It is not news that the history of economics is disesteemed by most economists. There have been almost annual discussions at professional meetings about the institutional role of the history of economics. Indeed, a conference in 2001 documented the precarious state of the field in North America, and its even more perilous position in the United Kingdom and the Antipodes (Weintraub 2002b). With the exception of Duke University there are no longer any regularly scheduled graduate courses, let alone programs, in the history of economics at any “top” university in North America (Gayer 2002).

Many historians of economic theory have studied how John Maynard Keynes developed his theory from A Tract on Monetary Reform through A Treatise on Money (hereafter the Treatise) to The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (hereafter the General Theory or GT). After the pioneering studies by Moggridge (1973) and Patinkin (1976, 1982), there followed Dimand (1988), Amdeo (1989), Clarke (1988, 1998), Meltzer (1988), Moggridge (1992), Skidelsky (1992), Laidler (1999), and others. This is no wonder, for the Keynesian Revolution remains the most singular phenomenon that economic theory and policy have ever seen. Although the objective of our entire project has been to shed new light on this important and interesting phenomenon, examining and analyzing the processes of theory-building and rebuilding which constitute Keynes's intellectual journey (see Hirai 1997–99), the present paper focuses solely on one chapter in the long story of the transition through his three major works. The very fact of addressing the questions, “How did Keynes maintain the theory developed in the Treatise after its publication (October 1930), and for how long?” narrows the period under study to approximately two years which span roughly from October 1930 through October 1932. Our scrutiny will range over the original texts and primary material such as manuscripts, lecture notes, and correspondence produced over this period, and our findings will rest on the meticulous analysis of material of crucial importance for a clear understanding of Keynes's theoretical situation. We will also offer our comments on the earlier efforts insofar as they relate to the period in question.

The lingering economic problem for economists in the 1920s and 1930s was unemployment. What caused it? More importantly, what could cure it? John Maynard Keynes's work offered new insights regarding both the reasons for, and the cures of, lingering and massive unemployment—what Keynes called “involuntary unemployment.” Keynes's definition of the term evolved as he gradually came to realize the role of the fallacy of composition in explaining why nominal wage rate adjustments might not induce full employment. I argue that it was Richard Kahn's multiplier article, more than anything, which guided Keynes's own understanding of the phenomenon. This paper, then, is a narrative history of how Keynes came to grips with the unprecedented level of unemployment in the 1920s and '30s interpreted through the lens of the Kahnian multiplier.

Since its publication in 1955, Almarin Phillips' article “The Tableau Économique as a Simple Leontief Model” has inspired an interesting line of interpretation of the arithmetical schemes presented two centuries earlier by François Quesnay. Subsequent attempts to represent the Tableaux économiques in the form of Input-Output transcriptions by Shlomo Maital (1972), Bernhard Korte (1972), Tibor Barna (1975), and Paul Samuelson (1986), among others, have underlined the brilliance of the French doctor's formal conception of the economy as a reproductive system.

Vishnugupta Chanakya Kautilya wrote a treatise called The Arthashastra, which means “science of wealth.” It contains three parts, which deal with issues related to economic development, administration of justice, and foreign relations. It has 150 chapters, which are distributed into fifteen books. Book three, which has twenty chapters and book four, which has thirteen chapters, are devoted to the administration of justice. Kautilya's Judicial System called “Dandaniti,” “the science of law enforcement” is an important part of The Arthashastra. Kautilya codified, modified, and created new laws related to: loans, deposits, pledges, mortgages etc., sale and purchase of property, inheritance and partition of ancestral property, labor contracts, partnership, defamation and assault, theft and violent robbery, and sexual offenses. He dealt with law and justice issues relating to both the civil law and the criminal law. He offered a truly comprehensive system of justice, which not only incorporated all the salient elements of a twenty-first century system but also contained a few additional invaluable insights.