institutional landscape of post-Keynesian economics in Germany since the 1970s. It reviews the contributions of academics based in Germany, irrespective of their nationality, to post-Keynesian economics viewed from a broad tent perspective and to the different strands within this broad-tent post-Keynesian economics. The focus is on the contributions and it is not implied that the authors consider themselves to be post-Keynesians or to adhere to some of the different strands of post-Keynesian economics. Based on the assessment of the contributions, some light is shed on the institutional development of post-Keynesian research and teaching in German higher education, on academic associations, networks, and institutes, as well as on academic journals and publishers open to post-Keynesian research in Germany. It is concluded that the generational transition, associated with the retirement of those researchers who got into the university sector in the 1970s and 1980s, has been managed with relative success and post-Keynesian economics has been consolidated, albeit at a low level, and that it remains an embattled minority in Germany. JEL code: B22, B25, E12 Key words: post-Keynesian economics, Germany, history of economics Acknowledgments This is an extended version of a paper forthcoming in the Review of Political Economy (RoPE). For research assistance, I am grateful to Cara Dabrowski, Samuel Küppers, and Leo Primavesi. I have benefitted from discussions with Harald Hagemann, Hagen Krämer and Jan Priewe, and from the comments on my presentation of a preliminary version of this paper at the 28th conference of the Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) in October 2024 in Berlin. I am also grateful to comments by two anonymous referees of RoPE. Of course, remaining errors are exclusively my own, as usual. Contact Prof. Dr. Eckhard Hein Berlin School of Economics and Law Badensche Str. 52 10825 Berlin Germany e-mail: [email protected] 2 1. Introduction Over the recent decades, post-Keynesian economics has developed as leading school of thought in heterodox economics, in particular in heterodox macroeconomics. Several textbooks or textbook-like monographs have been published in the recent years, summarising the state of the arts of this school (Hein 2014, 2023a, Blecker and Setterfield 2019, Lavoie 2022). While some of these books also devote some chapter to the history of post-Keynesian economics, a few monographs (King 2003, Harcourt 2006, Pasinetti 2007) and recent papers (Lee 2002, Kerr 2005, Rochon 2023) have exclusively discussed the history of this school of thought. However, the focus of these contributions has been mainly on the development in the UK and the USA, with little attention to other countries. 1 Regarding Germany, there are only a few short publications on the intellectual and institutional development of (post-) Keynesian economics in this country in general, like Niechoj (2012) and Hagemann (2019), or on specific networks based in Germany with post-Keynesian participation, like the Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) (Hein and Priewe 2009, Gechert et al. 2017), the German Keynes Society (Keynes Gesellschaft) (Kromphardt 2005), or the German Association for Political Economy (Arbeitskreis Politische Ökonomie) (Hödl 1988). As Hagemann (2019) summarised, Keynes’s work on macroeconomics and economic policies, starting with his Economic Consequences of the Peace (Keynes 1919), his contribution to the Spiethoff Festschrift outlining his new research programme of a monetary theory of production (Keynes 1933), and finally his General Theory (Keynes 1936), were well received and discussed in German academics in the 1920s and early 1930s, without having a direct impact on macroeconomic policies. 2 When the Nazis came to power in 1933, this discussion was marginalised towards German emigrants. After world war II then, economics at German universities was dominated by the neoclassical synthesis, as presented in the textbooks of Erich Schneider (1946, 1948, 1952), for example. 3 In economic policies, German ordoliberalism, the Freiburg School (Eucken 1965), dominated in the conservative (CDU-led) governments of the 1950s and 1960s, focussing on competition polices, stable inflation, and redistribution through welfare state policies for social acceptance, laying the conceptual foundations for the German ‘social market economy’. 4 In the recession 1966-67, however, the neoclassical synthesis, including counter-cyclical fiscal policies as key economic policy element, became effective with the passing of the Stability and Growth Act under the grand coalition government of conservatives (CDU/CSU) and social democrats (SPD), with economics minister (and later economics and finance minister) Karl Schiller. However, with the stagflation crisis in the mid-1970s, this short-lived period of short-run Keynesian stabilisation policies, since 1969 under a social democratic-led government with the liberals (SPD-FDP), terminated. It was replaced by monetarist supply-side approaches dominating since the early 1980s, in 1 King (2003, chap. 7) has at least a few pages each on the history of post-Keynesian economics in Australia, Austria, Canada, France and Italy. 2 More detailed assessments and material of the economic policy debate in Germany of the late 1920s/early 1930s can be found in Bombach et al. (1976a, 1976b, 1981). 3 Even the German trade union publishing house published a German translation of Samuelson’s economics textbook (Samuelson 1981) – which was also the first economics textbook I bought in the mid 1980s! 4 On the German economic history from 1945-1980, see Abelshauser (1983). 3 particular when the conservatives took over government again in 1982 with the liberals (CDU/CSU-FDP), however in a more modest way than in the US (Reagan) and the UK (Thatcher). While German re-unification in 1990 and the following massive transfers towards the new federal states in the east generated a short-run Keynesian-type demand boom, this policy approach did not fundamentally change. This is also true for the period after the introduction of the euro in 1999 and the new social democratic-green (SPD-Grüne) government (1998-2005), which continued the supply-side orientation of economic policies. This was then reinforced by the Maastricht regime, largely following new consensus macroeconomics (NCM), with an independent central bank for the Eurozone as a whole focussing on price stability first, highly restricted fiscal policies of member countries coordinated by the Stability and Growth Pact, and labour market policies focussed on reducing the NAIRU by means of structural reforms. 5 This policy approach supporting the German export-led mercantilist demand and growth regime, 6 also dominated with the following governments, either grand coalition (CDU/CSU-SPD, 2005-9, 2013-21), conservative-liberal (CDU/CSU-FDP, 2009-13), or social democratic-green-liberal (SPD-Grüne-FDP, 2021-24). While the stagnation crisis of the early 2000s was prolonged and intensified by restrictive macroeconomic policies, and fiscal policies in particular (Hein and Truger 2005a), the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession (2007-09), as well as the Covid 19 crisis (2020) have seen expansionary fiscal policies in the neoclassical synthesis vein fighting the deep recessions. However, those were followed by attempts at fiscal consolidation after the crisis again, including the introduction of the infamous German ‘debt brake’ in 2009 (Hein and Detzer 2016, Hein 2024a). Against this background, heterodox or post-Keynesian economics have not played any role in German universities or economic policies during the 1950s and 1960s, when the neoclassical synthesis and ordo-liberalism dominated. Only a few professors were pursuing alternative approaches, or were at least open to them, like Erich Preiser in Heidelberg and Munich (Preiser 1967, 1970, 1992, Schmidt 1998), Albert Jeck in Kiel (Jeck 1970), Wolfgang Stützel in Saarbrücken (Stützel 1978, 2017, Ellermann et al. 2017), or Werner Hofmann in Göttingen and Marburg (Hofmann 1971, 1987a, 1987b, Schui 1987), at the latter university, however, in sociology. Only with the reform and expansion of the university sector in the 1970s, there was a window of opportunity for heterodox scholars to be appointed as university professors, in particular at newly established ‘reform universities’. However, with the retirement wave since the early 2000s of those heterodox professors hired in the 1970s, heterodox economics, and even neoclassical synthesis mainstream Keynesian economics, have faced the pressure to disappear from German universities. 7 Therefore, this paper aims at providing an intellectual and institutional landscape of postKeynesian economics in Germany from the 1970s until recently. It will thus fill a gap in the 5 On the Maastricht regime and the NCM, see Arestis and Sawyer (2011) and Hein (2013), for example. 6 On the German demand and growth regime and the respective macroeconomic policy regime, see Hein and Martschin (2021). 7 See Heise et al. (2017) for an account of the rise and the decline of heterodox economics in general at German universities since the early 1970s. 4 international literature on the history of post-Keynesian economics. The focus will be on the contributions of German or Germany-based authors, irrespective of their nationality, to postKeynesian research viewed from a ‘broad tent’ perspective (Hein and Lavoie 2019, Lavoie 2022, chap. 1, Hein 2023a, chap. 2) and to the different strands within this broad-tent postKeynesian economics. 8 The focus will be on the scientific contributions and it is not implied that the respective authors will always consider themselves to be post-Keynesians or to adhere to some of the different strands of post-Keynesian economics. In fact, some of them may prefer to be seen as ‘(applied) macroeconomists’ or as ‘Keynesian economists’ without being associated with post-Keynesian economics. Therefore, when we include their research into post-Keynesian economics or into any strand of post-Keynesian economics, this is according to our criteria and the authors may not necessarily agree with these classifications. 9 Based on our assessment of post-Keynesian work ‘made in Germany’ in this way, we will then also shed some light on the institutional development of post-Keynesian research and teaching at German universities and the establishment of academic associations and networks, institutes and academic journals, which are open to post-Keynesian economics. The paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, the main features and the different strands of post-Keynesian economics in general are recapitulated applying a ‘broad tent’ approach, which then allows us to assess the work of authors based in Germany in Section 3. In this context the different strands of post-Keynesian economics are somewhat modified and applied to the contributions of academic economists based in Germany. Having identified post-Keynesian work ‘made in Germany’ according to our criteria, Section 4 then turns to the institutional development of so-defined post-Keynesian economics in this country. It touches upon the development of university departments and programmes with relevant postKeynesian research and teaching and at textbook published by authors contributing to postKeynesian economics. Furthermore, it reviews economic councils, research institutes, associations and networks with relevant post-Keynesian contributions, and it looks at journals and publishers based in Germany, which are open for post-Keynesian economics. Section 5 summarises and concludes. 2. Main features and strands of post-Keynesian economics in general Following Lavoie (2022, chap. 1) and Hein (2023a, chap. 2), we apply the 10 main features of post-Keynesian economics summarised in Table 1 in order to identify post-Keynesian work. 8 We will only selectively include the work of German emigrants who have contributed to post-Keynesian work, like Jörg Bibow (Skidmore College, US), Thomas Goda (AFIT University Medellin, Colombia), Alexander Guschanski (University Greenwich, UK), Jens Hoelscher (Bournemouth, UK), Alfred Kleinknecht (Technical University Delft, Netherlands), Karsten Kohler (University Leeds, UK), Sophia Kuehnlenz (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK), Heinz D. Kurz (University Graz, Austria), Waltraud Schelkle (European University Institute, San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy), Enno Schröder (Technical University Delft, Netherlands), Willi Semmler (New School for Social Research, New York, US), or Isabella Weber (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, US). Only the work of those who have spent a major part of their academic career in the German academic sector will be included, without strictly considering when and where the work was produced. 9 Generally, we will only refer to the work of senior researchers at German universities and universities of applied sciences with only a few exceptions. The work of PhD students and junior researchers is only considered if coauthored by senior researchers in order to avoid pre-mature identification with post-Keynesian economics. 5 These include the five pre-suppositions, which post-Keynesian economics has in common with other heterodox schools of thought in economics and which distinguish these schools from orthodox economics, and another five core claims which are then specific to post-Keynesian economics. Table 1: Ten main features of post-Keynesian economics Five presuppositions Five core claims 1. Epistemology/Ontology: realism 6. Non-neutrality of money in the short and in the long run 2. Rationality: environment consistent rationality and satisficing agents 7. Principle of effective demand in the short and in the long run 3. Method: holism and organicism 8. Fundamental uncertainty 4. Economic core: production and growth 9. Historical and irreversible time, path dependence 5. Political core: regulated markets 10. Distribution conflict Source: (Hein 2023a, p. 14) Different strands in post-Keynesian economics have been assessed since Hamouda and Harcourt (1988), as reviewed by Lavoie (2022, chap. 1). Here we will follow the distinction proposed by Lavoie (2022, p. 45) and also used by Hein (2023a, pp. 11–12):  The first strand is represented by the fundamentalist post-Keynesians, directly inspired by John Maynard Keynes, the older Joan Robinson, as well as Paul Davidson, Hyman Minsky, G.L.S. Shackle, and Sydney Weintraub. Major themes are fundamental uncertainty, the features of a monetary production economy, financial instability, and methodological issues.  The Kaleckians are the second strand, drawing on the works of Michal Kalecki, Josef Steindl, and the younger Joan Robinson, with cost-plus pricing, class conflict, effective demand, income distribution and growth as major themes.  The third strand consists of the Kaldorians, basing their works on the contributions by Nicholas Kaldor, Anthony Thirlwall, Roy F. Harrod, Richard Goodwin, John Cornwall, and Wynne Godley. The major themes are economic growth, productivity regimes, structural change, open economy constraints to growth, and the nexus between the economic and the financial system.  The Sraffians or neo-Ricardians constitute the fourth strand, drawing on the works of Piero Sraffa and Pierangelo Garegnani, and focussing on issues like relative prices in multi-sectoral production systems, choice of techniques, capital theory, long-period equilibrium positions of the economy, and recently also on autonomous demand driven growth.  The fifth strand are the institutionalists, relying on the works of Thorstein Veblen, Gardiner Means, P.W.S Andrews, John Kenneth Galbraith, Abba Lerner, and Alfred Eichner, and concentrating on themes like pricing, the theory of the firm, monetary institutions, behavioural and labour economics. 6 All these five strands share the ten main features of post-Keynesian economics as presented in Table 1. We will use a slightly modified distinction in the next section in order to structure our presentation of post-Keynesian research made in Germany, on the one hand, and to facilitate the understanding of the relationships of German contributions to the international discussion in post-Keynesian economics, on the other hand. 3. Post-Keynesian economics made in Germany: contributions to the different strands As pointed out in the introduction, when assessing the contributions of Germany-based authors to post-Keynesian economics and its different strands, the focus will be on the scientific work and not on the authors as such. Furthermore some authors have contributed to different strands, as will be seen below. Finally, we somewhat modify the strands mentioned in Section 2 by including a strand working on or making use of Marx-Keynes connections. Further, the institutionalist strand is extended to include hybrid economic policy work. In particular this strand contains some work which may also be viewed as critical or dissenting mainstream contributions, which share broad similarities with post-Keynesian perspectives when it comes to shortand long-run economic policy implications. 3.1 Contributions to the fundamentalist post-Keynesian strand A specifically German version of the post-Keynesian fundamentalist strand is the Berlin monetary Keynesian school based on the works by Hajo Riese (1983, 1986, 1987, 2001, 2004). 10 Different from the international Davidson/Weintraub fundamentalist strand, with its focus on uncertainty and its rejection of equilibrium economics (Davidson 2011), Riese argued that an alternative to the neoclassical paradigm requires an equilibrium model with a reversed hierarchy of markets. Whereas in the neoclassical real exchange paradigm, the labour market determining the full employment equilibrium is at the top, in the monetary Keynesian approach the money and credit markets are first, followed by the goods market and finally the labour market. Liquidity preference does not determine money demand but credit supply, and the rate of interest as a monetary phenomenon is given by the liquidity premium of money, in an endogenous money framework. Unemployment is an equilibrium feature of the system, required to maintain a constant price level or constant inflation. Economic policies have to accept these constraints and the central bank and the state have to act as ‘market participants’. A variant of this approach has been presented by Heinsohn’s and Steiger’s (1984, 1996, 2006) concept of the property premium explaining the rate of interest. 11 Property ownership implies the ability to collateralise assets for credit, enabling lenders to charge a premium (interest) as compensation for relinquishing liquidity and assuming risk. Interest thus emerges as a systemic outcome of property-based economies, distinct from barter systems. Riese’s monetary Keynesian approach has also been taken to the international level. The concept of a currency hierarchy and a currency premium explain international interest rate 10 For a short summary, see Fritsche (2022). For further presentations and extensions, see Herr (2009, 2014a) and Heise (2009, 2019), for example. 11 See also Stadermann and Steiger (2006a, 2006b), Steiger (2006), and Heinsohn et al. (2013). 7 differentials, because a low currency premium has to be compensated by a higher interest rate in order to stabilise the exchange rate (Herr 1992, Nitsch 1995, 1999, Metzger 2003, 2006, De Paula et al. 2017, Fritz et al. 2018, Herr and Nettekoven 2022, Priewe 2022a). A low currency premium hence turns into a monetary constraint of economic development. The monetary Keynesian perspective has been used to analyse macroeconomic policy regimes, that is the interplay of monetary, fiscal and wage/incomes policy against the background of the international context, as for example by Heine et al. (2006) and Herr and Kazandziska (2011) for advanced capitalist economies and by Priewe and Herr (2005) for emerging economies. Studies on central banks and their policies include contributions by Spahn (2001, 2007) on central banking in general, by Herr (2014b) and Heine and Herr (2021a) on the European Central Bank (ECB), and by Spahn (1988) on the Deutsche Bundesbank. The problems of European economic and monetary integration and the related macroeconomic policies have been assessed by Thomasberger (1993), Stadermann (2014), Heise (2015), and Heine and Herr (2021b), for example. Heine and Herr (2024) have recently also provided an analysis of several inflation episodes in advanced capitalist economies from a monetary Keynesian perspective. Although not part of the monetary Keynesian approach, also the work by Ambrosi (1981, 2003) on Keynes’s employment function and by Hartwig (2006, 2007, 2017) on Keynes’s principle of effective demand belong to the fundamentalist strand of post-Keynesian economics. The same holds true for Barens’s (1987, 1997) work on money and unemployment in Keynes and his assessment of Hicks’s IS-LM model as a representation of Keynes’s approach, the latter also together with Caspari (Barens and Caspari 1999), as well as for Bibow’s (1995) work on the finance motive of money demand in Keynes’s work. 3.2 Contributions to the Kaleckian post-Keynesian strand Authors based in Germany have contributed to several areas within the Kaleckian strand of post-Keynesian economics. This includes the examination or Bowley’s law of a long-run constancy of functional income share from the perspective of Kalecki’s theory of functional income distribution (Krämer 1996, 2011), as well as the application of Kalecki’s distribution theory to the recent period of finance-dominated capitalism (Hein 2015), with respective empirical applications (Dünhaupt 2017, Hein et al. 2017, 2018, Dünhaupt and Hein 2019). In this strand, we also have the contributions to the empirical assessment of wage-/profitled demand and growth regimes (Hein and Krämer 1997, Hein and Vogel 2008, 2009, Hartwig 2013, 2014, Woodgate 2022, Dammerer et al. 2024) based on the theoretical model by Bhaduri and Marglin (1990) and Kurz (1990, chap. 10), as well as to the inclusion of the distributional effects on productivity growth and hence on the long-run overall regime (Hein and Tarassow 2010, Hartwig 2013, 2014). The explicit consideration of money, credit and a monetary interest rate in Kaleckian distribution and growth models has been another major topic (Hein 2007, 2008), including the empirical assessment of the effect of interest rate changes in these models (Hein and Ochsen 2003, Hein and Schoder 2011). Kaleckian distribution and growth models have been extended to include the main macroeconomic features of ‘financialisation’ or finance-dominated 14 of post-Keynesian research at the University Bremen vanished. 13 However, at the HTW Berlin, the generational transition was successfully mastered, and this university of applied sciences is currently (early 2025) still a centre of post-Keynesian research in the broader sense. A new centre has emerged at the University of Duisburg-Essen with the Institute for Socio-Economics founded in 2017. Furthermore, there are a few places with at least two professors in postKeynesian research, like the Berlin School of Economics and Law (HWR Berlin), the University of Technology Chemnitz, the Department of Socioeconomics at the University of Hamburg, and the University of Applied Sciences Karlsruhe. When it comes to graduate studies, we currently find pluralist Master programmes with some post-Keynesian contents at these universities. These include the Master International and Development Economics 14 at HTW Berlin, the Master International Economics 15 at the Berlin School of Economics and Law, which has participated in several Erasmus Mundus Masters, currently in the Master Economic Policies for the Global Bifurcation (EPOG-JM) 16 , the Master Economics 17 at the University of Technology Chemnitz, the Master of SocioEconomics 18 at the University Duisburg Essen, and the Master Labour, Economy and Society 19 at the University Hamburg. Furthermore, there are some doctoral programmes funded by the Hans Böckler Foundation (Hans Böckler Stiftung, HBS), like ‘Bounded Rationality, Heterogeneity and Network Effects’ 20 at the University of Bamberg, ‘Finance and Inequality in Times of Polycrisis (EQALFIN)’ 21 at the Free University Berlin in cooperation with HTW Berlin, and ‘Political Economy of Inequality’ 22 at the Institute for Socio-Economics of the University Duisburg-Essen. Of course, there have also been several PhD students working with professors contributing to post-Keynesian economics independently of these funded doctoral programmes, at universities of applied sciences usually in cooperation with some domestic or foreign university. 23 13 For a case study on the decline of heterodox economics including post-Keynesian economics at the University of Bremen, see Heise et al. (2017, chap. 5). 14 More on the Master International and Development Economics at HTW Berlin can be found here: https://mide.htw-berlin.de/ (10.1.2025). 15 More on the Master International Economics at the Berlin School of Economics and Law can be found here: https://www.hwr-berlin.de/en/study/degree-programmes/detail/23-international-economics/ (10.1.2025). 16 More on the Erasmus Mundus Master Economic Policies for the Global Bifurcation (EPOG-JM) can be found here: https://www.epog.eu/ (10.1.2025). 17 More on the Master Economics at the University of Technology Chemnitz can be found here: https://www.tuchemnitz.de/wirtschaft/studium/master/eco/ (10.1.2025). 18 More on the Master Socio-Economics at the University Duisburg-Essen can be found here: https://www.unidue.de/soziooekonomie/master_en (10.1.2025). 19 More on the Master Labour, Economy and Society at the University Hamburg can be found here https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/en/studienbuero-sozialoekonomie/studiengaenge/ma-awg.html (10.1.2025). 20 More on the doctoral programme ‘Bounded Rationality, Heterogeneity and Network Effects’ at the University Bamberg is provided here: https://www.uni-bamberg.de/en/econ-rtg/ (10.1.2025). 21 More on the doctoral programme ‘Finance and Inequality in Times of Polycrisis (EQALFIN)’ at the Free University Berlin and HTW Berlin is provided here: https://www.equalfin.de/ (10.1.2025). 22 More on the doctoral programme ‘Political Economy of Inequality’ at the University Duisburg-Essen is provided here: https://www.uni-due.de/soziooekonomie/promotionskolleg_en (10.1.2025). 23 For example, several PhD students at the Berlin School of Economics and Law (HWR Berlin) in the area of postKeynesian economics have been doing their PhD in cooperation with the Universite Sorbonne Paris Nord. They 15 Table 2: Professors with post-Keynesian work at German universities and universities applied sciences since early 1970s and current graduate programmes University Professors contributing to post-Keynesian work Period Current (2025) pluralist/heterodox graduate programmes with some post-Keynesian contents TU Aachen Zinn 1970-2004 U Bamberg Proano Since 2015 HBS funded Doctoral Programme ‘Bounded Rationality, Heterogeneity and Network Effects’ FC Berlin Woodgate Since 2023 FU Berlin Riese 1971-2001 HBS funded Doctoral Programme with HTW Berlin ‘Finance and Inequality in Times of Polycrisis (EQALFIN)’ Nitsch 1977-2005 Flaschel 1980-1985 Fritz Since 2005 (FHTW) HTW Berlin Priewe 1993-2014 Master International and Development Economics (MIDE) HBS funded Doctoral Programme with FU Berlin ‘Finance and Inequality in Times of Polycrisis (EQALFIN)’ Heine 1994-2015 Thomasberger 1994-2017 Evans 2003-2006 Dullien Since 2007 Joebges Since 2010 Logeay Since 2010 Lindner Since 2019 (FHW) HWR Berlin Stadermann 1984-2007 Master International Economics (MIE) Erasmus Mundus Master Economic Policies for the Global Bifurcation (EPOG-JM) Herr 1994-2016 Evans 2006-2015 Hein Since 2009 Truger 2012-2019 Metzger Since 2014 TU Berlin Kromphardt 1980-2001 U Bielefeld Flaschel 1985-2021 Semmler 1997-2007 UAS Brandenburg Tarassow Since 2023 U Bremen Hickel 1971-2010 Leithäuser 1972-2000 Huffschmid 1973-2005 Steiger 1973-2004 Schui 1974-1980 Kalmbach 1975-2005 Kurz 1979-1988 Hagemann 1982-1988 TU Chemnitz Helmedag 1993-2019 Master Economics Hartwig Since 2016 Gechert Since 2021 have been working and collaborating within the ‘Growth Regime Working Group’ of the Institute for International Political Economy (IPE) of the Berlin School of Economics and Law (https://www.ipeberlin.org/en/research/financialisation-macroeconomics-and-economic-policies/growth-regime-workinggroup-grwg-of-the-ipe-berlin/, 10.1.2025). 16 Table 2 continued: Professors with post-Keynesian work at German universities and universities applied sciences since early 1970s and current graduate programmes University Professors contributing to post-Keynesian work Period Current (2025) pluralist/heterodox graduate programmes with some post-Keynesian contents TU Darmstadt Caspari 1995-2019 Barens 1999-2018 UAS Darmstadt Priewe 1982-1993 U Duisburg-Essen Horn 2012-2019 Master Socioeconomics HBS funded Doctoral Programme ‘Political Economy of Inequality’ van Treeck Since 2013 Kapeller Since 2019 Rehm Since 2019 Truger Since 2019 U Frankfurt Schefold 1974-2012 U Freiburg Oberhauser 1962-1995 U Giessen Kromphardt 1968-1980 Scherf 1996-2022 (HWP) U Hamburg Schui 1980-2005 Master Labour, Economy and Society – Economic and Sociological Studies Heise Since 2002 Fritsche Since 2008 U Hohenheim Hagemann 1988-2015 Spahn 1992-2017 UAS Karlsruhe Krämer Since 1999 Schmidt Since 2011 U Kiel Jeck 1969-2000 U Lüneburg Huth (???)-2022 U Oldenburg Schüler 1981-2009 Trautwein 2000-2025 U Osnabrück Glombowski 1993-2007 UAS Rhein Waal Niechoj Since 2012 U Saarbrücken Stützel 1958-1987 U Trier Filc 1981-2008(?) Ambrosi 1992-2010 U Wuppertal Schettkat 2004-2020(?) U Würzburg Bofinger 1992-2020 Notes: Italics: active in the period from the 1970s until the late 1990s/early 2000s, bold: active in 2025 U: University, TU: Technical University, UAS: University of Applied Sciences, FHTW: Fachhochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft, FHW: Fachhochschule für Wirtschaft, FC: Forward College, HTW: Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft, HWP: Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Politik, HWR: Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht. ?: Dates could not be verified. Sources: University and individual websites of professors, Wikipedia entries, obituaries Finally, academics doing post-Keynesian research in Germany have also been quite productive in publishing textbooks supporting their teaching, as can be seen in Table 3. The topics cover introductory textbooks to economics in general and to macroeconomics more specifically. But there are also more advanced books on (post-Keynesian) macroeconomics, distribution and growth, as well as on (international) monetary economics, monetary and economic policy, and 17 on the theory of production. Furthermore, there are several introductory books and collected essays on the history of economic thought, which has been a main area of research of several professors contributing to post-Keynesian work. Table 3: Textbooks and introductory collected essays by German authors contributing to post-Keynesian work Introductions to microand macroeconomics Advanced macroeconomics, distribution and growth  Bofinger (2020c): introduction to economics  Dullien et al (2018): introduction to macroeconomics  Ehnts (2022b, 2023, 2024): introductions to modern money theory (MMT)  Heine and Herr (2013): introduction to microand macroeconomics  Kromphardt (2006): introduction to macroeconomics  Prante et al. (2023, 2024): introductions to macroeconomics  Trautwein (2018): introduction to macroeconomics,  Zinn (1998): introduction to macroeconomics  Flaschel et al. (2008): Keynesian macroeconomics  Hein (2014, 2018c): distribution and growth  Hein (2023a): post-Keynesian macroeconomics  Hein and Stockhammer (2011b): postKeynesian macroeconomics and economic policies  Kromphardt (1993): growth and trade cycle  Kromphardt (1998): unemployment and inflation,  Spahn (1999): macroeconomics  Zinn (2002): trade cycle and growth (International) monetary economics, monetary and economic policy Theory of production  Bofinger et al. (1997): monetary policy  Heise (2010): economic policy  Spahn (2006): monetary policy  Stadermann (1994): monetary economics and monetary policy  Stadermann (1988): international monetary economics  Kurz and Salvadori (1997): theory of production History of economic thought  Dimand and Hagemann (2019): Keynes  Kromphardt (2013): Keynes  Kromphardt (2015): history of economic thought  Kurz (2008, 2009, 2013b, 2016): history of economic thought  Sandelin, Trautwein et al. (2008): history of economic thought,  Zinn (1987): history of political economy 4.2 Associations, networks, councils, research institutes 4.2.1 The national dimension: an overview As explained in the introduction, German economics and economic policies have been dominated by different variants of orthodox economics. This is also true for the German Economic Association (Verein für Socialpolitik). Only in the Standing Field Committee History of Economic Thought (Ausschuss für Geschichte der Wirtschaftswissenschaft), we find a 18 relevant number of researchers who have contributed to post-Keynesian work in the broader sense, as reviewed in Section 3 above. 24 Also the German Council of Economic Experts (Sachverständigenrat Wirtschaft, SVR), founded in 1963 and producing annual reports on the state of and the outlook for the German economy for the German government, has been dominated by orthodox economists. 25 Only a few members of this Council have been among those German researchers who have contributed to post-Keynesian research: Wolfgang Stützel (1966-1968), Jürgen Kromphardt (1999-2004), Peter Bofinger (2004-2019), and Achim Truger (since 2019). The latter three were nominated by the German Trade Union Confederation (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, DGB), which has an informal right to nominate one of the five members to the Council of Economic Experts, as have the German Employer Associations. The major research institutes in Germany have been dominated by orthodox economists, too. However, a few professors in Germany contributing to post-Keynesian research have had a period at these institutes. 26 This is true for Klaus W. Schüler, who was at the ifo Institute for Economic Research in Munich before becoming a professor at Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg. It also applies to Gustav Horn, Ulrich Fritsche and Camille Logeay, who were at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, DIW), in the forecasting department. This department was headed by Horn, before he moved on to become the director of the newly founded Macroeconomic Policy Institute (Institut für Makroökonomie und Konjunkturforschung, IMK) in the Hans Böckler Foundation from 2005 – 2019. As IMK director, he was succeeded by Sebastian Dullien in 2019, who has also remained a professor at HTW Berlin. Several professors contributing to post-Keynesian economics have worked as senior researchers at the IMK before joining German universities and universities of applied sciences: Sebastian Gechert (University of Technology Chemnitz), Eckhard Hein (Berlin School of Economics and Law, HWR), Heike Joebges, Camille Logeay, Fabian Lindner (all HTW Berlin), Torsten Niechoj (Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences), Christian Proano (University Bamberg), as well as Achim Truger and Till van Treeck (both University Duisburg-Essen). 27 Also the other research institute 24 On the published list we find: Ingo Barens, Volker Caspari, Dirk Ehnts, Harald Hagemann, Jochen Hartwig, Fritz Helmedag, Hagen Krämer, Jürgen Kromphardt, Heinz D. Kurz, Bertram Schefold, Johannes Schmidt, Peter Spahn, and Hans-Michael Trautwein (https://historyeconomicthought.committee.socialpolitik.de/sites/default/files/2023-04/mitglieder%202023.pdf, 10.1.2025). Also in the Standing Field Committee Economic Policy (Wirtschaftspolitischer Ausschuss), we find a few researchers having contributed to post-Keynesian economics in our broad definition: Peter Bofinger, Fritz Helmedag and Peter Spahn (https://economic-policy.committee.socialpolitik.de/sites/default/files/202207/Mitgliederverzeichnis_0.pdf (10.1.2025). 25 More information on the German Council of Economic Experts can be found here https://www.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de/en/index.html (10.1.2025) and here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachverst%C3%A4ndigenrat_zur_Begutachtung_der_gesamtwirtschaftlichen_Ent wicklung (10.1.2025). 26 Information provided in this paragraph has been retrieved from the websites of the researchers mentioned here. 27 The IMK has also hosted several post-Keynesian visiting scholars in the past, like Hagen Krämer, Tom Palley and Engelbert Stockhammer. Currently, Isabella Weber and Peter Bofinger are among the senior research fellows of the IMK (https://www.imk-boeckler.de/de/senior-research-fellows-15359.htm, 28.3.2025). 19 of the trade union related Hans Böckler Foundation, the Institute for Economic and Social Research (Wirtschaftsund Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut, WSI), has been the host of postKeynesian professors before their university career, like Arne Heise (University Hamburg). Also Eckhard Hein and Achim Truger were senior researchers at the WSI before moving on to the IMK, and then to the university sector. In the face of the dominance of orthodox economists in Germany, with the exception of the trade union related research institutes, the opening of universities to heterodox professors also saw the establishment of alternative associations and networks. The first was the Working Group Alternative Economic Policies (Arbeitsgruppe Alternative Wirtschaftspolitik/Memorandum Gruppe), 28 founded as a network in 1975 by Rudolf Hickel, Jörg Huffschmid and Herbert Schui, then all based at the University of Bremen. Since 1977, the group has published annual memoranda criticising the orthodox economic policies in Germany and providing economic policy alternatives to those recommended by the orthodox majority of the Council of Economic Experts. The analyses and the policy alternatives have been based on Marxian and post-Keynesian foundations, as becomes clear in Hickel (1979) and Huffschmid (1979). The group, composed of academics in the social sciences, as well as trade union and social movement activists, has also been running annual conferences and summer schools, with a clear focus on developing and providing alternative economic policy concepts. 29 The German Association for Political Economy (Arbeitskreis Politische Ökonomie), 30 was founded in 1977, two years after the Working Group Alternative Economic Policies, because several researchers did not subscribe to the Marxian/post-Keynesian orientation of the Memorandum Group. 31 Reviewing the initial decade of the Association for Political Economy, Hödl (1988) distinguished different theoretical strands within this association: a critical neoclassical strand (Haslinger and Schneider 1983, Vogt 1983, Schneider 1988), which keeps the neoclassical methodological individualism and the general equilibrium framework as a reference model but concedes market imperfections and focusses on the distribution of initial 28 More information on the Working Group Alternative Economic Policies is provided here: https://www.alternative-wirtschaftspolitik.de/ (10.1.2025). 29 Jörg Huffschmid (University of Bremen), the co-founder of the German Working Group Alternative Economic Policies, was also the driving force in establishing the European Economists for an Alternative Economic Policy (EuroMemo Group) in 1995 (https://euromemo.eu/, 10.1.2025), initially also as a network (Huffschmid 2006). When Huffschmid passed away in 2009, Trevor Evans (Berlin School of Economics and Law) took over the role as a coordinator, and since 2019 Werner Raza (Vienna) has been chairing the committee of the since then legal association. 30 For more information on the German Association for Political Economy, see https://www.uniflensburg.de/sozial-und-bildungsoekonomik/akpoloek/ (10.1.2025) and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeitskreis_politische_%C3%96konomie (10.1.2025). 31 For debates between members of the Working Group Alternative Economic Policies and of the Association for Political Economy, see for example Riese’s (1979) monetary Keynesian and Geipel’s et al. (1979) critical neoclassical assessments of the theoretical foundations of the Memorandum Group and its economic policy proposals, and Hickel’s (1979) and Huffschmid’s (1979) defences. See also Spahn‘s (1983) critique of the oversaving and excess profit explanation of stagnation proposed by the Memorandum Group and Hickel’s and Schui’s (1983) response. For a discussion of the critical or radical neoclassical approach, as a main strand in the German Association for Political Economy, see the contributions in Hickel (1986). 20 endowments, and then the monetary Keynesian strand, the Sraffian/neo-Ricardian strand and a Marxian-post-Keynesian strand, as we have reviewed in Section 3 of this paper as different strands of post-Keynesian economics. The Association for Political Economy organised two conferences per year focussing on different subjects with regular book publications of the conference proceedings, in particular the yearbook Ökonomie und Gesellschaft (Economy and Society). It was finally dissolved in 2019 because of a downwards trend in conference participation and a lack of interest in organising further conferences. 32 The German Keynes Society (Keynes Gesellschaft), founded in 2003 and currently with around 180 members, has focused on providing information about Keynes and his work to German students and the German public in German (Kromphardt 2005). 33 For that purpose it has been running a website with introductions to Keynes’s main contributions, further developments by (post-)Keynesian authors and comparisons with monetarist and new Keynesian approaches. Since 2006, the Keynes Society has organised annual conferences, it has published the conference contributions in a book series with Metropolis Verlag (see more below in Section 4.3), and it has awarded prizes for researchers, for journalists and for young scholars. The Keynes Society was initially chaired by Jürgen Kromphardt (Technical University Berlin, 2003-13), who was then succeeded by Harald Hagemann (University Hohenheim, 201319), Gustav Horn (University Duisburg-Essen, 2019-2025), and recently by Hagen Krämer (UAS Karlsruhe, since 2025). 4.2.2 The international dimension: the Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) The Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) is currently the most important network for post-Keynesian economics in Germany, and is has also reached high international visibility and attractiveness. 34 The FMM was founded as Research Network Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (Forschungsnetzwerk Makroökonomie und makroökonomische Politik, FMM) in 1996, and has been funded by the Hans Böckler Foundation (HBS) since then. It was organisationally based at the WSI of the HBS until 2005, when it moved to the newly founded IMK of the HBS. Its mission is outlined on the FMM website as follows: ‘(T)he Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) has served as an international platform for research, analysis and discussions of macroeconomic issues, mainly from a Keynesian and post-Keynesian perspective, but also open to other paradigms. We strive for more pluralism in the economics profession. Macroeconomic theory is seen as the basis for policies, which aim at high employment, low inflation, financial stability, environmental sustainability, reduced inequality, and the eradication of poverty.’ 32 E-mail by the long-time chairman Gerd Grözinger to members on 29 October 2019. 33 More information on the German Keynes Society is provided here: https://keynes-gesellschaft.de (10.1.2025). 34 For more information on the Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM), see https://www.fmm-macro.net (10.1.2025). See also the overviews in Hein and Priewe (2009) and in Gechert et al. (2017). 21 The FMM has organised annual workshops/conferences, graduate student summer schools (since 2008), it has been running a website and a newsletter, edited a working paper series (since 2017), established a network of FMM fellows (since 2017), published the FMM book series with Metropolis Publishing House (Metropolis Verlag), and it has closely cooperated with the European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (since 2004). For the development of the FMM three phases can be distinguished. The first phase from 1996 – 2001 saw the establishment of a German (post-)Keynesian network in order to link up the remaining researchers in Germ any in this area and to catch up with the international post-Keynesian debates. It started with a workshop in Düsseldorf with around 20 scholars, initiated by Arne Heise, then a senior researcher at the WSI of the HBS, to prepare an application to German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) on funding a research focus on ‘Alternative Concepts of Macroeconomic Policies under the Conditions of Unemployment, Globalisation and High Public Debt’ (Heise et al. 1998). This application failed, and the Hans Böckler Foundation stepped in and has funded annual workshops of the FMM since then. The workshops were prepared by a coordination group led by Arne Heise (WSI) and including Trevor Evans, Michael Heine, Jan Priewe, Claus Thomasberger (each FHTW Berlin), and Hansjörg Herr (FHW Berlin). The first FMM workshop with the topic of the DFG application took place in Berlin in October 1997, with 35 scholars attending and 14 papers presented in German. With this workshop also the publication of workshop proceedings with Metropolis Publishing House started, which then became the book series of the FMM (see more below in Section 4.3). The further annual workshops of this period had a similar number of papers in German, but gradually increasing numbers of participating scholars. The second phase from 2001 – 2009 was characterised by a rapid internationalisation of the FMM. In 2001, Eckhard Hein, then a senior researcher at the WSI and later at the IMK replaced Arne Heise in leading the coordination group. He was accompanied in this by Achim Truger, then also a senior researcher at the WSI and later the IMK, and since 2007 by Torsten Niechoj at the IMK. In 2007, Arne Heise and Michael Heine left the coordination group, and Torsten Niechoj (then at IMK), Jochen Hartwig (then at University of Zurich), Peter Spahn (University Hohenheim) and Engelbert Stockhammer (then at Vienna University of Economics) joined as new members. While the participation of international scholars, like Philip Arestis (University of Cambridge), Malcolm Sawyer (University of Leeds), Claude Gnos (University of Dijon) or Sergio Rossi (University of Fribourg), in still German language workshops had increased, in 2004 the first truly international conference on ‘Wages, Distribution and Growth’ took place, with 28 papers from 8 different countries and 90 scholars attending, parallel sessions in German and English, and plenary presentations by Philip Arestis, Amit Bhaduri and Thomas Palley, amongst others. The final breakthrough as an international conference was the 2005 FMM conference on ‘Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies – Alternatives to the Orthodoxy’, jointly organised with the Post-Keynesian Economics Study Group (PKESG, UK) and the French Association for the Development of Keynesian Studies (ADEK), with 72 22 papers from 16 different countries and 150 scholars attending. 35 Apart from publishing conference books with Metropolis, in 2004 the cooperation with Intervention: Journal of Economics (now European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention) started with the publication of special issues drawing on conference papers. From 2004 – 2006, the FMM also had two working groups meeting more frequently, one on Keynesian macroeconomics and another one on European economic policies (in cooperation with the Chamber of Labour Vienna), the latter concluding with an international workshop in Vienna and a book publication (Chaloupek et al. 2007). With the increasing fragility of the world economy and then the 2007-09 Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, the FMM conferences were gaining in relevance and attendance. The 2008 conference on ‘Macroeconomic Policies on Shaky Foundations – Whither Mainstream Economics?’ had 81 papers from 15 different countries and around 200 scholars attending, 36 while the 2009 conference on ‘The World Economy in Crisis – The Return of Keynesianism?’ had 100 papers and 240 scholars attending. 37 Towards the end of this second period, the FMM also increased its focus on and support of younger scholars. In 2006 graduate students sessions were included into the conference programmes and since 2007 a full time slot has been reserved for the presentation of graduate student papers. In 2008, the first one week FMM summer school on ‘Keynesian Economics and European Economic Policies’ with 55 participants, lecturers and graduate students, took place in Berlin, organised by Eckhard Hein, Torsten Niechoj and Engelbert Stockhammer with the support of the Hans Böckler Foundation. 38 The second summer school followed in 2009, and since then the summer school has been offered every second year, except for 2021 (Covid), when it continued in 2022 and 2024. The revised lectures of the first two summer schools were published in Hein and Stockhammer (2011a). The third period since 2009 has seen a further expansion of the activities of the FMM and the stabilisation of the annual international conferences at a high level. In 2009, Till van Treeck, then a senior research at the IMK, took over the lead in the coordination group of the FMM. He was succeeded by Sebastian Gechert, then also a senior researcher at the IMK, in 35 Plenary presentations at the 2005 FMM conference were given by Sheila Dow, Augusto Graziani, Harald Hagemann, G.C. Harcourt, Hanjörg Herr, Gustav Horn, Jörg Huffschmid, Pascal Petit, and Malcolm Sawyer (https://www.imk-boeckler.de/de/dokumentationen-15388-macroeconomics-and-macroeconomic-policiesalternatives-to-the-orthodoxy-30141.htm, 29.3.2025). 36 Plenary presentations at the 2008 FMM conference were given by Bruno Amable, David Colander, Charles Goodhart, John E. King, Thomas Palley, and Hans-Michael Trautwein (https://www.imkboeckler.de/de/dokumentationen-15388-macroeconomic-policies-on-shaky-foundations-whither-mainstreameconomics-30138.htm , 29.3.025). 37 Plenary presentations at the 2009 FMM conference were given by Philip Arestis, Steven Fazarri, Jan Kregel, Robert Pollin, Jan Priewe, and Jan Toporowski (https://www.imk-boeckler.de/de/dokumentationen-15388-theworld-economy-in-crisis-the-return-of-keynesianism-30137.htm , 29.3.2025). 38 The summer schools since 2008 have included lectures by Philip Arestis, Robert Blecker, Yannis Dafermos, Amitava Dutt, Gary Dymski, Sebastian Dullien, Steve Fazzari, Giuseppe Fontana, Sebastian Gechert, Eckhard Hein, David Howell, Heike Joebges, John E. King, Annina Kaltenbrunner, Stephen Kinsella, Marc Lavoie, John McCombie, Maria Nikolaidi, Özlem Onaran, Asjad Naqvi, Thomas Palley, Miriam Rehm, Malcolm Sawyer, Mark Setterfield, Antonella Stirati, Engelbert Stockhammer, Till van Treeck, and Gennaro Zezza (https://www.fmmmacro.net/summer-schools-14182.htm, 29.3.2025). 23 2014. Since 2016, the FMM has had two speakers, Sebastian Gechert (then IMK, 2016-2022) and Sebastian Dullien (HTW Berlin, 2016-2019), who were succeeded by Heike Joebges (HTW Berlin, since 2019), Andrew Watt (then IMK, 2022-2024), and Jan Behringer (IMK, since 2024). Also the coordination group has seen several changes in this period and is currently (early 2025) composed of: Jan Behringer (IMK, speaker), Heike Joebges (HTW Berlin, speaker), Tom Bauermann (IMK), Sebastian Dullien (IMK and HTW Berlin), Sebastian Gechert (University of Technology Chemnitz), Jochen Hartwig (University of Technology Chemnitz), Eckhard Hein (HWR Berlin), Hansjörg Herr (HWR Berlin), Christoph Paetz (IMK), Jan Priewe (HTW Berlin), Torsten Niechoj (Rhine-Waal UAS), Özlem Onaran (Greenwich University, London), Miriam Rehm (University Duisburg-Essen), Engelbert Stockhammer (King’s College, London), Till van Treeck (University Duisburg-Essen), Achim Truger (University Duisburg-Essen), and Andrew Watt (ETUI Brussels). The annual conferences have grown further, such that the 20th anniversary conference of the FMM on ‘Towards Pluralism in Macroeconomics?’ in 2016 had 120 papers and around 300 scholars attending, 39 and the 2022 joint conference with the PostKeynesian Economics Society (PKES, UK) on ‘Post-Keynesian Economics and Global Challenges’ reached the record high of 150 papers and around 350 scholars attending. 40 The following conferences on ‘Inflation, Distribution Conflict and Just Transition’ in 2023, 41 and on ‘Progressive Perspectives in Times of Polycrisis’ in 2024 have roughly maintained that level. 42 Since 2010, the annual conference has been preceded by an introductory workshop to post-Keynesian and heterodox economics with three lectures by eminent researchers. 43 Furthermore, in 2016 and 2018, Hansjörg Herr, Jan Priewe and Andrew Watt have organized additional workshops on European economic policies and have edited the respective books with the workshop contributions (Herr et al. 2017, 2019). In 2017, the FMM started appointing FMM Fellows, and currently there are 29 FMM Fellows, 44 together with the 16 members of 39 Plenary presentations at the 2016 FMM conference were given by Sebastian Dullien, Antoine Godin, Eckhard Hein, Marc Lavoie, Maria Nikolaidi, Michael Roos, Irene van Staveren, and Janina Urban (https://www.imkboeckler.de/de/dokumentationen-15388-25687.htm, 29.2.2025). 40 Plenary presentations at the 2022 FMM conference were given by Robert Blecker, Elissa Braunstein, Sebastian Gechert, Joelle Leclaire, Jo Michell, Gabriel Porcile, Daniela Prates, zlem Onaran, and Mark Setterfield (https://www.boeckler.de/de/dokumentationen-2720-26th-fmm-conference-post-keynesian-economics-andglobal-challenges-40775.htm , 29.2.2025). 41 Plenary presentations at the 2023 FMM conference were given by Leila Davis, Arindrajit Dube, Miguel GilTertre, Eckhard Hein, Marc Lavoie, Lilian N. Rolim, Christian Schoder, Servaas Storm, and Andrew Watt (https://www.imk-boeckler.de/de/dokumentationen-15388-inflation-distributional-conflict-and-just-transition46745.htm, 29.2.2025). 42 Plenary presentations at the 2024 FMM conference were given by Peter Bofinger, Giovanni Dosi, Esther Dweck, Svenja Flechtner, Robert Frank, Hansjörg Herr, Orla Kelly, Annamaria Simonazzi, and Till van Treeck (https://www.boeckler.de/de/dokumentationen-2720-progressive-perspectives-in-times-of-polycrisis57227.htm, 29.2.2025)- 43 Lecturers in these workshops have included Elisabeth Allgoewer, Philip Arestis, Laura Barbosa de Carvalho, Amit Bhaduri, Robert Blecker, Yannis Dafermos, Sebastian Dullien, Steven Fazzari, Robert Frank, Barbara Fritz, Daniela Gabor, Jayati Ghosh, Antoine Godin, Eckhard Hein, Annina Kaltenbrunner, Marc Lavoie, Tom Palley, Michael Roos, Waltraud Schelkle, Stephanie Seguino, Mark Setterfield, Elisabeth Springler, Tom Stanley, Antonella Stirati, Engelbert Stockhammer, and Till van Treeck (https://www.fmm-macro.net/conferences14184.htm, 29.3.2025). 44 These FMM fellows are: Philip Arestis, Laura Barbosa de Carvalho, Jörg Bibow, Robert Blecker, Peter Bofinger, Laura Carvalho, Yannis Dafermos, Trevor Evans, Steven Fazzari, Jesus Ferreiro, Svenja Flechtner, Barbara Fritz, 30 De Paula, L. F., Fritz, B., and Prates, D. 2017. ‘Keynes at the periphery: currency hierarchy and challenges for economic policy in emerging economies’. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 40 (2): 183–202. Detzer, D. 2018. ‘Inequality, emulation and debt: the occurrence of different growth regimes in the age of financialization in a stock-flow consistent model’. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 41 (2): 284–315. Diallo, M. B., Flaschel, P., Krolzig, H.-M., and Proaño, C. R. 2011. ‘Reconsidering the dynamic interaction between real wages and macroeconomic activity’. Research in World Economy 2 (1): 77–93. Dimand, R. W. and Hagemann, H., eds. 2019. The Elgar Companion to John Maynard Keynes. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Dodig, N. and Herr, H. 2015. ‘Current account imbalances in the EMU: an assessment of official policy responses’. Panoeconomicus 62 (2): 193–216. Dullien, S. 2006. ‘Rethinking the role of monetary policy and wage bargaining in a world without the real balance effect’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 3 (2): 279–304. Dullien, S. 2009. ‘Divergences in EMU: scope of the problem and policy options’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 6 (1): 24–32. Dullien, S. 2010. ‘Towards a sustainable growth model for Europe: institutional framework’. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft (1): 36–44. Dullien, S. 2011. ‘The New Consensus from a traditional Keynesian and post-Keynesian perspective: a worthwhile foundation for research or just a waste of time?’ Économie appliquée 64 (1): 173–200. Dullien, S. 2012. ‘Is new always better than old? On the treatment of fiscal policy in Keynesian models’. Review of Keynesian Economics (Inaugural issue): 5–23. Dullien, S. 2022. ‘Ten years on, two crises later: evaluating EMU institutional reforms since 2010’. International Journal of Political Economy 51 (1): 5–17. Dullien, S. and Fichtner, F. 2013. ‘A common unemployment insurance system for the Euro area’. DIW Economic Bulletin 3 (1): 9–14. Dullien, S. and Fritsche, U. 2009. ‘How bad is divergence in the Euro zone? Lessons from the United States and Germany’. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 31 (3): 431–457. Dullien, S., Goodwin, N., Harris, J. M., Nelson, J. A., Roach, B., and Torras, M. 2018. Macroeconomics in Context: A European Perspective. New York, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Dullien, S., Herr, H., and Kellerman, C. 2011. Decent Capitalism: A Blueprint for Reforming Our Economies. London: Pluto Press. Dullien, S. and Horn, G. 2019a. ‘Im Diskurs bestehen: Über den notwendigen Pluralismus in der ökonomischen Politikberatung’. List Forum für Wirtschaftsund Finanzpolitik 44 (4): 901–917. Dullien, S. and Horn, G. 2019b. ‘Im Diskurs bestehen. Über den notwendigen Pluralismus in der ökonomischen Politikberatung: Replik zum Kommentar von Stefan Kooths’. List Forum für Wirtschaftsund Finanzpolitik 44 (4): 927–932. 31 Dullien, S. and Tober, S. 2022. ‘A monetary Keynesian view of modern monetary theory’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 19 (2): 227–237. Dünhaupt, P. 2017. ‘Determinants of labour’s income share in the era of financialisation’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 41 (1): 283–306. Dünhaupt, P. and Hein, E. 2019. ‘Financialization, distribution, and macroeconomic regimes before and after the crisis: a post-Keynesian view on Denmark, Estonia, and Latvia’. Journal of Baltic Studies 50 (4): 435–465. Ederer, S., Hein, E., Niechoj, T., Reiner, S., Truger, A., and Van Treeck, T., eds. 2012. Interventions: 17 Interviews with Unconventional Economists (2004 - 2012). Marburg: Metropolis. Ederer, S. and Rehm, M. 2020a. ‘Will wealth become more concentrated in Europe? Evidence from a calibrated post-Keynesian model’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 44 (1): 55– 72. Ederer, S. and Rehm, M. 2020b. ‘Making sense of Piketty’s “fundamental laws” in a postKeynesian framework: the transitional dynamics of wealth inequality’. Review of Keynesian Economics 8 (2): 195–219. Ederer, S. and Rehm, M. 2021. ‘Wealth inequality and aggregate demand’. Metroeconomica 72 (2): 405–424. Ehnts, D. 2015. Geld und Kredit: eine [Euro]-päische Perspektive. Marburg: Metropolis. Ehnts, D. 2017. Modern Monetary Theory and European Macroeconomics. London, New York: Routledge. Ehnts, D. 2022a. ‘Modern Monetary Theory: the right compass for decision-making’. Intereconomics 57 (2): 128–134. Ehnts, D. 2022b. Modern Monetary Theory: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer. Ehnts, D. 2023. Makroökonomik: Wirtschaftstheorie für das 21. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Springer. Ehnts, D. 2024. Modern Money Theory: A Simple Guide to the Monetary System. Cham: Springer. Eicker-Wolf, K. 2012. ‘There is no reason why Germany should generally reduce wages - Interview with Jürgen Kromphardt’. In Interventions: 17 Interviews with Unconventional Economists (2004 - 2012), edited by S. Ederer, E. Hein, T. Niechoj, S. Reiner, A. Truger, and T. Van Treeck. Marburg: Metropolis. Eicker-Wolf, K. and Reiner, S. 2012. ‘Germany’s high unemployment is the price it is paying for its economic miracle - interview with Hajo Riese’. In Interventions: 17 Interviews with Unconventional Economists (2004 - 2012), edited by S. Ederer, E. Hein, T. Niechoj, S. Reiner, A. Truger, and T. Van Treeck. Marburg: Metropolis. Ellermann, C., Lindner, F., Reissl, S., and Tarne, R. 2017. ‘A third era of credit theory? Endogenous money from Wolfgang Stützel’s balance mechanics perspective’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 14 (1): 13–22. Eucken, W. 1965. Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie. 8th ed. Berlin et al.: Springer. Evans, T. 1997. ‘Marxian theories of credit money and capital’. International Journal of Political Economy 27 (1): 7–42. 32 Evans, T. 2002. ‘Marxian and post-Keynesian theories of finance and the business cycle’. Capital & Class 83: 47–100. Evans, T. 2009. ‘The 2002–2007 US economic expansion and the limits of finance-led capitalism’. Studies in Political Economy 83 (1): 33–59. Evans, T. 2011. ‘Five explanations for the international financial crisis’. Revista Tempo do Mundo 3 (1): 9–28. Filc, W. 2000. ‘Devisenmärkte brauchen stabilisierende Regeln’. Wirtschaftsdienst (6): 324– 332. Filc, W. 2009. ‘Inefficient markets: causes and consequences’. In Finance-led Capitalism? Macroeconomic Effects of Changes in the Financial Sector, edited by E. Hein, T. Niechoj, P. Spahn, and A. Truger. Marburg: Metropolis. Filc, W. and Klär, E. 2003. ‘Absolut oder relativ: zur Diskussion über die Konsolidierung öffentlicher Haushalte’. Wirtschaftsdienst (11): 742–748. Flaschel, P. 2015. ‘Goodwin’s MKS system: a baseline macro model’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 39 (6): 1591–1605. Flaschel, P., Franke, R., and Semmler, W. 1998. Dynamic Macroeconomics: Instability, Fluctuation, and Growth in Monetary Economies. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Flaschel, P. and Greiner, A. 2012. Flexicurity Capitalism: Foundations, Problems and Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Flaschel, P., Groh, G., and Proano, C. 2008. Keynesianische Makroökonomik: Unterbeschäftigung, Inflation und Wachstum. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Flaschel, P. and Luchtenberg, S. 2012. Roads to Social Capitalism: Theory, Evidence, and Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Flaschel, P., Luchtenberg, S., and Proaño, C. 2011. ‘Crisis as opportunity: roads towards social capitalism’. Bulletin of Political Economy 5 (1): 1–40. Flassbeck, H. 1982. ‘Was ist Angebotspolitik?’ Konjunkturpolitik 28 (2–3): 74–138. Flassbeck, H. 1988. Preise, Zins und Wechselkurs: zur Theorie der offenen Volkswirtschaft bei flexiblen Wechselkursen. Tübingen: Mohr. Flassbeck, H. 1999. ‘Moderne Finanzpolitik für Deutschland’. WSI Mitteilungen 52 (8): 498– 504. Flassbeck, H. 2000. ‘Lohnzurückhaltung für mehr Beschäftigung? Über eine zentrale Inkonsistenz im jüngsten SVR-Gutachten’. Wirtschaftsdienst 80 (2): 84–89. Flassbeck, H. 2020. Der begrenzte Planet und die unbegrenzte Wirtschaft: Lassen sich Ökonomie und Ökologie versöhnen? Frankfurt/Main: Westend. Flassbeck, H. 2024. Grundlagen einer relevanten Ökonomik. Neu-Isenburg: Westend. Flassbeck, H. and Spiecker, F. 2007. Das Ende der Massenarbeitslosigkeit: mit richtiger Wirtschaftspolitik die Zukunft gewinnen. Frankfurt/Main: Westend. Franke, R. 2015. ‘An examination of Professor Shaikh’s proposal to tame Harrodian instability’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 12 (1): 7–19. Franke, R. 2019. ‘Harrod’s long‐range capital outlay as a stabilizer of Harrodian instability’. Metroeconomica 70 (2): 302–312. 33 Franke, R. 2020. ‘An attempt at a reconciliation of the Sraffian and Kaleckian views on desired utilization’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 17 (1): 61–77. Franke, R., Flaschel, P., and Proaño, C. R. 2006. ‘Wage–price dynamics and income distribution in a semi-structural Keynes–Goodwin model’. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 17 (4): 452–465. Fritsche, U. 2022. ‘Editorial to the special issue: “We enriched him, but he also enriched us” – on Hajo Riese’s legacy for socially relevant research’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 19 (2): 224–226. Fritz, B., De Paula, L. F., and Prates, D. M. 2018. ‘Global currency hierarchy and national policy space: a framework for peripheral economies’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 15 (2): 208–218. Gabrisch, H. 2019. ‘From socialist command to a capitalist market economy: the case for an active state’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 16 (3): 327–343. Gabrisch, H. and Laski, K. 1991. ‘Transition from command to market economies’. In Dismantling the Command Economy in Eastern Europe, edited by P. Havlik. London: Routledge. Garegnani, P. 1978. ‘Notes on consumption, investment and effective demand: I’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2 (4): 335–353. Garegnani, P. 1979. ‘Notes on consumption, investment and effective demand: II’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 3 (1): 63–82. Garegnani, P. 2024. Capital Theory, the Surplus Approach, and Effective Demand: An Alternative Framework for the Analysis of Value, Distribution and Output Levels. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Gechert, S. 2015. ‘What fiscal policy is most effective? A meta-regression analysis’. Oxford Economic Papers 67 (3): 553–580. Gechert, S. 2022. ‘Reconsidering macroeconomic policy prescriptions with meta-analysis’. Industrial and Corporate Change 31 (2): 576–590. Gechert, S. 2023. ‘Fiscal policy: postor New Keynesian?’ European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 20 (2): 338–355. Gechert, S. and Heimberger, P. 2022. ‘Do corporate tax cuts boost economic growth?’ European Economic Review 147: 104157. Gechert, S., Horn, G., and Paetz, C. 2019. ‘Long-term effects of fiscal stimulus and austerity in Europe’. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 81 (3): 647–666. Gechert, S., Mey, B., Opatrny, M., Havranek, T., Stanley, T. D., Bom, P. R. D., Doucouliagos, H., Heimberger, P., Irsova, Z., and Rachinger, H. J. 2024. ‘Conventional wisdom, metaanalysis, and research revision in economics’. Journal of Economic Surveys advance access. Gechert, S., Niechoj, T., Stockhammer, E., Truger, A., and Watt, A. 2017. ‘Editorial: Towards pluralism in macroeconomics? 20th anniversary conference of the FMM research 34 network’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 14 (2): 125–130. Gechert, S. and Rannenberg, A. 2018. ‘Which fiscal multipliers are regime-dependent? A meta-regression analysis’. Journal of Economic Surveys 32 (4): 1160–1182. Gehrke, C. and Kurz, H. D. 2018. ‘Sraffa’s constructive and interpretive work, and Marx’. Review of Political Economy 30 (3): 428–442. Geipel, U., Schneider, H., and Vogt, W. 1979. ‘Möglichkeiten systemimmanenter Krisenüberwindung’. Das Argument AS 35: 70–88. Glombowski, J. 1979. ‘Ein überakkumulationstheoretisches Modell zyklischen Wachstums mit variabler Kapazitätsauslastung’. Das Argument AS 35: 135–149. Glombowski, J. 1982. ‘Marx und Keynes: Krisentheorie und “alternative Wirtschaftspolitik”’. Das Argument AS 89: 121–146. Glombowski, J. 1983. ‘A Marxian model of long-run capitalist development’. Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie/Jounal of Econmics 43: 363–382. Glombowski, J. and Krüger, M. 1987. ‘Generalizations of Goodwin’s growth cycle model’. In Economic Evolution and Structural Adjustment, edited by D. Batten, J. L. Casti, and B. Johansson, 260–290. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Grabau, M. and Joebges, H. 2009. ‘Renditedifferenzen bei Staatsanleihen im Euroraum: Grund zur Besorgnis?’ WSI-Mitteilungen 62 (9): 505–512. Gräbner, C., Heimberger, P., and Kapeller, J. 2020. ‘Pandemic pushes polarisation: the Corona crisis and macroeconomic divergence in the Eurozone’. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics 47 (3): 425–438. Gräbner, C., Heimberger, P., Kapeller, J., and Schütz, B. 2020. ‘Is the Eurozone disintegrating? Macroeconomic divergence, structural polarisation, trade and fragility’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 44 (3): 647–669. Hagemann, H. 1977. Rate of Return und Profitrate: eine kapitaltheoretische Kontroverse zwischen Neoklassikern und Postkeynesianern im Rahmen der Cambridge-Debatte. Meisenheim: Anton Hain. Hagemann, H. 2004. ‘The macroeconomics of accession: growth, convergence and structural adjustment’. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 15 (1): 1–12. Hagemann, H. 2019. ‘Keynesianism in Germany’. In The Elgar Companion to John Maynard Keynes, edited by R. W. Dimand, and H. Hagemann. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hagemann, H. 2020. ‘The Cambridge–Cambridge controversy on the theory of capital: 50 years after’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 17 (2): 196–207. Hagemann, H., Erber, G., Geiger, N., Schwarzer, J. A., and Zwiessler, O. 2016. Wachstums und Investitionsdynamik in Deutschland. Marburg: Metropolis. Hagemann, H. and Jeck, A. 1984. ‘Lowe and the Marx-Feldman-Dobb model: structural analysis of a growing economy’. Eastern Economic Journal 10 (2): 169–186. Hagemann, H. and Kalmbach, P., eds. 1983. Technischer Fortschritt und Arbeitslosigkeit. Frankfurt/Main, New York: Campus. 35 Hagemann, H. and Kurz, H. D. 1976. ‘The return of the same truncation period and reswitching of techniques in neo‐Austrian and more general models’. Kyklos 29 (4): 678–708. Hagemann, H., Landesmann, M., and Scazzieri, R., eds. 2003. The Economics of Structural Change, 3 Volumes. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hamouda, O. F. and Harcourt, G. C. 1988. ‘Post Keynesianism: from criticism to coherence?’ Bulletin of Economic Research 40 (1): 1–33. Han, Z. and Schefold, B. 2006. ‘An empirical investigation of paradoxes: reswitching and reverse capital deepening in capital theory’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 30 (5): 737–765. Harcourt, G. C. 2006. The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics: The Core Contributions of the Pioneers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hartwig, J. 2006. ‘Explaining the aggregate price level with Keynes’s principle of effective demand’. Review of Social Economy 64 (4): 469–492. Hartwig, J. 2007. ‘Keynes vs. the Post Keynesians on the principle of effective demand’. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14 (4): 725–739. Hartwig, J. 2013. ‘Distribution and growth in demand and productivity in Switzerland (1950– 2010)’. Applied Economics Letters 20 (10): 938–944. Hartwig, J. 2014. ‘Testing the Bhaduri–Marglin model with OECD panel data’. International Review of Applied Economics 28 (4): 419–435. Hartwig, J. 2017. ‘The comparative statics of effective demand’. Review of Political Economy 29 (3): 360–375. Hartwig, J. and Krämer, H. 2019. ‘The “Growth Disease” at 50 – Baumol after Oulton’. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 51: 463–471. Hartwig, J. and Krämer, H. M. 2022. ‘Baumol’s cost disease in times of rising income inequality’. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 40B: 27– 48. Haslinger, F. and Schneider, J. 1983. ‘Die Relevanz der Gleichgewichtstheorie als Grundlage der ordnungsund wirtschaftspolitischen Diskussion’. Ökonomie und Gesellschaft 1: 1– 55. Heimberger, P., Huber, J., and Kapeller, J. 2020. ‘The power of economic models: the case of the EU’s fiscal regulation framework’. Socio-Economic Review 18 (2): 337–366. Heimberger, P. and Kapeller, J. 2017. ‘The performativity of potential output: pro-cyclicality and path dependency in coordinating European fiscal policies’. Review of International Political Economy 24 (5): 904–928. Hein, E. 1998. ‘Keynesianismus - ein wirtschaftstheoretisches und -politisches Auslaufmodell? Perspektiven keynesianischer Wirtschaftspolitik’. WSI-Mitteilungen 51 (12): 820–832. Hein, E. 2002. ‘Monetary policy and wage bargaining in the EMU: restrictive ECB policies, high unemployment, nominal wage restraint and inflation above the target’. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review 55 (222): 299–337. Hein, E. 2006a. ‘Wage bargaining and monetary policy in a Kaleckian monetary distribution and growth model: trying to make sense of the NAIRU’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 3 (2): 305–329. 36 Hein, E. 2006b. ‘Money, interest and capital accumulation in Karl Marx’s economics: a monetary interpretation and some similarities to post-Keynesian approaches’. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 13 (1): 113–140. Hein, E. 2007. ‘Interest rate, debt, distribution and capital accumulation in a post-Kaleckian model’. Metroeconomica 58 (2): 310–339. Hein, E. 2008. Money, Distribution Conflict and Capital Accumulation: Contributions to ‘Monetary Analysis’. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hein, E. 2010. ‘Shareholder value orientation, distribution and growth - shortand mediumrun effects in a Kaleckian model’. Metroeconomica 61 (2): 302–332. Hein, E. 2011. ‘Redistribution, global imbalances and the financial and economic crisis’. International Journal of Labour Research 3 (1): 51–73. Hein, E. 2012a. The Maroeconomics of Finance-dominated Capitalism – and Its Crisis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. 2012b. ‘“Financialization,” distribution, capital accumulation, and productivity growth in a post-Kaleckian model’. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 34 (3): 475– 496. Hein, E. 2012c. ‘Finance-dominated capitalism, re-distribution, household debt and financial fragility in a Kaleckian distribution and growth model’. PSL Quarterly Review 65 (260): 11–51. Hein, E. 2013. ‘The crisis of finance-dominated capitalism in the euro area, deficiencies in the economic policy architecture, and deflationary stagnation policies’. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 36 (2): 325–354. Hein, E. 2014. Distribution and Growth after Keynes: A Post-Keynesian Guide. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. 2015. ‘Finance-dominated capitalism and re-distribution of income: a Kaleckian perspective’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 39 (3): 907–934. Hein, E. 2016. ‘Secular stagnation or stagnation policy? Steindl after Summers’. PSL Quarterly Review 69 (276): 3–47. Hein, E. 2017. ‘In search of a better economics - Interview with Heinz D. Kurz’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 14 (1): 2–12. Hein, E. 2018a. ‘Stagnation policy in the Eurozone and economic policy alternatives: a Steindlian/neo-Kaleckian perspective’. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 44 (3): 315–348. Hein, E. 2018b. ‘Autonomous government expenditure growth, deficits, debt, and distribution in a neo-Kaleckian growth model’. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 41 (2): 316– 338. Hein, E. 2018c. Verteilung und Wachstum: Eine paradigmenorientierte Einführung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der post-keynesianischen Theorie,. 2nd ed. Marburg: Metropolis. Hein, E. 2019a. ‘Financialisation and tendencies towards stagnation: the role of macroeconomic regime changes in the course of and after the financial and economic crisis 2007–09’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 43 (4): 975–999. 37 Hein, E. 2019b. ‘Karl Marx: an early post-Keynesian? A comparison of Marx’s economics with the contributions by Sraffa, Keynes, Kalecki and Minsky’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 16 (2): 238–259. Hein, E. 2021. ‘“It is clear that this kind of deregulated capitalism will not survive in the end”: Interview with Hansjörg Herr’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 18 (2): 111–118. Hein, E. 2023a. Macroeconomics after Kalecki and Keynes: Post-Keynesian Foundations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. 2023b. ‘Varieties of demand and growth regimes – post-Keynesian foundations’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 20 (3): 410–443. Hein, E. 2024a. ‘Demand-led growth and macroeconomic policy regimes in the Eurozone: implications for post-pandemic economic policies’. In Post-Keynesian Economics for the Future, edited by J. Jespersen, F. Olesen, and M. R. Byrialsen, 108–123. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. 2024b. ‘Inflation is always and everywhere … a conflict phenomenon: post-Keynesian inflation theory and energy price driven conflict inflation, distribution, demand and employment’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 21 (2): 202–231. Hein, E. and Detzer, D. 2015. ‘Post-Keynesian alternative policies to curb macroeconomic imbalances in the Euro area’. Panoeconomicus 62 (2): 217–236. Hein, E. and Detzer, D. 2016. ‘Financialisation and the crisis in the export-led mercantilist German economy’. In Financialisation and the Financial and Economic Crises: Country Studies, edited by E. Hein, D. Detzer, and N. Dodig. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E., Dünhaupt, P., Alfageme, A., and Kulesza, M. 2018. ‘A Kaleckian perspective on financialisation and distribution in three main Eurozone countries before and after the crisis: France, Germany and Spain’. Review of Political Economy 30 (1): 41–71. Hein, E., Dünhaupt, P., Kulesza, M., and Alfageme, A. 2017. ‘Financialization and distribution from a Kaleckian perspective: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden compared—before and after the crisis’. International Journal of Political Economy 46 (4): 233–266. Hein, E. and Häusler, C. 2024. ‘Kaleckian models of conflict inflation, distribution and employment: a comparative analysis’. Review of Political Economy 36 (4): 1436–1464. Hein, E. and Jimenez, V. 2022. ‘The macroeconomic implications of zero growth: a postKeynesian approach’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 19 (1): 41–60. Hein, E. and Krämer, H. 1997. ‘Income shares and capital formation: patterns of recent developments’. Journal of Income Distribution 7 (1): 5–28. Hein, E. and Lavoie, M. 2019. ‘Post-Keynesian economics’. In The Elgar Companion to John Maynard Keynes, edited by R. W. Dimand, and H. Hagemann. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 38 Hein, E., Lavoie, M., and van Treeck, T. 2011. ‘Some instability puzzles in Kaleckian models of growth and distribution: a critical survey’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35 (3): 587– 612. Hein, E., Lavoie, M., and van Treeck, T. 2012. ‘Harrodian instability and the “normal rate” of capacity utilization in Kaleckian models of distribution and growth - a survey’. Metroeconomica 63 (1): 139–169. Hein, E. and Martschin, J. 2020. ‘The Eurozone in crisis — a Kaleckian macroeconomic regime and policy perspective’. Review of Political Economy 32 (4): 563–588. Hein, E. and Martschin, J. 2021. ‘Demand and growth regimes in finance-dominated capitalism and the role of the macroeconomic policy regime: a post-Keynesian comparative study on France, Germany, Italy and Spain before and after the Great Financial Crisis and the Great Recession’. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy 2 (3): 493–527. Hein, E., Meloni, W. P., and Tridico, P. 2021. ‘Welfare models and demand-led growth regimes before and after the financial and economic crisis’. Review of International Political Economy 28 (5): 1196–1223. Hein, E. and Niechoj, T. 2013. ‘“You have to regulate capitalism, otherwise the criminals will dominate it” - Interview with Peter Flaschel’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 10 (1): 2–7. Hein, E. and Niechoj, T. 2019. ‘“Keynes was an extremely political person and we should be too, shouldn’t we?” - Interview with Jan Priewe’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 16 (1): 1–7. Hein, E., Niechoj, T., Schulten, T., and Truger, A., eds. 2005. Macroeconomic Policy Coordination in Europe and the Role of the Trade Unions. Brussels: ETUI. Hein, E. and Ochsen, C. 2003. ‘Regimes of interest rates, income shares, saving and investment: A Kaleckian model and empirical estimations for some advanced OECD economies’. Metroeconomica 54 (4): 404–433. Hein, E., Prante, F., and Bramucci, A. 2023. ‘Demand and growth regimes in financedominated capitalism and a progressive equality-, sustainabilityand domestic demand-led alternative’. PSL Quarterly Review 181–202. Hein, E. and Priewe, J. 2009. ‘The Research Network Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM) – past, present and future’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 6 (2): 166–173. Hein, E. and Schoder, C. 2011. ‘Interest rates, distribution and capital accumulation – a postKaleckian perspective on the US and Germany’. International Review of Applied Economics 25 (6): 693–723. Hein, E. and Stockhammer, E. 2010. ‘Macroeconomic policy mix, employment and inflation in a post-Keynesian alternative to the new consensus model’. Review of Political Economy 22 (3): 317–354. Hein, E. and Stockhammer, E. 2011a. ‘A post-Keynesian macroeconomic model of inflation, distribution and employment’. In A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and 39 Economic Policies, edited by E. Hein, and E. Stockhammer. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. and Stockhammer, E., eds. 2011b. A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and Economic Policies. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. and Tarassow, A. 2010. ‘Distribution, aggregate demand and productivity growth: theory and empirical results for six OECD countries based on a post-Kaleckian model’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (4): 727–754. Hein, E. and van Treeck, T. 2010a. ‘“Financialisation” in post-Keynesian models of distribution and growth: a systematic review’. In Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, edited by M. Setterfield. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. and van Treeck, T. 2010b. ‘Financialisation and rising shareholder power in Kaleckian/post-Kaleckian models of distribution and growth’. Review of Political Economy 22 (2): 205–233. Hein, E. and Truger, A., eds. 2002. Moderne Wirtschaftspolitik = koordinierte Makropolitik: Argumente aus den WSI-Mitteilungen. Marburg: Metropolis. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2005a. ‘What ever happened to Germany? Is the decline of the former European key currency country caused by structural sclerosis or by macroeconomic mismanagement?’ International Review of Applied Economics 19 (1): 3–28. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2005b. ‘A different view of Germany’s stagnation’. Challenge 48 (6): 64–94. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2005c. ‘European Monetary Union: nominal convergence, real divergence and slow growth?’ Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 16 (1): 7–33. Hein, E. and Truger, A., eds. 2007a. Money, Distribution and Economic Policy: Alternatives to Orthodox Macroeconomics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2007b. ‘Germany’s post-2000 stagnation in the European context — a lesson in macroeconomic mismanagement’. In Aspects of Modern Monetary and Macroeconomic Policies, edited by P. Arestis, E. Hein, and E. Le Heron, 223–247. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2007c. ‘Fiscal policy and macroeconomic performance in the Euro Area: lessons for the future’. In Euroland and the World Economy, edited by J. Bibow, and A. Terzi, 154–183. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2009. ‘How to fight (or not to fight) a slowdown.pdf’. Challenge 52 (3): 52–75. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2012. ‘Finance-dominated capitalism in crisis—the case for a global Keynesian New Deal’. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 35 (2): 187–213. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2014. ‘Fiscal policy and rebalancing in the euro area: a critique of the German debt brake from a post-Keynesian perspective’. Panoeconomicus 61 (1): 21– 38. Hein, E. and Truger, A. 2017. ‘Opportunities and limits of rebalancing the Eurozone via wage policies. Theoretical considerations and empirical illustrations for the case of Germany’. PSL Quarterly Review 70 (283): 421–447. 46 Metzger, M. 2006. ‘Basel II – benefits for developing countries?’ European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 3 (1): 131–150. Niechoj, T. 2009. ‘Does supranational coordination erode its national basis? The case of European labour market policy and German industrial relations’. European Integration Online Papers 13 (10): 1–17. Niechoj, T. 2012. ‘Germany and Austria’. In The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, edited by J. E. King. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Niechoj, T. 2015. ‘Which future for Europe? A scenario analysis of European integration’. In Asymmetric Crisis in Europe and Possible Futures, edited by J. Jäger, and E. Springler. London: Routledge. Niechoj, T. and van Treeck, T. 2011. ‘Policy responses to the euro debt crisis: can they overcome the imbalances that caused the crisis?’ European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 8 (2): 245–266. Nitsch, M. 1995. ‘Geld und Unterentwicklung: der Fall Lateinamerika’. In Rätsel Geld: Annäherungen aus ökonomischer, soziologischer und historischer Sicht, edited by M. Nitsch, and W. Schelkle, 77–105. Marburg: Metropolis. Nitsch, M. 1999. ‘Vom Nutzen des monetär-keynesianischen Ansatzes für Entwicklungstheorie und -politik’. In Neue Wachstumsund Außenhandelstheorie – Implikationen für die Entwicklungstheorie und –politik, edited by R. Schubert, 183–214. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Oberhauser, A. 1983. ‘Die Bedeutung der Verteilungszusammenhänge für Geldtheorie und Geldpolitik: dargestellt am Beispiel der Staatsverschuldung’. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 198 (1): 4–19. Oberhauser, A. 1996. ‘Mehr Arbeitslosigkeit durch Parallelpolitik: eine Folge einzelwirtschaftlichen Denkens’. Wirtschaftsdienst (11): 566–573. Oberhauser, A. 1997. ‘Nachfrageorientierte Beschäftigungspolitik statt Sparprogramme und Steuerreform’. WSI Mitteilungen 50 (6): 357–364. Pasinetti, L. L. 2007. Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A ‘Revolution in Economics’ to Be Accomplished. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Prante, F. 2018. ‘Macroeconomic effects of personal and functional income inequality: theory and empirical evidence for the US and Germany’. Panoeconomicus 65 (3): 289–318. Prante, F., Bramucci, A., Hein, E., and Truger, A. 2023. Introduction to Macroeconomics: Pluralist and Interactive. Berlin: HWR Berlin. Prante, F., Bramucci, A., Hein, E., and Truger, A. 2024. Einführung in die Makroökonomik: plural und interaktiv. Berlin: HWR Berlin. Prante, F., Hein, E., and Bramucci, A. 2022. ‘Varieties and interdependencies of demand and growth regimes in finance-dominated capitalism: a post-Keynesian two-country stock– flow consistent simulation approach’. Review of Keynesian Economics 10 (2): 264–290. Preiser, E. 1967. Wirtschaftspolitik heute: Grundprobleme der Marktwirtschaft. München: Beck. 47 Preiser, E. 1970. Politische Ökonomie im 20. Jahrhundert: Probleme und Gestalten. München: Beck. Preiser, E. 1992. Nationalökonomie heute: eine Einführung in die Volkswirtschaftslehre. München: Beck. Priewe, J. 1984. Zur Kritik konkurrierender Arbeitsmarktund Beschäftigungstheorien und ihrer politischen Implikationen: Ansatzpunkte für eine Neuorientierung einer Theorie der Arbeitslosigkeit. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. Priewe, J. 1997. ‘Verschuldungsregeln in der Europäischen Währungsunion: kritische Analyse des geplanten europäischen “Stabilitätsund Wachstumspakts”’. WSI-Mitteilungen (6): 365–373. Priewe, J. 1998. Die Öko-Steuer-Diskussion: Positionen und Kontroversen - eine Bilanz. Berlin: Edition Sigma. Priewe, J. 2020. ‘Why 3 and 60 per cent? The rationale of the reference values for fiscal deficits and debt in the European Economic and Monetary Union’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 17 (2): 111–126. Priewe, J. 2021. ‘Searching for new fiscal rules in the euro area: a new proposal’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 18 (2): 145–159. Priewe, J. 2022a. ‘Old and new proposals for global monetary reform’. Review of Keynesian Economics 10 (4): 533–558. Priewe, J. 2022b. ‘Growth in the ecological transition: green, zero or de-growth?’ European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 19 (1): 19–40. Priewe, J. 2023. ‘Schuldentragfähigkeit mit impliziten Staatsschulden – Leitbild oder Irrlicht?’ Wirtschaftsdienst 103 (3): 198–204. Priewe, J. 2024. ‘The new EU Stability and Growth Pact – new bottle with a lot of old wine’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention advanced access. Priewe, J. and Herr, H. 2005. The Macroeconomics of Development and Poverty Reduction – Strategies beyond the Washington Consensus. Baden Baden: Nomos. Priewe, J. and Hickel, R. 1991. Der Preis der Einheit: Bilanz und Perspektiven der deutschen Vereinigung. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Priewe, J. and Hickel, R. 1994. Nach dem Fehlstart: Ökonomische Perspektiven des vereinten Deutschlands. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Proano, C. R., Flaschel, P., Krolzig, H.-M., and Diallo, M. B. 2011. ‘Monetary policy and macroeconomic stability under alternative demand regimes’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35 (3): 569–585. Proaño, C. R., Groh, G., and Semmler, W. 2022. ‘E pur si muove: Peter Flaschel’s contributions to macroeconomic theory and disequilibrium economic modeling’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 19 (1): 9–15. Proaño, C. R. and Lojak, B. 2020. ‘Animal spirits, risk premia and monetary policy at the zero lower bound’. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 171: 221–233. Riese, H. 1979. ‘Kritik der theoretischen Grundlagen des Memorandums’. Das Argument AS 35: 36–47. 48 Riese, H. 1983. ‘Geldökonomie, Keynes und die Anderen: Kritik der monetären Grundlagen der Orthodoxie’. Ökonomie und Gesellschaft (1): 103–160. Riese, H. 1986. Theorie der Inflation. Tübingen: Mohr. Riese, H. 1987. ‘Aspekte eines monetären Keynesianismus – Kritik und Gegenentwurf’. In Postkeynesianismus: Ökonomische Theorie in der Tradition von Keynes, Kalecki und Sraffa. Marburg: Metropolis. Riese, H. 2001. Grundlegungen eines monetären Keynesianismus: ausgewählte Schriften 1964 - 1999, 2 Volumes. Marburg: Metropolis. Riese, H. 2004. Money, Development, and Economic Transformation: Selected Essays. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rietzler, K. and Truger, A. 2019. ‘Is the “debt brake” behind Germany’s successful fiscal consolidation? A comparative analysis of the “structural” consolidation of the government subsector budgets from 1991 to 2017’. Revue de l’OFCE (Supp. 2): 11–30. Rochon, L.-P. 2023. ‘On the theoretical and institutional roots of post-Keynesian economics’. Review of Political Economy 35 (1): 6–27. Rüstow, H.-J. 1951. Theorie der Vollbeschäftigung in der freien Marktwirtschaft. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Rüstow, H.-J. 1970. Investitionsquote, Wachstum und Gleichgewicht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Rüstow, H.-J. 1984. Neue Wege zur Vollbeschäftigung: das Versagen der ökonomischen Theorie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Samuelson, P. A. 1981. Volkswirtschaftslehre: Eine Einführung, 2 Bände. 7th ed. Köln: Bund. Sandelin, B., Trautwein, H.-M., and Wundrak, R. 2008. A Short History of Economic Thought. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Schefold, B. 1976. ‘Different forms of technical progress’. The Economic Journal 86 (344): 806– 819. Schefold, B. 1985a. ‘Ecological problems as a challenge to Classical and Keynesian economics’. Metroeconomica 37 (1): 21–61. Schefold, B. 1985b. ‘Cambridge price theory: special model or general theory of value?’ The American Economic Review 75 (2): 140–145. Schefold, B. 1989. Mr Sraffa and Joint Production and Other Essays. London: Unwin Hyman. Schefold, B. 1996. ‘Piero Sraffa’. The Economic Journal 106: 1314–1325. Schefold, B. 2020. ‘What remains of the Cambridge critique of capital theory, if reswitching and reverse capital deepening are empirically rare and theoretically unlikely?’ European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 17 (2): 220–240. Scherf, W. 1995. ‘Stabilitätspolitisiche Anforderungen an die Lohnpolitik’. Wirtschaftsdienst (5): 278–284. Scherf, W. 1996. ‘Noch ein “Stabilitätspakt” - Chancen einer koordinierten Finanz-, Lohnund Geldpolitik’. Wirtschaftsdienst (12): 631–636. Scherf, W. 2012. ‘Staatsverschuldung aus kreislauftheoretischer Sicht’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 9 (2): 166–188. 49 Scherf, W. 2016. ‘Mehr Beschäftigung durch Umverteilung?’ List Forum für Wirtschaftsund Finanzpolitik 42 (1): 29–35. Schettkat, R. 1992. The Labor Market Dynamics of Economic Restructuring: The United States and Germany in Transition. New York: Praeger. Schettkat, R. 2003. ‘Are institutional rigidities at the root of European unemployment?’ Cambridge Journal of Economics 27: 771–787. Schettkat, R. 2022. The Behavioural Economics of John Maynard Keynes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Schettkat, R., Langkau, J., and Solow, R. M., eds. 2007. Aufschwung für Deutschland: Plädoyer international renommierter Ökonomen für eine neue Wirtschaftspolitik. Bonn: Dietz. Schettkat, R. and Sun, R. 2009. ‘Monetary policy and European unemployment’. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 25 (1): 94–108. Schmidt, J. 1998. Wachstum und Verteilung in der Geldwirtschaft: Das wissenschaftliche Werk Erich Preisers (1900 - 1967). Marburg: Metropolis. Schmidt, J. 2011. ‘Die Bedeutung der Saldenmechanik für die makroökonomische Theoriebildung’. Ökonomie und Gesellschaft 23: 111–147. Schmidt, J. 2019. ‘Balance mechanics and business cycles’. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 26 (6): 1310–1340. Schneider, E. 1946. Einführung in die Wirtschaftstheorie, I. Teil, Theorie des Wirtschaftskreislaufs. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Schneider, E. 1948. Einführung in die Wirtschaftstheorie, II. Teil: Wirtschaftspläne und wirtschaftliches Gleichgewicht in der Verkehrswirtschaft. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Schneider, E. 1952. Einführung in die Wirtschaftstheorie, III, Teil: Geld, Kredit, Volkseinkommen und Beschäftigung. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Schneider, J. 1988. ‘Kritische Neoklassik: Ergebnisse und Perpektiven’. In Politische Ökonomie heute: Beiträge zur Tagung des Arbeitskreises Politische Ökonomie im Herbst 1987, edited by W. Vogt, 183–220. Regensburg: Transfer. Schui, H. 1978. ‘Stagnation als Folge zunehmend differenzierter Profitraten’. Konjunkturpolitik (1): 16–36. Schui, H. 1983. Wirtschaftspolitik in der Krise: Ursachen der Stagnation, Unternehmerstrategien, Alternativen. Heilbronn: Distel. Schui, H. 1987. ‘Haushaltsdefizite, Profit und Wachstum: eine Einführung zu den Hofmann Texten’. In Monopol, Stagnation und Inflation: Ausgewählte Texte von Werner Hofmann. Heilbronn: Distel. Schüler, K. W. 1985. ‘Buchbesprechung: Joachim Rüstow, Neue Wege zur Vollbeschäftigung, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1984’. Ifo Studien 31: 259–262. Seikel, D. and Truger, A. 2019. ‘Die blockierte Vollendung der Europäischen Währungsunion: Plädoyer für eine pragmatische Nutzung von fiskalischen Handlungsspielräumen’. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 45 (1): 43–65. Semmler, W. 2011. Asset Prices, Booms and Recessions: Financial Economics from a Dynamic Perspective, 3rd edition. Heidelberg, New York: Springer. 50 Serrano, F. 1995. ‘Long period effective demand and the Sraffian supermultiplier’. Contributions to Political Economy 14 (1): 67–90. Spahn, H.-P. 1983. ‘“Überschüssige” Ersparnisse und Profite als Ursache der Stagnation? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit den “Memorandum” und seinen Vorläufern’. WSI Mitteilungen (5): 281–291. Spahn, H.-P. 1988. Bundesbank und Wirtschaftskrise. Regensburg: Transfer. Spahn, H.-P. 1999. Makroökonomie – Theoretische Grundlagen und stabilitätspolitische Strategien. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Spahn, H.-P. 2001. ‘On the theory of interest rate policy’. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review (219): 355–380. Spahn, H.-P. 2006. Geldpolitik: Finanzmärkte, neue Makroökonomie und zinspolitische Strategien. München: Vahlen. Spahn, H.-P. 2007. ‘Geldpolitik bei Unsicherheit’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 4 (1): 121–143. Stadermann, H.-J. 1988. Weltwirtschaft: Einführung in eine monetäre Theorie internationaler Wirtschaftsbeziehungen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stadermann, H.-J. 1994. Geldwirtschaft und Geldpolitik: Einführung in die Grundlagen. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Stadermann, H.-J. 2014. Der stabile Euro und seine Feinde. Marburg: Metropolis. Stadermann, H.-J. and Steiger, O. 2006a. Allgemeine Theorie der Wirtschaft: Band 1: Schulökonomik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stadermann, H.-J. and Steiger, O. 2006b. Allgemeine Theorie der Wirtschaft, Band 2: Nominalökonomik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Steiger, O. 2006. ‘Property economics versus new institutional economics: alternative foundations of how to trigger economic development’. Journal of Economic Issues 40 (1): 183–208. Steindl, J. 1976. Maurity and Stagnation and Stagnation in American Capitalism. 2nd ed. New York, London: Monthly Review Press. Steindl, J. 1979. ‘Stagnation theory and stagnation policy’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 3: 1–14. Stützel, W. 1978. Volkswirtschaftliche Saldenmechanik: ein Beitrag zur Geldtheorie. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stützel, W. 2017. ‘The arithmetic relations between total expenditure and the resulting current and financial account balances as determinants of the revenue-related need for means of payment in an economy’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 14 (1): 23–31. Thomasberger, C. 1993. Europäische Währungsintegration und globale Währungskonkurrenz. Tübingen: Mohr. Trautwein, H.-M. 1986. Arbeitnehmerfonds in Schweden - der dritte Weg? Entwicklung und Kritik eines aktuellen Modells zur Demokratisierung der Wirtschaft. Frankfurt am Main, Bern: Peter Lang. 51 Trautwein, H.-M. 1988. ‘Zur Entschärfung tarifpolitischer Verteilungskonflikte durch kollektive Kapitalbeteiligung: Das Beispiel der schwedischen Arbeitnehmerfonds / Wage Policy Conflicts and Collective Stock-Sharing: The Case of the Swedish WageEarner Funds’. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik / Journal of Economics and Statistics 204 (2): 155–174. Trautwein, H.-M. 1996. ‘Endogenous money: modern difficulties with the Wicksellian approach’. The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne d’Economique 29: 228–234. Trautwein, H.-M. 2000. ‘The credit view, old and new’. Journal of Economic Surveys 14 (2): 155–190. Trautwein, H.-M. 2016. ‘Stockholm (Swedish) School’. In Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis Volume II, edited by G. Faccarello, and H. D. Kurz. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Trautwein, H.-M. 2018. Makroökonomik. 4th ed. Edewecht: OlWIR Oldenburger Verlag für Wirtschaft, Informatik und Recht. Trautwein, H.-M. 2021. ‘Taking expectations seriously: a leitmotif in Stockholm School economics’. Revue d’Economie Politique 132: 333–369. Trautwein, H.-M. and Zouache, A. 2009. ‘Natural rates in the new synthesis: same old trouble?’ European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 6 (2): 207–225. van Treeck, T. 2008. ‘Reconsidering the investment-profit nexus in finance-led economies: an ARDL-based approach’. Metroeconomica 59 (3): 371–404. van Treeck, T. 2009a. ‘A synthetic, stock-flow consistent macroeconomic model of “financialisation”’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 33 (3): 467–493. van Treeck, T. 2009b. ‘The political economy debate on “financialization” – a macroeconomic perspective’. Review of International Political Economy 16 (5): 907–944. van Treeck, T. 2014. ‘Did inequality cause the US financial crisis?’ Journal of Economic Surveys 28 (3): 421–448. van Treeck, T. 2015a. ‘Inequality, the crisis, and stagnation’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 12 (2): 158–169. van Treeck, T. 2015b. ‘r>g: why the “Piketty Debate” unsettles Germany’s economic experts’. CESifo Forum (1): 26–34. Truger, A. 2013. ‘Austerity in the Euro area: the sad state of economic policy in Germany and the EU’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 10 (2): 158–174. Truger, A. 2015. ‘The fiscal compact, cyclical adjustment and the remaining leeway for expansionary fiscal policies in the Euro area’. Panoeconomicus 62 (2): 157–175. Truger, A. 2016. ‘Reviving fiscal policy in Europe: towards an implementation of the golden rule of public investment’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention 13 (1): 57–71. Truger, A. 2020. ‘Reforming EU fiscal rules: more leeway, investment orientation and democratic coordination’. Intereconomics 55 (5): 277–281. 52 Vogt, W. 1983. ‘Eine Theorie des kapitalistischen Gleichgewichts’. Ökonomie und Gesellschaft 1: 161–208. Woodgate, R. 2020. ‘Can tax competition boost demand? Causes and consequences of the global race to the bottom in corporate tax rates’. Review of Keynesian Economics 8 (4): 512–535. Woodgate, R. 2022. ‘Profit-led in effect or in appearance alone? Estimating the Irish demand regime given the influence of multinational enterprises’. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy 3 (2): 319–350. Woodgate, R. 2023. ‘FDI-led growth models: Sraffian supermultiplier models of export platforms and tax havens’. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies Intervention 20 (3): 491–514. Woodgate, R., Hein, E., and Summa, R. 2024. ‘Components of autonomous demand growth and financial feedbacks: implications for growth drivers and growth regime analysis’. Review of Political Economy 36 (5): 1876–1893. Zinn, K. G. 1986. Arbeit, Konsum, Akkumulation: Versuch einer integralen Kapitalismusanalyse von Keynes und Marx. Hamburg: VSA. Zinn, K. G. 1987. Politische Ökonomie: Apologien und Kritiken des Kapitalismus. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Zinn, K. G. 1998. Makroökonomie: Einführung in die Einkommensund Beschäftigungstheorie (Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre III). 7th ed. Aachen: Riese-Springer. Zinn, K. G. 2002. Konjunktur und Wachstum. 5th ed. Aachen: Riese Springer. Zinn, K. G. 2008. Die Keynessche Alternative: Beiträge zur Keynesschen Stagnationstheorie, zur Geschichtsvergessenheit der Ökonomik und zur Frage einer linken Wirtschaftsethik. Hamburg: VSA. Imprint Publisher Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK) of Hans-Böckler-Foundation, Georg-Glock-Str. 18, 40474 Düsseldorf, Contact: [email protected], https://www.fmm-macro.net FMM Working Paper is an irregular online publication series available at: https://www.boeckler.de/de/fmm-working-paper-22457.htm The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the IMK or the Hans-Böckler-Foundation. ISSN 2512-8655 This publication is licensed under the Creative commons license: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY). Provided that the author's name is acknowledged, this license permits the editing, reproduction and distribution of the material in any format or medium for any purpose, including commercial use. The complete license text can be found here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode The terms of the Creative Commons License apply to original material only. The re-use of material from other sources (marked with source) such as graphs, tables, photos and texts may require further permission from the copyright holder.