Geoffrey C. Harcourt is responding to the following questions:

What was your motivation to become an economist? How did you come into contact with Keynesian economics? And what were the major steps in your career as a professional economist, moving back and forth between Australia and Cambridge, UK?

When you came to Cambridge, Keynesian, or later post-Keynesian economics was flourishing? You contributed to this with your own work. In the '60s and '70s post-Keynesian economics seemed to have the potential to replace neoclassical economics sometime in the future. Why did it not succeed in your view? Luigi Pasinetti argued that this was not only an incompleteness in Keynes's work, but also a failure of the Cambridge post- Keynesians, theoretically and organisationally, because these deficiencies include, "the care in selecting, shaping, preparing and paying attention to the younger generation." What is your view on this?

If you take a broader perspective, beyond Cambridge, what is the future for post-Keynesian economics?

Coming to the present state of economics and economic policies, mainstream New Consensus Macroeconomics has obviously failed in this crisis. Is this a new opportunity for Keynesian economics in academia, on the one hand, and for Keynesian economic policies, on the other hand?

What are the perspectives for Keynesian economics in academic research?

What would you recommend to the younger generation post-Keynesians to keep the tradition alive, on the one hand, and to get more influence on economics and economic policies, on the other hand?

Do you think that there are any areas which post-Keynesians today should focus more on than they have done in the recent past?

Do you think that changes in academic research and economic policies are going to come from within the system, or do they require political pressure?