No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
THE KEYNES-HARROD CONTROVERSY ON THE CLASSICAL THEORY OF THE RATE OF INTEREST AND THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF MARKETS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2010
Abstract
The aggregation of budget constraints of enterprises and households allows us to throw a new light on the controversy between Keynes and Harrod concerning the classical theory of the rate of interest. It appears that the critique of the classical theory that Keynes formulated does not presuppose the liquidity preference theory; it is based on the multiplier theory. We show that this critique is logically founded and that it is based upon the absence of the labor market in the analysis of the interdependence between the markets for financial assets and for goods. Harrod did not comprehend it completely. This explains one lacuna in the model of the General Theory that Harrod proposed in 1937. We show that it lacks an equation and that the equilibrium (hence the rate of interest) is indeterminate, which is not the case in the 1937 article by Hicks. We conclude that if there is relevance in Keynes’s criticism of the classical theory, then a similar criticism can be directed at Keynes’s own theory.
- Type
- Research Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2010
References
REFERENCES
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 1990. “On Keynes’s Misinterpretation of ‘Capital’ in the Classical Theory of Interest.” History of Political Economy 22 (3) (Fall), 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 1999. “The Genesis of the Only Diagram in the General Theory: A Comment.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 21 (1), 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 2003. Classical Macroeconomics: Some Modern Variations and Distortions. Routledge, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besomi, Daniele. 1997. “Roy Harrod and Traditional Theory.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 4 (1), 92–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besomi, Daniele. 2000. “Keynes and Harrod on the Classical Theory of Investment. More on the Origin of the Only Diagram in the General Theory.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (3), 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boyer, Jérôme. 1982. “Demande effective et théorie monétaire du taux d’intérêt chez Keynes: une interpretation.” Cahiers d’Economie Politique (8), 51–64.Google Scholar
de Boyer, Jérôme. 2003. La pensée monétaire: histoire et analyse. Paris: Ed. les Solos.Google Scholar
de Boyer, Jérôme. 2004. “La méthodologie de la Théorie Générale: intégrer la monnaie comme solution à l’indétermination d’un équilibre a-monétaire.” Journées d’études de l’ADEK— La réception de la Théorie Générale 1936–39, 14 and 15 October 2004, Université Paris-Sud, http://jdbdr.free.fr/Keynes.2004.pdfGoogle Scholar
de Boyer, Jérôme. 2009. “Indétermination de l’équilibre keynésien et loi de Walras restreinte.” Revue Économique 60 (1) (janvier).Google Scholar
Carabelli, Anna. 1991. “The Methodology of the Critique of the Classical Theory: Keynes on Organic Interdependence.” In Bateman, B. and Davis, J., eds., Keynes and Philosophy. Aldershot: Elgar, 104–125.Google Scholar
Carabelli, Anna. 2006. “Sraffa versus Keynes on the method of economics: measurement, homogeneity and independence.” In Marcuzzo, C., ed., The Cambridge Approach to Economics: a Re-invented Tradition? Quaderni del dipartimento di scienze economiche, No. 52, Nuova serie, 2006, Università la Sapienza.Google Scholar
Carabelli, Anna and Vecchi, Nicolò de. 2004. “On Hayek and Keynes Once Again: A Reply to Butos & Koppl.” Review of Political Economy 16 (2) (April), 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clower, Robert W. 1965. “The Keynesian Counter-Revolution: A Theoretical Appraisal.” In Han, F. H. and Brechling, F., eds., The Theory of Interest Rates, Macmillan. Reprint in R. W. Clower, Monetary Theory. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Diatkine, Sylvie. 1992. “Division du travail et modes de formation du salaire.” Thèse d’Etat, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Harrod, Roy F. 2003. Collected Interwar Papers and Correspondance, edited by Besomi, Daniele. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hicks, John. 1937. “Mr Keynes and the Classics: A Suggested Interpretation.” Econometrica 5, 147–159.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Collected Writings. Vol. VII, edited by Moggridge, Donald. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1973a. Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. Vol. XIII, The General Theory and After: Part I Preparation, edited by Moggridge, Donald. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1973b. Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. Vol. XIV, The General Theory and After: Part II Defence and Development, edited by Moggridge, Donald. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lange, Oscar. 1942. “Say’s Law, A Restatement and Criticism.” In Lange, O. et al. , eds., Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. University of Chicago Press, 49–68.Google Scholar
Milgate, Murray. 1977. “Keynes on the Classical Theory of Interest.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 307–315.Google Scholar
Modigliani, Franco. 1944. “Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest and Money.” Econometrica 12, 45–88.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Rod. 1999. “The Genesis of the Only Diagram in the General Theory.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 21 (1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patinkin, Don. 1965. Money, Interest and Prices: An Integration of Monetary and Value Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Young, Warren. 1987. Interpreting Mr Keynes: The IS-LM Enigma. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar