The Fault Line between Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A Review Essay
This essay reviews Michael Ambrosi's important but neglected book on the formative period of Keynesian economics. The book traces the evolution of a Cambridge macroeconomic tradition running from Marshall and Pigou to Keynes, and interprets The General Theory as a response to Pigou's analysis of unemployment. Ambrosi also argues that Keynes's disciples, Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor and Joan Robinson, were, in the 1930s, wedded to a Pigovian methodology and did not immediately recognise that Keynes had redefined the meaning of equilibrium in The General Theory. Keynes's attempt to redefine the analytical basis of neoclassical economics was thwarted, not merely by the neoclassical synthesis, but by those who claimed to be the inheritors and guardians of his vision.
Year of publication: |
2010
|
---|---|
Authors: | Hayes, M. G. |
Published in: |
Review of Political Economy. - Taylor & Francis Journals, ISSN 0953-8259. - Vol. 22.2010, 1, p. 151-160
|
Publisher: |
Taylor & Francis Journals |
Saved in:
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
The Post-Keynesian economics study group : after 20 years
Hayes, M. G., (2008)
-
The loanable funds fallacy : saving, finance and equilibrium
Hayes, M. G., (2010)
-
The fault line between Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians : a review essay
Hayes, M. G., (2010)
- More ...