MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409407355 · doi:10.1080/09538259.2025.2481417

Post-Keynesianism in Canada: From an Extraordinary Beginning to an Uncertain Future?

2025· article· en· W4409407355 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc Lavoie, Mario Seccareccia

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Political Economy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeynesian economicsEconomicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article traces how Keynes’s original thought came to Canada beginning in the early 1930s, mostly by way of three Canadian students: Plumptre, Bryce and Tarshis. As post-Keynesian economic ideas began to take root very early in the post-WWII period at the University of Cambridge, it quickly also spread to Canada during the 1950s and 1960s both directly via Cambridge, through the writings of Asimakopulos at McGill University, and indirectly, via Harvard, with the work of Lamontagne at Laval University. The economics department at McGill University played a central role in the development of post-Keynesianism in Canada throughout the following decades. It provided a solid basis for expansion not only in the Montreal area but also in the Ottawa region and in Toronto, as well as south-western Ontario. There were, however, also independent shoots as, for instance, at the University of Waterloo but which had not been as sustained. After taking stock of the various developments in the major academic institutions where both heterodox and, more narrowly, post-Keynesian ideas developed, we conclude that the future of post-Keynesianism is at risk, given the immense ideological resistance and a push towards conformity in economics departments across Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Political EconomySame topicEconomic Theory and PolicyFrench-language works237,207