经济思想史上就“银行和金融危机”主题存在两大对立的研究传统。 主流的金融中介观和“金融加速器”理论引入信息不对称，以被动且外生的方式解释银行和金融危机。该分析范式得到了2022年诺贝尔经济学奖的认可。然而，2008年次贷危机之后，主流经济学却一反常态地采用非正统的明斯基范式来修缮其叙事框架。明斯基以根本的不确定性为基点，从银行信贷创造观出发，提出内生经济周期的“金融不稳定性假说”。比较研究表明，尽管两大传统在银行行为理论、金融危机和经济周期理论，以及更深层次的货币本质观上存在实质性分歧，但以信息不对称为情境预设的主流范式与以根本的不确定性为情境预设的明斯基 范式并不构成不可调和的矛盾冲突。一方面，主流的信息进路为有关银行和金融危机的研究做出了深刻贡献；另一方面，应适当借鉴明斯基的洞见，以补充和改进主流的研究进路，甚至对二者进行必要的综合。

There are two opposing research traditions in the history of economic thought on the subject of “banks and financial crises". The dominant view of financial intermediation and the “financial accelerator”theory introduces information asymmetries and explains banks and financial crises in a passive and exogenous way. This analytical paradigm was recognized by the 2022Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. In fact, however, in the wake of the 2008 sub-prime crisis，mainstream economics uncharacteristically adopted the heterodox Minsky paradigm to repair its narrative framework. Based on fundamental uncertainty, Minsky proposed the “financial instability hypothesis”of an endogenous business cycle in terms of the credit creation theory of banking. The comparative study has shown that, despite substantial differences between the two analytical traditions on the behavioural theory of banking, theories of financial crises and business cycles, and a deeper view of the nature of money, the mainstream paradigm, which presupposes information asymmetries and the Minsky paradigm, which presupposes fundamental uncertainty, do not constitute an irreconcilable contradiction. On the one hand, the mainstream information approach has made the profound contribution to the field of banks and financial crises; on the other hand, Minsky's insights should also be appropriately drawn upon to complement and improve the mainstream research route, or even to provide a necessary synthesis of the two approaches.