Failing to Win Consent: Harrod’s Dynamics in the Eyes of His Readers

Abstract

Even a cursory reading of Harrod’s pieces on dynamics and his readers’ early comments reveals that they were at cross purposes, the former urging the need for a new approach to dynamics and the latter interpreting Harrod’s theory as a model of steady growth . A study of the literature on Harrod’s dynamics is needed to uncover any recognisable trends in interpretation and explain their origins. I am particularly interested in Harrod’s notion of dynamics and his insistence on the difference between his own approach and the ‘time-lag theories of the cycle’, and I will therefore concentrate on those criticisms (or the lack of them) that elucidate how the peculiarities of Harrod’s method and conception were (or were not) perceived and integrated by the profession. I am less interested in the analytical aspects of the mechanisms Harrod proposed to explain cycles and growth, and thus the details of debates on the conditions for stability, the classification of technical progress, and the several models aiming at representing Harrod’s ideas are excluded from this survey. (This literature has been covered by other authors, and references will be given where appropriate). These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 — 24 citations exist upstream.

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