The first foreign-language publication of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes was published in German in the same year as the English…
Abstract
The first foreign-language publication of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes was published in German in the same year as the English original in 1936. The article discusses some quality problems of the translation, but focuses in particular on the controversies which evolved around interpretations of the Preface Keynes wrote for the German edition. Whereas a margin of doubt remains as to the responsibility for the text which finally appeared in German, any accusations that Keynes had sympathies for or was indifferent to the Nazi regime are clearly rejected.
Details
Keywords
Abstract
Details
Keywords
Kendall P. Cochran has claimed that John Maynard Keynes “developed a theory that would try ‘to account for things as they are’. In so doing he became another important social…
Abstract
Kendall P. Cochran has claimed that John Maynard Keynes “developed a theory that would try ‘to account for things as they are’. In so doing he became another important social economist.
Discusses the heritage of John Maynard Keynes in terms of application and results of his new economic philosophy over the last four decades. Compares the Keynesian school of…
Abstract
Discusses the heritage of John Maynard Keynes in terms of application and results of his new economic philosophy over the last four decades. Compares the Keynesian school of thought with other classical and contemporary economists in relation to foundations of monetary and economic analysis, the economics of stable equilibrium, and the economics of disequilibrium. Comments on Keynes’ concept of economic stability, his view on the instability of money and monetary reform, his concept of monetary policy and of the pure theory of money, and his misjudgement of the mixed nature of the modern gold standard. Examines the provisions of the US Federal Reserve Act (1913), focusing on the Federal reserve systems’ nature and functioning, cited by Keynes as a prototype of a modern gold standard. Concludes with an examination of the international aspect of the modern gold standard.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to examine two (accidental and inevitable) reasons why W.H. Beveridge, who in 1936/1937 had rejected all of the elements of Keynes’s General Theory…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine two (accidental and inevitable) reasons why W.H. Beveridge, who in 1936/1937 had rejected all of the elements of Keynes’s General Theory, came to accept it enthusiastically in the 1940s.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper answers this question in three steps. First, it distinguishes apparently changeable factors in Beveridge’s views, from consistent ones. Second, it looks for factors of the latter type in his three goals for economics. Third, it compares his goals with those of Keynes.
Findings
Beveridge’s three goals overlapped with Keynes’s ideals for economics and economists, and this is not historically accidental: economics should be useful as a basis for verification by fresh observations (as an exact science); economic knowledge should be useful in business and policy-making processes (for new kinds of educated professions); and economic studies requires a wide range of related subjects (a liberal education).
Research limitations/implications
This paper attempts to clarify the cognitive assumptions of the two economists. This clarification can contribute to understanding the process and reasons behind Beveridge’s acceptance of Keynesian economic theory and policies on a theoretical level.
Originality/value
This paper examines previously ignored reasons for Beveridge’s acceptance of Keynesian economics. Moreover, it suggests certain pre-analytic assumptions concerning the co-existence of social insurance and full employment policies. This perspective will be useful for historians of economics and the welfare state.
Details
Keywords
Marshall, Pigou, and Keynes on one side of the Atlantic, and Fisher on the other, had different approaches to the quantity theory of money. But they shared its basic framework…
Abstract
Marshall, Pigou, and Keynes on one side of the Atlantic, and Fisher on the other, had different approaches to the quantity theory of money. But they shared its basic framework, with the result that theoretical discussions did not prevent some degree of mutual support on policy proposals. If a divergence there was, at this stage, this pertained the feasibility of Fisher’s proposals, because Fisher’s enthusiasm for reform could find no match at Cambridge. This notwithstanding, and although in varying degrees, Marshall, Pigou, and Keynes were sympathetic with Fisher’s battle for “stable money.” Indeed, a fragment from the Keynes Papers shows that, at a very early stage of his career, Keynes paid great attention to Fisher’s empirical research on the relationship between “Appreciation and interest,” taking the relation between nominal and real rates of interest as a possible explanation of the trade cycle. For some time at least, this widened the common ground upon which Fisher’s proposals for “stable money” could find some support at Cambridge.
Details
Keywords
The 40-letter correspondence concerning the French translation of The General Theory, between John Maynard Keynes and his translator, Jean de Largentaye, is a testimony of their…
Abstract
The 40-letter correspondence concerning the French translation of The General Theory, between John Maynard Keynes and his translator, Jean de Largentaye, is a testimony of their close collaboration, which also involved Piero Sraffa in 1938 and 1939. Largentaye’s lexicon appears at the end of the French edition, providing definitions in French of technical terms used by Keynes. After its publication by Payot in 1942, the French edition of The General Theory was well received in France and no doubt contributed to the economic and social successes of the country in the subsequent 25 years.
Details
Keywords
This chapter investigates the nature of the transformation of macroeconomics by focusing on the impact of the Great Depression on economic doctrines. There is no doubt that the…
Abstract
This chapter investigates the nature of the transformation of macroeconomics by focusing on the impact of the Great Depression on economic doctrines. There is no doubt that the Great Depression exerted an enormous influence on economic thought, but the exact nature of its impact should be examined more carefully. In this chapter, I examine the transformation from a perspective which emphasizes the interaction between economic ideas and economic events, and the interaction between theory and policy rather than the development of economic theory. More specifically, I examine the evolution of what became known as macroeconomics after the Depression in terms of an ongoing debate among the “stabilizers” and their critics. I further suggest using four perspectives, or schools of thought, as measures to locate the evolution and transformation; the gold standard mentality, liquidationism, the Treasury view, and the real-bills doctrine. By highlighting these four economic ideas, I argue that what happened during the Great Depression was the retreat of the gold standard mentality, the complete demise of liquidationism and the Treasury view, and the strange survival of the real-bills doctrine. Each of those transformations happened not in response to internal debates in the discipline, but in response to government policies and real-world events.
Details
Keywords
B. Littleboy and G. Mehta
The great stimulus to macroeconomic theory provided by Keynes is well recognised, but much less is said about his views on scientific methodology and his influence there. There is…
Abstract
The great stimulus to macroeconomic theory provided by Keynes is well recognised, but much less is said about his views on scientific methodology and his influence there. There is a widespread belief among economists that Keynes was an a priori thinker who dealt with “facts” and empirical material in a cavalier and high‐handed manner. We question the validity of this interpretation and give evidence to show that Keynes' methodology was not hostile to empiricism.
Leonard Pluta and Santo Dodaro
Introduction In addition to his economic analysis, a key component of Keynes's intellectual legacy is his methodology, derived from the fusion of social philosophy and vision with…
Abstract
Introduction In addition to his economic analysis, a key component of Keynes's intellectual legacy is his methodology, derived from the fusion of social philosophy and vision with politics, public policy concerns and economic analysis, which he employed to offer a solution to the most fundamental and pressing problems of his time. In effect, such a methodology constitutes, in spite of Keynes's opposition to classical economics, a rediscovery, and adaptation of the one used by the classical school of political economy, which had been abandoned as a consequence of the onslaught of the “neo‐classical” revolution in the late 1800s with its strict focus on “scientific” or positive economics.