A Survey on the Evolution of Keynes' Economic Thought

Barkin Cihanli
{"title":"A Survey on the Evolution of Keynes' Economic Thought","authors":"Barkin Cihanli","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3903272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been on-going controversy about the evolution of John Maynard Keynes’ thought on economic theory among economists of different schools of thought. Even though Keynes have always been considered a revolutionary in economic thought in relation with his ideas in the General Theory, Keynes did not always think about the economic thought the way he did in the General Theory. Some economists have argued that Keynes’ training in economics in Cambridge had made him subscribe to the Classical economics in his earlier years. Some has furthered this argument that Keynes’ Treatise on Money (1930) contained elements of the Classical economic theory, whereas others have opposed that Keynes have dropped the Classical economic theory by the time he wrote the Treatise and seemed to be in the process of developing what later became known as the Keynesian economics. However, there remain fundamental questions to be answered : What kind of economics training did Keynes receive in his earlier years as a student? To what extent had Keynes’ thought gone through a dramatic change in the successive years? How different was his economic thought in the Treatise on Money (1930)? How different was the Treatise from the General Theory (1936)? This essay surveys that Keynes started to acknowledge the shortcomings of the Classical economic theory by the time he wrote the Treatise on Money. Later on, when he gave the inaugural Finlay lecture at UCD titled National Self-Sufficiency(1933), there were even more distinct evidence in favor of his deviation from the Classical Theory. As a result, the goal of this paper is to argue that the Treatise and the National Self-Sufficiency pieces were the two primary sources that demonstrate the evolutionary path for the production of the General Theory. This is a significant issue to address, because this argument falls in line with different interpretations of the origins of the Keynesian economics, specifically the Post Keynesian line of thought which will be analyzed in detail in this paper.","PeriodicalId":249498,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Liberal Market Economies (Topic)","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Liberal Market Economies (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3903272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been on-going controversy about the evolution of John Maynard Keynes’ thought on economic theory among economists of different schools of thought. Even though Keynes have always been considered a revolutionary in economic thought in relation with his ideas in the General Theory, Keynes did not always think about the economic thought the way he did in the General Theory. Some economists have argued that Keynes’ training in economics in Cambridge had made him subscribe to the Classical economics in his earlier years. Some has furthered this argument that Keynes’ Treatise on Money (1930) contained elements of the Classical economic theory, whereas others have opposed that Keynes have dropped the Classical economic theory by the time he wrote the Treatise and seemed to be in the process of developing what later became known as the Keynesian economics. However, there remain fundamental questions to be answered : What kind of economics training did Keynes receive in his earlier years as a student? To what extent had Keynes’ thought gone through a dramatic change in the successive years? How different was his economic thought in the Treatise on Money (1930)? How different was the Treatise from the General Theory (1936)? This essay surveys that Keynes started to acknowledge the shortcomings of the Classical economic theory by the time he wrote the Treatise on Money. Later on, when he gave the inaugural Finlay lecture at UCD titled National Self-Sufficiency(1933), there were even more distinct evidence in favor of his deviation from the Classical Theory. As a result, the goal of this paper is to argue that the Treatise and the National Self-Sufficiency pieces were the two primary sources that demonstrate the evolutionary path for the production of the General Theory. This is a significant issue to address, because this argument falls in line with different interpretations of the origins of the Keynesian economics, specifically the Post Keynesian line of thought which will be analyzed in detail in this paper.
凯恩斯经济思想演变述评
关于凯恩斯经济理论思想的演变,不同学派的经济学家一直存在争议。尽管凯恩斯在《通论》中的观点一直被认为是经济思想的革命者,但凯恩斯并不总是像他在《通论》中那样思考经济思想。一些经济学家认为,凯恩斯早年在剑桥接受的经济学训练使他信奉古典经济学。一些人进一步论证凯恩斯的《货币论》(1930)包含了古典经济理论的元素,而另一些人则反对凯恩斯在写《货币论》的时候已经放弃了古典经济理论,似乎正在发展后来被称为凯恩斯主义经济学的理论。然而,仍然有一些基本的问题需要回答:凯恩斯在他早期的学生时代接受了什么样的经济学训练?凯恩斯的思想在多大程度上经历了连续几年的戏剧性变化?他在《货币论》(1930)中的经济思想有何不同?《人性论》与《通论》(1936)有何不同?本文考察了凯恩斯在撰写《货币论》时开始承认古典经济理论的缺陷。后来,当他在都柏林大学发表题为《国家自给自足》(1933)的芬莱讲座时,有更明显的证据表明他偏离了古典理论。因此,本文的目的是论证《人性论》和《国家自给自足》是论证《通论》产生的演化路径的两个主要来源。这是一个需要解决的重要问题,因为这个论点符合对凯恩斯主义经济学起源的不同解释,特别是后凯恩斯主义的思想路线,这将在本文中进行详细分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信