Macroeconomic Equilibrium and Employment



I now turn to a perennial question in macroeconomics since the time the General Theory was published: Can an economy be in equilibrium at less than full employment? Keynes’s answer in the General Theory was a clear yes. His reasoning (and mechanism) was that aggregate output and income are determined by the Principle of Effective Demand. Aggregate expenditure (and therefore income) is equal to the sum of consumption and investment expenditures, consumption (and therefore saving) is primarily determined by the level of income, investment is determined by the interest rate, and the interest rate is determined by Liquidity Preference. Savings and investment are brought into equilibrium through adjustments in the level of income, rather than through adjustments in the rate of interest. The resulting equilibrium level of output determines the level of employment, and there is no necessity for this to be at the full-employment level. Full employment could be foreclosed, for Keynes, either because of the “liquidity trap” or because of a depressed marginal efficiency of capital.


Labor Market Interest Rate Demand Function Real Wage Full Employment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Garegnani, P. (1983), “Notes on Consumption, Investment, and Effective Demand,” in Keynes’s Economics and the Theory of Value and Distribution, ed. by J. Eatwell and M. Milgate, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  2. Haberler, G. (1937), Prosperity and Depression (fourth edition, 1958), George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  3. Harcourt, G.C. (1972), Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Metzler, L.A. (1951), “Wealth, Saving, and the Rate of Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 59, pp. 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Patinkin, D. (1948), “Price Flexibility and Full Employment,” American Economic Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 543–64.Google Scholar
  6. Patinkin, D. (1965), Money, Interest, and Prices, Row Peterson, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Pigou, A.C. (1941), Employment and Equilibrium, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  8. Pigou, A.C. (1943), “The Classical Stationary State,” Economic Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 342–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pigou, A.C. (1947), “Economic Progress in a Stable Environment,” Economic Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 180–88.Google Scholar
  10. Robinson, J. (1953), “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Robinson, J. (1956), The Accumulation of Capital, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  12. Robinson, J. (1975), “The Unimportance of Reswitching,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 89, pp. 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Samuelson, P.A. (1966), “A Summing Up,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 568–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Samuelson, P.A. (1975), “Steady-State and Transient Relations: A Reply on Reswitching,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 89, pp. 40–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Solow, R.M. (1967), “The Interest-Rate and Transition Between Techniques,” in Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth, Essays presented to Maurice Dobb, ed. by C.H. Feinstein, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations