Kaldor and Robinson on money and growth

Abstract

Post-Keynesian theory was developed as an alternative to mainstream neoclassical economics. However, post-Keynesians have not succeeded in getting their message through, partly because of the difficult and controversial economic issues upon which they embarked, partly because they emphasized, both in their monetary and growth analysis, theories that do not radically depart from the mainstream of economics. This paper therefore argues that post-Keynesian economics got off on the wrong foot. Rather than having emphasized the works of Minsky and (the early) Kaldor in money, post-Keynesians should have considered the contributions of Robinson and Kahn. Also, rather than having emphasized the work of Robinson and Harrod on growth, they ought to have given greater emphasis to Kaldor's demand-oriented growth theory. Hence, as a simplification, post-Keynesians should have considered Robinson on money, not Kaldor; and Kaldor on growth, not Robinson.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.