This paper considers some methodological aspects of Joan Robinson's contribution to post-Keynesian growth theory. Joan Robinson's criticisms of equilibrium analysis, of the conflation of logical and historical time and of the uses (and misuses) of mathematical formalisation are scathing. But while many of her points are well taken, parts of her argument appear questionable. As a result, her methodological critique of equilibrium economics may be misleading. Moreover, she failed to appreciate the potential gains from mathematical formalisation. The further development of a Robinsonian analysis of economic growth calls for a reconsideration of these aspects of her legacy.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number
2004-09.
Find related papers by JEL classification: B31 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Thought: Individuals - - - Individuals B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology O41 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS 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.: