> Taylor does not mean institutionalism in the sense of American
> Institutionalism (e.g., Veblen) nor in the sense of the new institutional
> economics (e.g., Douglass C. North). Nor does Taylor use the term
> structuralist in the sense of Althusser. As he notes, structuralism assumes
> that it is "impossible to understand a macro economy without understanding
> ... distributive relationships across productive sectors and social
> groups." Other authors refer to such theories as neo-Kaleckian or
> post-Keynesian.
I got a copy of the book, after Ian (Eubulides) recommended it as well. It's great so far. I was wondering about 'structuralism' because it's also a term used by Robert Pollin to distiguish one branch of post-Keynesian monetary theory (Minsky, Chick, Dow and others) from the 'accommodationist' brach (Kaldor, Moore, Lavoie and others). But I see Taylor has a broader meaning. And I like how he writes a textbook: e.g., haha, "...state and local governments suffer from chronic budget balances or surpluses." [p. 16]
On your other point, about the influence of Marx on this whole milieu, yeah, totally. In a lot of ways modern Marxian and post-Keynesian economics have folded together to form some kind of Voltron. I guess it has much older roots in the Cambridge circle: Sraffa, Kalecki, Robinson, Dobb. But it really strikes me now that on many concrete issues the debates now cut across post-Keynesian/Marxian lines rather than between them. Both London (around SOAS and and other Uni of London schools) and New York (at the New School) now seem to be hotbeds for this synthesis.
Mike Beggs scandalum.wordpress.com