John King is responding to the following questions:

What was your motivation to become an economist?

As a lecturer at Lancaster University, what kind of research did you do in this period? You collaborated with Michael Howard already?

Would you consider yourself as an historian of economic thought? Or do you approach economic issues rather from a political economy perspective? How do you see yourself as a researcher?

After Marx, how did you get interested in post-Keynesian economics? What led to the book "A History of Post Keynesian Economics Since 1936" that you published in 2002?

Having studied Marxian political economy and post-Keynesian economics, what is the bridge? What is good in one kind of paradigm, what is good in the other and what should we dispose of in these two? Do you think it is worthwhile going for a kind of synthesis of these two, or do we not need this because they are so similar anyway?

Listening to you it seems that there could be an interesting combination of both strands, or maybe that Marxians can include a lot of good ideas from post-Keynesians and vice versa, am I right?

Focusing on post-Keynesian economics now, how do you see its development over the last two decades? What are the weaknesses, what are the potentials of post-Keynesian economics?

What do you see as perspectives for post-Keynesian economics?

You mentioned before some building blocks to analyse monetary production and financial markets and thus the financial market crisis and the crisis we have to face right now (2011) here in Europe. In a way it seems that post- Keynesian theory has really some potential to explain what's going on and to analyse it. But still this strand of theory and this movement, if there is any movement, is marginalised. What in your view is the reason for that?