凯恩斯和哈耶克:商业周期理论中的一些共同元素

Q3 Social Sciences
Alexandru Pătruți
{"title":"凯恩斯和哈耶克:商业周期理论中的一些共同元素","authors":"Alexandru Pătruți","doi":"10.1590/0101-31572023-3375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Keynes and Hayek are usually perceived in the history of economic thought as intellectual rivals. Although it is true that in terms of policy recommendations, they have not always seen eye to eye, there are numerous theoretical elements that the two economists tend to share. This is especially true if one follows Axel Leijonhufvud (1976) in considering that Keynes’s fundamental theoretical work is the Treatise and not the General Theory. In the early 1930s, following the works of Wicksell (1989), both explained business cycles as caused by a discrepancy between savings and investment. They considered that in the modern economy the interest rate cannot speedily adjust these two magnitudes. To a certain extent, Keynes and Hayek even agreed on the dynamic sequence of prices in a “normal” depression. By the time the General Theory came out, liquidity preference obscured most of the commonalities between the two economists. Although Hayek introduced liquidity preference as a short run friction in his 1941 Pure Theory of Capital, he could not accept it as a fundamental determinant of the interest rate. However, in the 1970s Hayek began to believe that “normal” Hayekian crises could further degenerate into Keynesian depressions. By focusing on Keynes’s theoretical development prior to the elaboration of the General Theory in parallel with Hayek’s evolution throughout his life, we argue that a selective reading of their works could lead to a theoretical model in which Keynesian and Hayekian scenarios are specific cases of a more general theory.","PeriodicalId":35163,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Economia Politica/Brazilian Journal of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Keynes and Hayek: some common elements in business cycle theory\",\"authors\":\"Alexandru Pătruți\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0101-31572023-3375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Keynes and Hayek are usually perceived in the history of economic thought as intellectual rivals. Although it is true that in terms of policy recommendations, they have not always seen eye to eye, there are numerous theoretical elements that the two economists tend to share. This is especially true if one follows Axel Leijonhufvud (1976) in considering that Keynes’s fundamental theoretical work is the Treatise and not the General Theory. In the early 1930s, following the works of Wicksell (1989), both explained business cycles as caused by a discrepancy between savings and investment. They considered that in the modern economy the interest rate cannot speedily adjust these two magnitudes. To a certain extent, Keynes and Hayek even agreed on the dynamic sequence of prices in a “normal” depression. By the time the General Theory came out, liquidity preference obscured most of the commonalities between the two economists. Although Hayek introduced liquidity preference as a short run friction in his 1941 Pure Theory of Capital, he could not accept it as a fundamental determinant of the interest rate. However, in the 1970s Hayek began to believe that “normal” Hayekian crises could further degenerate into Keynesian depressions. By focusing on Keynes’s theoretical development prior to the elaboration of the General Theory in parallel with Hayek’s evolution throughout his life, we argue that a selective reading of their works could lead to a theoretical model in which Keynesian and Hayekian scenarios are specific cases of a more general theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Economia Politica/Brazilian Journal of Political Economy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Economia Politica/Brazilian Journal of Political Economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572023-3375\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Economia Politica/Brazilian Journal of Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572023-3375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要凯恩斯和哈耶克在经济思想史上通常被视为智力上的竞争对手。尽管在政策建议方面,他们确实并不总是意见一致,但两位经济学家倾向于分享许多理论元素。如果人们遵循Axel Leijonhuffud(1976)的观点,认为凯恩斯的基本理论著作是《论》而不是《通论》,那么这一点尤其正确。20世纪30年代初,继Wicksell(1989)的著作之后,两人都将商业周期解释为储蓄和投资之间的差异造成的。他们认为,在现代经济中,利率不能迅速调整这两个幅度。在某种程度上,凯恩斯和哈耶克甚至就“正常”萧条中的价格动态序列达成了一致。到通用理论问世时,流动性偏好掩盖了两位经济学家之间的大部分共性。尽管哈耶克在1941年的《纯粹资本理论》中将流动性偏好作为一种短期摩擦引入,但他不能接受它作为利率的基本决定因素。然而,在20世纪70年代,哈耶克开始相信“正常”的哈耶克危机可能会进一步恶化为凯恩斯主义的萧条。通过关注凯恩斯在阐述《通论》之前的理论发展,以及哈耶克一生的演变,我们认为,选择性阅读他们的著作可能会产生一个理论模型,在这个模型中,凯恩斯主义和哈耶克主义的情景是更一般理论的具体案例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Keynes and Hayek: some common elements in business cycle theory
ABSTRACT Keynes and Hayek are usually perceived in the history of economic thought as intellectual rivals. Although it is true that in terms of policy recommendations, they have not always seen eye to eye, there are numerous theoretical elements that the two economists tend to share. This is especially true if one follows Axel Leijonhufvud (1976) in considering that Keynes’s fundamental theoretical work is the Treatise and not the General Theory. In the early 1930s, following the works of Wicksell (1989), both explained business cycles as caused by a discrepancy between savings and investment. They considered that in the modern economy the interest rate cannot speedily adjust these two magnitudes. To a certain extent, Keynes and Hayek even agreed on the dynamic sequence of prices in a “normal” depression. By the time the General Theory came out, liquidity preference obscured most of the commonalities between the two economists. Although Hayek introduced liquidity preference as a short run friction in his 1941 Pure Theory of Capital, he could not accept it as a fundamental determinant of the interest rate. However, in the 1970s Hayek began to believe that “normal” Hayekian crises could further degenerate into Keynesian depressions. By focusing on Keynes’s theoretical development prior to the elaboration of the General Theory in parallel with Hayek’s evolution throughout his life, we argue that a selective reading of their works could lead to a theoretical model in which Keynesian and Hayekian scenarios are specific cases of a more general theory.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Revista de Economia Politica/Brazilian Journal of Political Economy
Revista de Economia Politica/Brazilian Journal of Political Economy Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: Brazilian Journal of Political Economy/Revista de Economia Política é uma revista acadêmica, peer reviewed, bilíngue, publicada trimestralmente desde 1981 pelo Centro de Economia Política através da Editora 34. Está indexada na Scielo e no Journal of Economic Literature. É a mais citadas das revistas acadêmicas de economia do Brasil.
×
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