IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v36y2012i2p405-417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Keynesian economics: cycling forward with Harrod and Kalecki

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Kriesler
  • J. W. Nevile

Abstract

In the 1950s the plethora of existing business cycle theories gave way to a Keynesian-type theory based on Hicks' (1950) book. However, the first two expositions of Keynesian-type business cycle theory had no direct influence on Hicks' model. This paper examines the business cycle theories of Harrod and Kalecki. This is done mainly for its own sake--both of these theories are very important in the history of economic thought. But it is also of interest to see that constituent parts, which Hicks ignored, gave a richness absent in the Hicksian theory. In the case of Harrod aspects of the role of money and the explicit incorporation of imperfect competition in the micro foundation were important. While in the case of Kalecki it was imperfect competition and an emphasis on the contradictory nature of investment as both creating effective demand and capacity. Copyright The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:36:y:2012:i:2:p:405-417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/ber004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keld Laursen & Ina Drejer, 1999. "Do Inter-Sectoral Linkages Matter for International Export Specialisation?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 311-330.
    2. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "Firms, Incomplete Contracts and Organizational Learning," DRUID Working Papers 96-2, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    3. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    4. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    5. Gustavsson, Patrik & Hansson, Par & Lundberg, Lars, 1999. "Technology, resource endowments and international competitiveness," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1501-1530, August.
    6. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    7. Godin, Benoit, 1996. "Research and the practice of publication in industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 587-606, June.
    8. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    9. Narin, Francis & Olivastro, Dominic, 1992. "Status report: Linkage between technology and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 237-249, June.
    10. Keld Laursen & Valentina Meliciani, 2000. "The importance of technology-based intersectoral linkages for market share dynamics," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 136(4), pages 702-723, December.
    11. Peter Maskell, 1996. "Localised Low-tech Learning in the Furniture Industry," DRUID Working Papers 96-11, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    12. Hicks, Diana & Breitzman, Tony & Olivastro, Dominic & Hamilton, Kimberly, 2001. "The changing composition of innovative activity in the US -- a portrait based on patent analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 681-703, April.
    13. Anthony Arundel & Aldo Geuna, 2001. "Does Proximity Matter for Knowledge Transfer from Public Institutes and Universities to Firms?," SPRU Working Paper Series 73, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
    14. Laursen, Keld, 1996. "Horizontal diversification in the Danish national system of innovation: the case of pharmaceuticals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1121-1137, October.
    15. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Kriesler & J W Nevile, 2008. "Escaping from a Blind Alley: Disequilibrium in the Dynamic Analysis of Harrod and Kalecki," Discussion Papers 2008-12, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    2. Joseph Halevi & Neil Hart & Peter Kriesler, 2012. "The traverse, equilibrium analysis and post-Keynesian economics," Discussion Papers 2012-32, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:36:y:2012:i:2:p:405-417. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.