No one could have anticipated that just two months after Lider’s article on post-Keynesians, the world would become locked down, creating a completely new meaning of the state in the economy. We do not yet have a definition/name for what we have been living since then (for now). The text (by the same author), during the prevailing narrative of so-called neoliberalism, dealt with listing post-Keynesians, their ideas, and reasons for faith in the state as a ‘corrective to the free market’. About twenty economists listed at that time were, and still are, critics of the state (some, admittedly, are no longer with us), but not to reduce its share, rather to improve its performance.
In the meantime, the state, both domestic and global, has capillary expanded to unprecedented depths, reducing the ‘free market’ to merely the literary idea of Adam Smith. Was his idea ever alive, or have we always lived in crony (crony) capitalism, and we have written about that so we will not repeat it.
Yes, in the meantime, technology, digitalization, AI, and green ‘running’ have occurred, consequently providing a new reason for a bit more state regulation, but we can agree that five years after the emergence of COVID-19, the world is a completely different place. Not entirely pleasant. Many will say that capitalism and eternal growth necessarily needed a reset, as they were defeated by the countries on whose backs they grew (China) – by the state. Therefore, we checked how some of those post-Keynesians breathe today, in an era where we are waving tariffs, wars, blackmail, raw materials, energy. Everything, except for the free market. Or any other freedoms.
The State, but a Developmental State
Željko Garača, professor emeritus of the Faculty of Economics in Split, says that tectonic geopolitical, geo-economic, and technological disruptions have been looming for about twenty years, became clear during the pandemic crisis, and are now occurring rapidly and irreversibly.
– The global hegemon is losing its dominant position, fiercely and chaotically resisting it, while new actors are increasingly entering the global stage, changing the rules of the game with new forms of association and cooperation. Europe is in an extremely unenviable position. Reacting defensively and often against its own interests, it is entering hostile relations with key economic partners, suffering serious economic consequences. Internal divisions within the EU are further escalating. Obedience to the transatlantic partner outweighs rational assessment of national and European interests, resulting in policies that lead to self-destruction. Even when attempts are made to oppose and defend one’s interests, it does not appear convincing. The degree of uncertainty is so high that even realistic proposals can sound utopian. However, this does not mean that proposals should not be made, and in this sense, the post-Keynesian perspective offers the most. But not every form of interventionism should be equated with Keynes.
‘; 
