Contributions and Controversies, 1922 to 1990

The contributions of the generations of Oxford economists of the prewar (1922 to 1939), wartime (1940 to 1945), and post-war (1946 onwards) periods were significant, highly original and many times critical of neoclassical theory. And, as in the case of such work, these contributions were accompanied by debate both within the economics profession and amongst Oxford economists themselves. In order to do justice to the overall scope of Oxford economics during these periods, we will not limit ourselves only to the contributions that engendered critical debate among ‘mainstream’ economists. Indeed, some of the most interesting and thought-provoking work at Oxford also took place in what can be called the ‘non-mainstream’ and ‘heterodox’ areas of economic inquiry, conducted by individuals who ranged from formally-trained or self-taught economists, in most cases, to in one instance at least, an influential — albeit somewhat forgotten — ‘monetary crank’. This demarcation follows from the eclectic and path-breaking tradition that characterised Oxford economics and economists of these periods. Indeed, even up to the time of his death, Hicks was working on what he called a new approach to markets and money. Thus Sayers’s comment on the interwar Oxford economists is also appropriate for the Oxford economists of the post-war era as well: In the second of the inter-war decades Oxford had at least its fair share of the rising generation of English economists … These economists in no sense formed a ‘school of thought:’ they were drawn from surprisingly varied sources and had scarcely had time to do more than understand and explain work originating in the older homes of economic thought. But to suppose that they were content to find illumination in traditional doctrine would be a grave injustice: they were also keenly interested in putting traditional doctrine to the test of practical experience and in arriving at practical maxims for economic policy.1