Advertisement

On the Concepts of Period and Run in Economic Theory

  • G. C. Harcourt
Chapter

Abstract

Heinz Kurz has made major contributions to our understanding of long-period production—interdependent models inspired by Piero Sraffa’s classic writings (see, for example, Kurz and Salvadori, 1995). In doing so he has, on the whole, sided with the view of Pierangelo Garegnani, John Eatwell and Murray Milgate (see, for example, Eatwell, 1997) that, traditionally and necessarily, rigorous economic theory can only be long period in the sense of analyzing relationships between dominant, persistent forces at work in the economy. This implies that there is no place, or at least little fundamental place, for a theory of the short period in its own right: this is so, despite Richard Kahn’s superb, path-breaking 1929 Fellowship Dissertation for King’s College, Cambridge, “The economics of the short period”1, and the dominant view of Keynes scholars that the analysis of The General Theory itself is mainly placed in a short-period setting, as it is in Michał Kalecki’s approach in his analysis of accumulation, the cycle and growth. The last occurred in Keynes’s own as well as others’ contributions, not least because of Kahn’s key influence on the development of Keynes’s thought as he moved from A Treatise on Money (1930) to The General Theory (1936) (see Harcourt, 1994; 1995, Ch 5).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arestis, Philip, Michelle Baddeley and John S.L. McCombie (eds.) (2007), Economic Growth. New Directions in Theory and Policy, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Arestis, Philip, Gabriel Palma and Malcolm Sawyer (eds.) (1997), Capital Controversy, Post-Keynesian Economics and the History of Economics. Essays in honour of Geoff Harcourt, volume one. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bhaduri, Amit and Joan Robinson (1980), “Accumulation and exploitation: an analysis in the tradition of Marx, Sraffa and Kalecki”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 4, 103–15.Google Scholar
  4. Eatwell, John (1997), “History versus equilibrium” in Arestis, Palma and Sawyer (eds.) (1997), 386–97.Google Scholar
  5. Goodwin, R.M. (1982), Essays in Economic Dynamics, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Granger, Clive (1992), “What are we learning about the long-run?”, Economic Journal, 103, 307–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guillebaud, C.W. (1952), “Marshall’s Principles of Economics in the light of contemporary economic thought”, Economica, 19, 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harcourt, G.C. (1965), “A two-sector model of the distribution of income and the level of employment in the short run”, Economic Record, 41, 103–17, reprinted in Sardoni (ed.) (1992), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harcourt, G.C. (1981), “Marshall, Sraffa and Keynes: Incompatible bedfellows?”, Eastern Economic Journal, 5, 39–50, reprinted in Sardoni (ed.) (1992), 250–64.Google Scholar
  10. Harcourt, G.C. (1985), “A twentieth-century eclectic: Richard Goodwin”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 7, 410–21, reprinted in Sardoni (ed.) (1992), 379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harcourt, G.C. (1994), “Kahn and Keynes and the making of The General Theory”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 17, 11–23; reprinted in Harcourt (1995), 47–62.Google Scholar
  12. Harcourt. G. C. (1995) Capitalism, Socialism and Post-Keynesianism: Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt, Cheltenham,Glos.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Harcourt, G.C. (2006), The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics. The Core Contributions of the Pioneers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harcourt, G.C. (2007), “The relevance of the Cambridge — Cambridge controversies in capital theory for econometric practice” in Arestis, Baddeley and McCombie (eds.) (2007), 117–35.Google Scholar
  15. Harcourt, G.C. and Prue Kerr (2009), Joan Robinson, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrod, R.F. (1939), “An essay in dynamic theory”, Economic Journal, 49, 14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrod, R.F. (1948), Towards a Dynamic Economics: Some Recent Developments of Economic Theory and Their Application to Policy, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Hart, Neil (2009), Marshall’s Equilibrium and Evolution: Then and Now, unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, School of Economics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Hart, Neil (2012), Equilibrium and Evolution: Alfred Marshall and the Marshallians, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart, Neil (2013), Alfred Marshall and Modern Economics: Equilibrium Theory and Evolutionary Economics, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahn, R.F. (1929; 1989), The Economics of the Short Period, Fellowship Dissertation for King’s College Cambridge, published in 1989 in London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Kahn, R.F. (1959), “Exercises in economic growth”, Oxford Economic Papers, 11, 143–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalecki, M. (1968), “Trend and business cycles reconsidered,” Economic Journal, 78, 263–76; reprinted in Kalecki (1971), 165–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalecki, M. (1971), Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933–1970, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Keynes, J.M. (1930), A Treatise on Money, 2 vols., London: Macmillan, C.W., vols V, VI, 1971.Google Scholar
  26. Keynes, J.M. (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, London: Macmillan, C.W., vol VII, 1973.Google Scholar
  27. Keynes, J.M. (1973), The General Theory and After, Part 11: Defence and Development, C.W., vol XIV, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Kriesler, P. (1999), “Harcourt, Hicks and Lowe: incompatible bedfellows?” in Sardoni and Kriesler (eds) (1999), 400–417.Google Scholar
  29. Kurz, Heinz D. (2010), “On the dismal state of a dismal science?”, Homo Oeconomicus, 27, 1–21.Google Scholar
  30. Kurz, Heinz D. and Neri Salvadori (1995), Theory of Production. A Long-Period Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lucas, R.E. (1988), “On the mechanics of economic development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marglin, S.A. (1984a), “Growth, distribution and inflation: a centennial synthesis”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8, 115–44.Google Scholar
  33. Marglin, S.A. (1984b), Growth, Distribution and Prices, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Robertson, D.H. (1956), Economic Commentaries, London: Staples Press.Google Scholar
  35. Robinson, E.A.G. (ed.) (1965), Problems in Economic Development, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Robinson, Joan (1962), Review of H.G. Johnson, Money, Trade and Economic Growth (1962), Economic Journal, 72, 690–2; reprinted in CEP, vol III, 1965, 100–2.Google Scholar
  37. Robinson, Joan (1971), Economic Heresies: Some Old-Fashioned Questions in Economic Theory, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salter, W.E.G. (1960), Productivity and Technical Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Salter, W.E.G. (1965), “Productivity and accumulation as historial processes” in E.A.G. Robinson (ed.) (1965), 266–91.Google Scholar
  40. Sardoni, C. (ed.) (1992), On Political Economists and Modern Political Economy. Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Sardoni, C. and P. Kriesler (eds) (1999), Keynes, Post-Keynesianism and Political Economy. Essays in honour of Geoff Harcourt, Volume Three, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Sinha, Ajit (2010), Theories of Value from Adam Smith to Piero Sraffa, London, New York, New Delhi: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Solow, R.M. (1997), “Is there a core of usable macroeconomics we should all believe in?” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 87, 230–32.Google Scholar
  44. Sraffa, P. with the collaboration of M.H. Dobb (eds.) (1951–73), Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 11 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Joseph Halevi, G. C. Harcourt, Peter Kriesler and J. W. Nevile 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. C. Harcourt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations