{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021546261089987327, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.583333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Keynes's General Theory, Treatise on Money and Tract on Monetary Reform: different theories, same methodological approach?

Abstract In trying to assess the content and significance of Keynes's attempted revolution in economic methodology, historians have almost exclusively focused on the General Theory. By highlighting the legacy of the Treatise on Probability for Keynes's economic writings, this article provides evidence of strong methodological continuity among the Tract on Monetary Reform, the Treatise on Money, and the General Theory, despite radical differences in the theories. We argue that the novelty of Keynes's approach lies in offering a method of analysis requiring cooperation on the part of the reader, in the effort to tackle the complexity of the economic material.