Escaping from a Blind Alley: Disequilibrium in the Dynamic Analysis of Harrod and Kalecki
AbstractThe pioneers of dynamic Keynesian economics, Harrod and Kalecki, began with an analysis of the trade cycle, but are remembered for their contributions to growth theory. Unlike most twentieth century growth theory, they both had a major focus on disequilibrium situations and an examination of this aspect of their theory is the purpose of this paper. Harrod distinguished three stages in his dynamic analysis. The first was the derivation of the fundamental equation and consequent theorems. Fundamental meant underlying: even apart from random factors the equation may never hold exactly in real life. In the second stage, detailed analysis was made of the factors (in addition to the fundamental equation) which have a systematic effect on the path the economy follows. The final stage is policy prescriptions. Except in his 1936 book on the trade cycle, Harrod did relatively little “second stage” work but this did not stop him putting forward policy prescriptions. This three stage structure of analysis contributed to the widespread misunderstanding of the nature of his fundamental equation leading to a widely accepted view of a Harrod growth model which was completely different to what Harrod thought he was putting forward. Kalecki, on the other hand, rejected what Harrod had called “first stage analysis” as being of little interest. His main criticisms of growth theory were aimed at, what he saw, as the vacuousness of such theorising. Instead, his work concentrated on second and third stage analysis, that is, in attempting to understand the non-equilibrium, dynamics of the economy with a view towards policy prescription. For this reason, Kalecki’s contribution was less open to misunderstanding than was Harrod’s.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by School of Economics, The University of New South Wales in its series Discussion Papers with number 2008-12.
Length: 18 pages
Date of creation: Aug 2008
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Australian School of Business Building, Sydney 2052
Fax: +61)-2- 9313- 6337
Web page: http://www.economics.unsw.edu.au/
More information through EDIRC
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Daniele Besomi, 1996.
"Introduction to “An Essay in Dynamic Theory”: 1938 Draft by Roy F. Harrod,"
History of Political Economy,
Duke University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 245-251, Summer.
- Besomi, Daniele, 1996. "Introduction to "An Essay in Dynamic Theory": 1938 Draft by Roy F. Harrod," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 28, pages 245-251.
- Daniele Besomi, 1996. "An Additional Note on the Harrod-Keynes Correspondence," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 281-294, Summer.
- Peter Kriesler & J. W. Nevile, 2012. "Dynamic Keynesian economics: cycling forward with Harrod and Kalecki," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 405-417.
- Geoff Harcourt, 2012. "Fusing Indissolubly the Cycle and the Trend: Richard Goodwin’s Profound Insight," Discussion Papers 2012-30, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gabriele Gratton).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.