نظریه مصرف کننده پست کینزی : هم افزایی بالقوه با تحقیقات مصرف کننده و روانشناسی اقتصادی

The paper argues that Post Keynesian consumer theory offers an interesting experimental research agenda to those studying psychological economics and consumer research. Post Keynesian consumer choice relies on six principles: procedural rationality, satiable needs, the separability of needs, the hierarchy of needs, the growth of needs, and the principle of non-independence. This consumer theory does not rely on the Archimedes principle that `everything has a price', and it may be particularly relevant when decisions involve moral choices or public goods such as the environment.

While Post Keynesians have spent a great deal of effort on macroeconomics and monetary issues as well as methodological issues, they have devoted less attention to microeconomics, seemingly avoiding in particular the subject of consumer choice. For instance, in the two guides on Post Keynesian economics, published at a 20-year interval, there is no chapter devoted to consumer theory (Eichner, 1979; Holt & Pressman, 2001). However, despite its apparent neglect, there exists a Post Keynesian theory of consumer choice, based on the indications left by the best-known and most productive Post Keynesian authors, such as Joan Robinson, Luigi Pasinetti, Edward Nell, Philip Arestis, or Alfred Eichner. These indications on consumer choice show a great degree of coherence, and in my opinion they fit tightly with the rest of Post Keynesian theory. Indeed, Drakopoulos (1992b) goes so far as to argue that Keynes himself had in mind such a heterodox consumer choice theory. The purpose of the present article is to show what a research agenda on Post Keynesian consumer theory could look like, and to show that such an agenda offers plenty of synergies with research programs of institutionalists, social or humanistic economists, marketing specialists, the literature in economic psychology, and the work of some dissident mainstream economists.

Post Keynesians have put forth an agenda for research in consumer choice theory, which should be appealing to academics dealing with consumer research and economic psychology. Instead of trying to demonstrate one more time that so many subjects fail to behave in accordance with the standard neoclassical axioms of rationality, one should attempt to provide evidence supporting some of the six principles being evoked here. A recent example of this kind of work is to be found in a recent issue of this Journal (Scott, 2002).