I will go over issues with 2012 coding then moderators will dive into these. The focus should be on Krugman’s short piece.

Hall, Peter A. “Brother, Can You Paradigm?.” Governance 26.2 (2013): 189-192.

Mark Blyth, Preface to the new edition of Austerity


Krugman, Paul. “How the case for austerity has crumbled.” The New York Review of Books 6 (2013).

Coding details

Hello class,

here are the coding details as agreed on in class. I apologize for the delay!

__ 0 = disagreement

__ 1 = intermediate fit (some parts of the GFM and Article IV statement agree, some don’t)

__ 2 = perfect fit (the exact same idea expressed in the Article IV as in the GFM)

also, to distinguish the “no fits” from “disagreement” (=0):

__ A1 = additional statements (the statement is in the Article IV, but NOT in the GFM)

__ A2 = omitted statement (the statement is in the GFM, but NOT in the Article IV)

Hope this is clear! Good luck coding, everyone!

Difficult terms

Team 3:

– Coverage by provisions?

Context: “Capitalization and liquidity of the financial sector are high (Figure 6). Although gross nonperforming loans (NPLs)—a legacy from the boom period and subsequent crisis—amounted to 17.2 percent of loans in September, coverage by provisions is comfortable at 72.7 percent.”

–       REER

–       An undervalued exchange rate

–       EU funds absorption (or rather, what and where are unabsorbed funds?)

–       Fiscal deficit vs. structural deficit

–       tax buoyancy

– Capital conservation buffer

What does it mean to be a real Keynesian?

“Keynesian is one of those labels that is imbued with several meanings, and there are, not surprisingly, many prefixes to denote the particular Keynesian tribe, e.g. neo-Keynesian, post-Keynesian, New Keynesian, Old (Neoclassical Synthesis) Keynesian, sometimes referred in less polite fashion as Bastard Keynesian, classical-Keynesian (Sraffian-Keynesian?), etc. And those are just the ones related to theory, since policies have been referred to as Military Keynesianism or more recently weaponized Keynesianism, Social Democratic Keynesianism, Pragmatic Keynesianism, and even Republican Keynesianism. I’ve been told that Naked Keynesianism is a thing. Semantic saturation may imply that the very meaning of Keynesian is too vague to have any clear connotation. Plain Keynesianism is an avis rara.[1]

One way in which Keynesianism is understood is related to its policy implications. The notion that fiscal expansion might be needed to get out of a recession. An idea not discussed in the GT, beyond some vague reference to the socialization of investment. In that sense, there is little doubt that Krugman, and others like him (e.g. Brad DeLong, Simon Wren-Lewis if we stick to those with prominent blogs) are Keynesians. New Keynesians are for fiscal expansion in the particular situation of the zero bound interest rate, in which monetary expansion cannot be pursued. And they have been consistently against austerity policies in the US and in Europe, and political allies of many radical or heterodox Keynesians.

But if policy is the yardstick of Keynesianism, then one must remember that Keynes supposedly argued in the 1944, after a famous Washington meeting with many Keynesian economists in DC, that he was not a Keynesian.[2] Meaning he was not for further stimulus after the war, presumably because unemployment was not going to be a problem. In the same vein, many heterodox Keynesians are often for contractionary policies, including in situations in which the economy is far from full employment. Lance defended in the QA session after the prize that Brazil might need fiscal adjustment since it has an external problem.[3] These would be anti-Keynesian views, if the fiscal expansion policy proposition is the true meaning of Keynesianism.”

More here: