Why the Keynes-Hayek Macro Debate Cannot be won by either Side

Abstract

The controversy between Keynes and Hayek is one of the most renown in economics. Although it is now almost a century old, it does gather momentum from time to time, especially during periods of crisis when decision-makers are looking for policy solutions. However, in academic writings the actual debate did not and cannot find a common ground. I aim to show in the present article that at the center of the controversy is not a logical fallacy in the theoretical apparatus of either of the two economists, but the empirical premises which they took for granted. While Hayek believed that the market will tend towards equilibrium, and that real life conditions actually approximate this, Keynes considered that the market can be stuck in a partial equilibrium compatible with unemployment. I will further argue that subsequent developments attempt to move the debate in a whole new direction rather than solve this central issue.