This paper addresses the issues of general theorizing and historical specificity in the ‘Keynes versus the Classics’ dispute and puts forward two main arguments. First, the current macroeconomic orthodoxy wins the ‘relative’ generality contest because it implies that institutions influence outcomes, such as the natural rate of unemployment, in contrast with Keynes’s ‘internalist’ approach, which neglects historical specificity. Secondly, mainstream macro is not truly general in an ‘absolute’ sense since it only makes sense under very special real-world institutional conditions.

中文翻译：

---

“凯恩斯与经典之争”中的一般理论和历史特殊性

本文探讨了“凯恩斯与经典”之争中的一般理论和历史特殊性问题，并提出了两个主要论点。首先，当前的宏观经济正统理论赢得了“相对”普遍性竞赛，因为它暗示制度会影响结果，例如自然失业率，而凯恩斯的“内部主义”方法则忽视了历史的特殊性。其次，主流宏观在“绝对”意义上并不是真正的普遍性，因为它只有在非常特殊的现实世界制度条件下才有意义。