Cambridge JOURNAL of ECONOMICS

) ) November 2014 November print online ISSN 0309-166X ( ISSN 0309-166X ISSN 1464-3545 ( ISSN 1464-3545 Special Issue Number 6 method, analysis and policy Published on behalf of Society Economy the Cambridge Political Volume 38 Volume Cambridge Journal of Economics Contributions to heterodox debates about economic Contributions to heterodox Contemporary political economics: progressive capitalism and

Cambridge Journal of Economics Volume 38 Number 6 November 2014 November 2014 November Number 6 Number www.cje.oxfordjournals.org Introduction S. Blankenburg The future of consideration of capitalism: a alternatives Harcourt Wendy of a political economy Towards the theory of policy economic Velupillai K. Vela Economic historytheory: and economic to economic approach the staples development Dow Alexander Dow and Sheila A neo-Kaleckian–Goodwin model of economic growth: capitalist monopoly conflict managerial and labour market pay power, Thomas I. Palley A new theoretical analysis of deindustrialisation Fiona Tregenna Triggers of change: structural trajectories and production dynamics Antonio Andreoni and Roberto Scazzieri Theof crisis intellectual monopoly capitalism Ugo Pagano principles Liquidity and clearing as alternative Bretton Woods? to which Back for reforming international money Massimo Amato and Luca Fantacci policy for non-eurozone A bright future can be ours! Macroeconomic countries Western Kriesler Nevile and Peter W. J. and occupational race gender, Identity economics meets financialisation: stratification in the US labour market Philip Arestis, Aurelie Charles and Giuseppe Fontana lineages Contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt Veblen and beyond in capital controversies Cohen Avi J. The as reader: scholar the last 50 years of economic theory seen through book reviews Harcourt’s G.C. Constantinos Repapis list Referee 38 Index to Volume Contents of 38 Volume Cambridge Journal of Economics Journal Cambridge 38 Volume CambridgeCambridge Journal Journal of of Economics Economics NotesNotes to to contributors contributors EditorialEditorial communications communications should should be sent be sentto the to Managingthe Managing Editor, Editor, Cambridge Cambridge Journal Journal of Economics of Economics, Faculty, Faculty of Economics, of Economics, SidgwickSidgwick Avenue, Avenue, Cambridge Cambridge CB3 CB39DD, 9DD, UK, UK,email: email: [email protected]. [email protected]. Articles Articles should should be submitted be submitted online online at http:// at http:// PATRONSPATRONS mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cje.mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cje. Submissions Submissions should should not normallynot normally exceed exceed 7500 7500 words words and shouldand should be prefaced be prefaced by an by abstract an abstract LuigiLuigi Pasinetti Pasinetti of noof longer no longer than than 150 words,150 words, together together with with up to up five to keywords,five keywords, three three JEL JELclassifications classifications and anand address an address for correspondence. for correspondence. For further information on manuscript submission please go to ‘Instructions to Authors’ at www.cje.oxfordjournals.org. AmartyaAmartya Sen Sen For further information on manuscript submission please go to ‘Instructions to Authors’ at www.cje.oxfordjournals.org.

SUBMISSIONSUBMISSION POLICY POLICY The Cambridge Journal of Economics, founded in the traditions of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor, EDITORSEDITORS The Cambridge Journal of Economics, founded in the traditions of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor, welcomeswelcomes contributions contributions from from heterodox heterodox economics economics as well as wellas other as other social social science science disciplines. disciplines. Within Within this thisorientation orientation the the journaljournal provides provides a focus a focus for theoretical,for theoretical, applied, applied, interdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, history history of thought of thought and andmethodological methodological work, work, with with strong emphasis on realistic analysis, the development of critical perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evi- Stephanie Blankenburg Jacqui Lagrue (Managing Editor) strong emphasis on realistic analysis, the development of critical perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evi- Stephanie Blankenburg Jacqui Lagrue (Managing Editor) dence,dence, and andthe constructionthe construction of policy. of policy. The TheEditors Editors welcome welcome submissions submissions in this in thisspirit spirit on economicon economic and andsocial social issues issues BrendanBrendan Burchell Burchell CliveClive Lawson Lawson including,including, but notbut only,not only, unemployment, unemployment, inflation, inflation, the organisationthe organisation of production, of production, the distributionthe distribution of the of socialthe social product, product, Ha-JoonHa-Joon Chang Chang TonyTony Lawson Lawson classclass conflict, conflict, economic economic underdevelopment, underdevelopment, globalisation globalisation and andinternational international economic economic integration, integration, changing changing forms forms and and boundaries of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. KenKen Coutts Coutts RonRon Martin Martin boundaries of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. SimonSimon Deakin Deakin PeterPeter Nolan Nolan Use Useof mathematics of mathematics PhilipPhilip Faulkner Faulkner GabrielGabriel Palma Palma AuthorsAuthors are asked are asked to use to mathematicsuse mathematics only onlywhen when its application its application does doesnot compromisenot compromise realistic realistic analysis. analysis. When When mathematics mathematics is is Alan Hughes Christos Pitelis used,used, the major the major steps steps in the in argument the argument and theand conclusions the conclusions should should be made be made intelligible intelligible to a non-mathematicalto a non-mathematical reader. reader. Authors Authors Alan Hughes Christos Pitelis should put the mathematical parts of their argument into an appendix. In the case of empirical articles, authors will normally Geoffrey Ingham Stephen Pratten should put the mathematical parts of their argument into an appendix. In the case of empirical articles, authors will normally Geoffrey Ingham Stephen Pratten be expectedbe expected to make to make readily readily available available to interested to interested readers readers a complete a complete set of set data of dataas well as wellas details as details of any of specialisedany specialised computer computer LawrenceLawrence King King JochenJochen Runde Runde programsprograms used. used. Michael Kitson Ajit Singh Michael Kitson Ajit Singh LayoutLayout Sue SueKonzelmann Konzelmann FrankFrank Wilkinson Wilkinson All copiesAll copies must must be typed be typed in Journal in Journal style style(see (seea recent a recent issue), issue), double double spaced spaced (including (including footnotes footnotes and andreferences), references), with with a a marginmargin of at of least at least1.5’’ 1.5’’on the on left-handthe left-hand side. side.Footnotes Footnotes should should be kept be keptto a tominimum, a minimum, indicated indicated by superscript by superscript figures figures in in the text,the text,and collectedand collected on a onsingle a single page page placed placed at the at endthe ofend the of manuscript.the manuscript. Please Please do not do usenot theuse automaticthe automatic footnote footnote feature feature ASSOCIATEASSOCIATE EDITORS EDITORS of yourof yourword word processing processing program. program. Tables Tables and figuresand figures should should be attached be attached on separate on separate sheets sheets at the at endthe ofend the of manuscriptthe manuscript and and theirtheir position position indicated indicated in the in text.the text.Citations Citations in the in textthe textshould should use theuse Harvardthe Harvard System System of short of short references references (e.g. (e.g.Isenman, Isenman, 1980,1980, pp. 66–7; pp. 66–7; Brown, Brown, 1975A, 1975A, 1993B) 1993B) with with a full a alphabeticalfull alphabetical list at list the at end the inend the in following the following style: style: Mahmoud Abdel-Fadil (Middle East) Ned Lorenz (France) Isenman,Isenman, P. 1980. P. 1980. Basic Basic needs: needs: the case the caseof Sri of Lanka, Sri Lanka, World World Development Development, vol., 8,vol. no. 8, 3, no. 237–58 3, 237–58 Mahmoud Abdel-Fadil (Middle East) Ned Lorenz (France) Myrdal, G. 1939. Monetary Equilibrium, London, Hodge Michael Anyadike-Danes (West Indies) Jonathan Michie (UK) Myrdal, G. 1939. Monetary Equilibrium, London, Hodge Michael Anyadike-Danes (West Indies) Jonathan Michie (UK) Phillips,Phillips, A. W. A. H. W. 1953. H. 1953. ‘Dynamic ‘Dynamic Models Models in Economics’, in Economics’, PhD PhD Thesis, Thesis, University University of London of London Amiya Bagchi (India) Mario Nuti (Italy) Amiya Bagchi (India) Mario Nuti (Italy) Advance Access Citation Francis Cripps (Thailand) Terry O’Shaughnessy (UK) Advance Access Citation Francis Cripps (Thailand) Terry O’Shaughnessy (UK) PapersPapers published published in Advance in Advance Access Access are citeable are citeable using using the DOI. the DOI. An example An example of an of Advance an Advance Access Access citation citation is given is given below: below: PaulPaul Dunne Dunne (UK) (UK) PascalPascal Petit Petit (France) (France) Brammer,Brammer, S. and S. Millington,and Millington, A. 2005. A. 2005. Profit Profit maximisation maximisation vs. agency: vs. agency: an analysis an analysis of charitable of charitable giving giving by UK by UKfirms, firms, MichaelMichael Ellman Ellman (The (The Netherlands) Netherlands) Jill RuberyJill Rubery (UK) (UK) CambridgeCambridge Journal Journal of Economics of Economics, doi:10.1093/cje/bei036., doi:10.1093/cje/bei036. MartinMartin Fetherston Fetherston (USA) (USA) JohnJohn Sender Sender (UK) (UK) The Thesame same paper paper in its in final its final form form would would be cited: be cited: Brammer, S. and Millington, A. ‘Profit maximisation vs. agency: an analysis of charitable giving by UK firms’, Cam- DianeDiane Flaherty Flaherty (USA) (USA) AnwarAnwar Shaikh Shaikh (USA) (USA) Brammer, S. and Millington, A. ‘Profit maximisation vs. agency: an analysis of charitable giving by UK firms’, Cam- bridgebridge Journal Journal of Economics of Economics, vol., vol.29, no.29, 4,no. 517–34 4, 517–34 GeoffGeoff Harcourt Harcourt (Australia) (Australia) RonRon Smith Smith (UK) (UK) Geoff Hodgson (UK) Sheila Smith (UK) CommentsComments on published on published articles articles Geoff Hodgson (UK) Sheila Smith (UK) Before submitting a comment (normally no more than 1500 words) on any article published in the Journal, a copy of the Jane Humphries (UK) Ian Steedman (UK) Before submitting a comment (normally no more than 1500 words) on any article published in the Journal, a copy of the Jane Humphries (UK) Ian Steedman (UK) commentcomment should should be sent be sentto the to authorthe author of the of originalthe original article article with with a request a request they theyrespond respond to any to pointsany points of possible of possible misunder- misunder- MushtaqMushtaq Khan Khan (UK) (UK) TerryTerry Ward Ward (UK) (UK) standing.standing. The Thecomment comment should should not benot submitted be submitted for publication for publication before before this thisresponse response has beenhas been received received unless unless the originalthe original PeterPeter Kriesler Kriesler (Australia) (Australia) HughHugh Whittaker Whittaker (New (New Zealand) Zealand) authorauthor does doesnot reply not reply within within a reasonable a reasonable time. time. MichaelMichael Landesmann Landesmann (Austria) (Austria) CopyrightCopyright and andPermissions Permissions It is Ita conditionis a condition of publication of publication in the in Journalthe Journal that thatauthors authors grant grant an exclusive an exclusive licence licence to the to Cambridgethe Cambridge Political Political Economy Economy Society.Society. This Thisensures ensures that thatrequests requests from from third third parties parties to reproduce to reproduce articles articles are handledare handled efficiently efficiently and consistentlyand consistently and willand will TheThe Cambridge Cambridge Journal Journal of Economics, of Economics, founded founded in the in thetraditions traditions of Marx, of Marx, Keynes, Keynes, Kalecki, Kalecki, Joan Joan Robinson Robinson also alsoallow allow the articlethe article to be to as be widely as widely disseminated disseminated as possible. as possible. As part As partof the of licencethe licence agreement, agreement, authors authors may mayuse theiruse their own own and andKaldor, Kaldor, welcomes welcomes contributions contributions from from heterodox heterodox economics economics as well as well as other as other social social science science disciplines. disciplines. materialmaterial in other in other publications, publications, provided provided that thatthe Journalthe Journal is acknowledged is acknowledged as the as originalthe original place place of publication of publication and andOxford Oxford University Press as the publisher in writing. For information on how to request permissions to reproduce articles/informa- WithinWithin this thisorientation orientation the thejournal journal provides provides a focus a focus for theoretical,for theoretical, applied, applied, interdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, history history of of University Press as the publisher in writing. For information on how to request permissions to reproduce articles/information tionfrom from this journal,this journal, please please visit visitwww.oxfordjournals.org/jnls/permissions. www.oxfordjournals.org/jnls/permissions. thoughtthought and andmethodological methodological work, work, with with strong strong emphasis emphasis on realisticon realistic analysis, analysis, the thedevelopment development of critical of critical perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evidence, and the construction of policy. The Editors wel- AdvertisingAdvertising perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evidence, and the construction of policy. The Editors wel- Inquiries about advertising should be sent to Linda Hann, Oxford Journals Advertising, 1 Fernham Road, Shellingford, come submissions in this spirit on economic and social issues including, but not only, unemployment, Inquiries about advertising should be sent to Linda Hann, Oxford Journals Advertising, 1 Fernham Road, Shellingford, come submissions in this spirit on economic and social issues including, but not only, unemployment, Oxfordshire,Oxfordshire, SN7 SN7 7PU. 7PU. Email: Email: [email protected]. [email protected]. Tel: Tel:+44 +44(0)1367 (0)1367 710022 710022 (please (please call callduring during UK UKworking working inflation,inflation, the theorganisation organisation of production, of production, the thedistribution distribution of the of thesocial social product, product, class class conflict, conflict, economic economic hourshours only). only). underdevelopment, globalisation and international economic integration, changing forms and boundaries underdevelopment, globalisation and international economic integration, changing forms and boundaries © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2014 of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2013 of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. All rightsAll rights reserved; reserved; no part no partof this of publicationthis publication may maybe reproduced, be reproduced, stored stored in a retrievalin a retrieval system, system, or transmitted or transmitted in any in formany form or or by anyby means,any means, electronic, electronic, mechanical, mechanical, photocopying, photocopying, recording, recording, or otherwise or otherwise without without prior prior written written permission permission of the of Publish-the Publish- AbstractedAbstracted and andIndexed Indexed by Geoby GeoAbstracts, Abstracts, Social Social Sciences Sciences Abstracts, Abstracts, ISI: ISI:Social Social Sciences Sciences Citation Citation Index, Index, Journal Journal ers, orers, a licenceor a licence permitting permitting restricted restricted copying copying issued issued in the in UKthe byUK the by Copyrightthe Copyright Licensing Licensing Agency Agency Ltd, Ltd,90 Tottenham 90 Tottenham Court Court of Economicof Economic Literature, Literature, e-JEL, e-JEL, Social Social Science Science Research Research Network Network (SSRN), (SSRN), British British Humanities Humanities Index, Index, Research Research in in Road,Road, London London W1P W1P 9HE, 9HE, or in or the in USA the USA by the by Copyright the Copyright Clearance Clearance Center, Center, 222 Rosewood222 Rosewood Drive, Drive, Danvers, Danvers, MA MA01923. 01923. EconomicEconomic Papers Papers (RePEc) (RePEc) and andEconLit. EconLit. TypesetTypeset by Newgen by Newgen Knowledge Knowledge Works Works Pvt. Pvt.Ltd., Ltd., Chennai, Chennai, India India PrintedPrinted by C.O.S. by C.O.S. Printers, Printers, Singapore Singapore SUBSCRIPTIONS A subscription to Cambridge Journal of Economics comprises 6 issues, published in January, March, May, July, September and November. All prices include postage, and for subscribers outside the UK delivery is by Standard Air. Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access contains papers that have been finalised, but have not yet been included within the issue. Annual Subscription Rate (Volume 38, 6 issues, 2014) Institutional: Print edition and site-wide online access: £484.00/$968.00/€726.00. Print edition only: £445.00/$890.00/€668.00. Site-wide online access only: £387.00/$774.00/€581.00. Personal: Print edition and individual online access: £76.00/$152.00/€115.00. A combined price is available for a subscription to Cambridge Journal of Economics and Contributions to Political Economy. Institutional: Print edition and site-wide online access: £540.00/$1079.00/€808.00. Print edition only: £496.00/$992.00/€744.00. Personal: Print edition and individual online access: £97.00/$194.00/€146.00. Please note: US$ rate applies to US and Canada, Euros applies to Europe, UK£ applies to UK and Rest of World. There are other subscription rates available, for a complete listing please visit http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ cameco/access_purchase/price_list.html Full prepayment, in the correct currency, is required for all orders. Orders are regarded as firm and payments are not refundable. Subscriptions are accepted and entered on a complete volume basis. Claims cannot be considered more than FOUR months after publication or date of order, whichever is later. All subscriptions in Canada are subject to GST. Subscriptions in the EU may be subject to European VAT. If registered, please supply details to avoid unnecessary charges. For subscriptions that include online versions, a proportion of the subscription price may be subject to UK VAT. Personal rate subscriptions are only available if payment is made by personal cheque or credit card and delivery is to a private address. The current year and two previous years’ issues are available from Oxford University Press. Previous volumes can be obtained from Swets and Zeitlinger, Backsets Department, PO Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, Holland. Tel: +31 252 435 111. For further information, please contact: Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. Email: [email protected]. Tel (and answerphone outside normal working hours): +44 (0)1865 353907. Fax: + 44 (0)1865 353485. In the US, please contact: Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513, USA. Email: [email protected]. Tel (and answerphone outside normal working hours): 800 852 7323 (toll-free in USA/Canada). Fax: 919 677 1714. In Japan, please contact: Journals Customer Services, Oxford University Press, 4-5-10-8F Shiba, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108- 8386, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel. +81 3 5444 5858. Fax. +81 3 3454 2929. Methods of payment. (i) Cheque (payable to Oxford University Press, to Oxford University Press, Cashiers Office, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK) in GB£ Sterling (drawn on a UK bank), US$ Dollars (drawn on a US bank), or EU€ Euros. (ii) Bank transfer to Barclays Bank Plc, Oxford Group Office, Oxford (bank sort code 20-65-18) (UK), overseas only Swift code BARC GB 22 (GB£ Sterling to account no. 70299332, IBAN GB89BARC20651870299332; US$ Dollars to account no. 66014600, IBAN GB27BARC20651866014600; EU€ Euros to account no. 78923655, IBAN GB16BARC20651878923655). (iii) Credit card (Mastercard, Visa, Switch or American Express). Cambridge Journal of Economics (ISSN 0309-166X) is published bi-monthly by Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Annual subscription price is £484.00/$968.00/€726.00. Cambridge Journal of Economics is distributed by Mercury Media Processing, 187 E. Albert Street, Rahway, NJ 07065, USA. Periodicals postage paid at Rahway, NJ and at additional entry points. US Postmaster: send address changes to Cambridge Journal of Economics, c/o Mercury Media Processing, 187 E. Albert Street, Rahway, NJ 07065, USA. Environmental and ethical policies Oxford Journals, a division of Oxford University Press, is committed to working with the global community to bring the highest quality research to the widest possible audience. Oxford Journals will protect the environment by implementing environmentally friendly policies and practices wherever possible. Please see http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ethicalpolicies.html for further information on environmental and ethical policies. Cambridge Journal of Economics Volume 38 Number 6 November 2014

Contemporary capitalism and progressive political economics: Contributions to heterodox debates about economic method, analysis and policy

Introduction S. Blankenburg 1295 The future of capitalism: a consideration of alternatives Wendy Harcourt 1307 Towards a political economy of the theory of economic policy K. Vela Velupillai 1329 Economic history and economic theory: the staples approach to economic development Alexander Dow and Sheila Dow 1339 A neo-Kaleckian–Goodwin model of capitalist economic growth: monopoly power, managerial pay and labour market conflict Thomas I. Palley 1355 A new theoretical analysis of deindustrialisation Fiona Tregenna 1373 Triggers of change: structural trajectories and production dynamics Antonio Andreoni and Roberto Scazzieri 1391 The crisis of intellectual monopoly capitalism Ugo Pagano 1409 Back to which Bretton Woods? Liquidity and clearing as alternative principles for reforming international money Massimo Amato and Luca Fantacci 1431 A bright future can be ours! Macroeconomic policy for non-eurozone Western countries J. W. Nevile and Peter Kriesler 1453 Identity economics meets financialisation: gender, race and occupational stratification in the US labour market Philip Arestis, Aurelie Charles and Giuseppe Fontana 1471 Veblen Contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt lineages in capital controversies and beyond Avi J. Cohen 1493 The scholar as reader: the last 50 years of economic theory seen through G.C. Harcourt’s book reviews Constantinos Repapis 1517 Referee list 1541 Index to Volume 38 1545 Contents of Volume 38 i CambridgeCambridge Journal Journal of of Economics Economics NotesNotes to to contributors contributors EditorialEditorial communications communications should should be sent be sentto the to Managingthe Managing Editor, Editor, Cambridge Cambridge Journal Journal of Economics of Economics, Faculty, Faculty of Economics, of Economics, SidgwickSidgwick Avenue, Avenue, Cambridge Cambridge CB3 CB39DD, 9DD, UK, UK,email: email: [email protected]. [email protected]. Articles Articles should should be submitted be submitted online online at http:// at http:// PATRONSPATRONS mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cje.mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cje. Submissions Submissions should should not normallynot normally exceed exceed 7500 7500 words words and shouldand should be prefaced be prefaced by an by abstract an abstract LuigiLuigi Pasinetti Pasinetti of noof longer no longer than than 150 words,150 words, together together with with up to up five to keywords,five keywords, three three JEL JELclassifications classifications and anand address an address for correspondence. for correspondence. For further information on manuscript submission please go to ‘Instructions to Authors’ at www.cje.oxfordjournals.org. AmartyaAmartya Sen Sen For further information on manuscript submission please go to ‘Instructions to Authors’ at www.cje.oxfordjournals.org.

SUBMISSIONSUBMISSION POLICY POLICY The Cambridge Journal of Economics, founded in the traditions of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor, EDITORSEDITORS The Cambridge Journal of Economics, founded in the traditions of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor, welcomeswelcomes contributions contributions from from heterodox heterodox economics economics as well as wellas other as other social social science science disciplines. disciplines. Within Within this thisorientation orientation the the journaljournal provides provides a focus a focus for theoretical,for theoretical, applied, applied, interdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, history history of thought of thought and andmethodological methodological work, work, with with strong emphasis on realistic analysis, the development of critical perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evi- Stephanie Blankenburg Jacqui Lagrue (Managing Editor) strong emphasis on realistic analysis, the development of critical perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evi- Stephanie Blankenburg Jacqui Lagrue (Managing Editor) dence,dence, and andthe constructionthe construction of policy. of policy. The TheEditors Editors welcome welcome submissions submissions in this in thisspirit spirit on economicon economic and andsocial social issues issues BrendanBrendan Burchell Burchell CliveClive Lawson Lawson including,including, but notbut only,not only, unemployment, unemployment, inflation, inflation, the organisationthe organisation of production, of production, the distributionthe distribution of the of socialthe social product, product, Ha-JoonHa-Joon Chang Chang TonyTony Lawson Lawson classclass conflict, conflict, economic economic underdevelopment, underdevelopment, globalisation globalisation and andinternational international economic economic integration, integration, changing changing forms forms and and boundaries of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. KenKen Coutts Coutts RonRon Martin Martin boundaries of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. SimonSimon Deakin Deakin PeterPeter Nolan Nolan Use Useof mathematics of mathematics PhilipPhilip Faulkner Faulkner GabrielGabriel Palma Palma AuthorsAuthors are asked are asked to use to mathematicsuse mathematics only onlywhen when its application its application does doesnot compromisenot compromise realistic realistic analysis. analysis. When When mathematics mathematics is is Alan Hughes Christos Pitelis used,used, the major the major steps steps in the in argument the argument and theand conclusions the conclusions should should be made be made intelligible intelligible to a non-mathematicalto a non-mathematical reader. reader. Authors Authors Alan Hughes Christos Pitelis should put the mathematical parts of their argument into an appendix. In the case of empirical articles, authors will normally Geoffrey Ingham Stephen Pratten should put the mathematical parts of their argument into an appendix. In the case of empirical articles, authors will normally Geoffrey Ingham Stephen Pratten be expectedbe expected to make to make readily readily available available to interested to interested readers readers a complete a complete set of set data of dataas well as wellas details as details of any of specialisedany specialised computer computer LawrenceLawrence King King JochenJochen Runde Runde programsprograms used. used. Michael Kitson Ajit Singh Michael Kitson Ajit Singh LayoutLayout Sue SueKonzelmann Konzelmann FrankFrank Wilkinson Wilkinson All copiesAll copies must must be typed be typed in Journal in Journal style style(see (seea recent a recent issue), issue), double double spaced spaced (including (including footnotes footnotes and andreferences), references), with with a a marginmargin of at of least at least1.5’’ 1.5’’on the on left-handthe left-hand side. side.Footnotes Footnotes should should be kept be keptto a tominimum, a minimum, indicated indicated by superscript by superscript figures figures in in the text,the text,and collectedand collected on a onsingle a single page page placed placed at the at endthe ofend the of manuscript.the manuscript. Please Please do not do usenot theuse automaticthe automatic footnote footnote feature feature ASSOCIATEASSOCIATE EDITORS EDITORS of yourof yourword word processing processing program. program. Tables Tables and figuresand figures should should be attached be attached on separate on separate sheets sheets at the at endthe ofend the of manuscriptthe manuscript and and theirtheir position position indicated indicated in the in text.the text.Citations Citations in the in textthe textshould should use theuse Harvardthe Harvard System System of short of short references references (e.g. (e.g.Isenman, Isenman, 1980,1980, pp. 66–7; pp. 66–7; Brown, Brown, 1975A, 1975A, 1993B) 1993B) with with a full a alphabeticalfull alphabetical list at list the at end the inend the in following the following style: style: Mahmoud Abdel-Fadil (Middle East) Ned Lorenz (France) Isenman,Isenman, P. 1980. P. 1980. Basic Basic needs: needs: the case the caseof Sri of Lanka, Sri Lanka, World World Development Development, vol., 8,vol. no. 8, 3, no. 237–58 3, 237–58 Mahmoud Abdel-Fadil (Middle East) Ned Lorenz (France) Myrdal, G. 1939. Monetary Equilibrium, London, Hodge Michael Anyadike-Danes (West Indies) Jonathan Michie (UK) Myrdal, G. 1939. Monetary Equilibrium, London, Hodge Michael Anyadike-Danes (West Indies) Jonathan Michie (UK) Phillips,Phillips, A. W. A. H. W. 1953. H. 1953. ‘Dynamic ‘Dynamic Models Models in Economics’, in Economics’, PhD PhD Thesis, Thesis, University University of London of London Amiya Bagchi (India) Mario Nuti (Italy) Amiya Bagchi (India) Mario Nuti (Italy) Advance Access Citation Francis Cripps (Thailand) Terry O’Shaughnessy (UK) Advance Access Citation Francis Cripps (Thailand) Terry O’Shaughnessy (UK) PapersPapers published published in Advance in Advance Access Access are citeable are citeable using using the DOI. the DOI. An example An example of an of Advance an Advance Access Access citation citation is given is given below: below: PaulPaul Dunne Dunne (UK) (UK) PascalPascal Petit Petit (France) (France) Brammer,Brammer, S. and S. Millington,and Millington, A. 2005. A. 2005. Profit Profit maximisation maximisation vs. agency: vs. agency: an analysis an analysis of charitable of charitable giving giving by UK by UKfirms, firms, MichaelMichael Ellman Ellman (The (The Netherlands) Netherlands) Jill RuberyJill Rubery (UK) (UK) CambridgeCambridge Journal Journal of Economics of Economics, doi:10.1093/cje/bei036., doi:10.1093/cje/bei036. MartinMartin Fetherston Fetherston (USA) (USA) JohnJohn Sender Sender (UK) (UK) The Thesame same paper paper in its in final its final form form would would be cited: be cited: Brammer, S. and Millington, A. ‘Profit maximisation vs. agency: an analysis of charitable giving by UK firms’, Cam- DianeDiane Flaherty Flaherty (USA) (USA) AnwarAnwar Shaikh Shaikh (USA) (USA) Brammer, S. and Millington, A. ‘Profit maximisation vs. agency: an analysis of charitable giving by UK firms’, Cam- bridgebridge Journal Journal of Economics of Economics, vol., vol.29, no.29, 4,no. 517–34 4, 517–34 GeoffGeoff Harcourt Harcourt (Australia) (Australia) RonRon Smith Smith (UK) (UK) Geoff Hodgson (UK) Sheila Smith (UK) CommentsComments on published on published articles articles Geoff Hodgson (UK) Sheila Smith (UK) Before submitting a comment (normally no more than 1500 words) on any article published in the Journal, a copy of the Jane Humphries (UK) Ian Steedman (UK) Before submitting a comment (normally no more than 1500 words) on any article published in the Journal, a copy of the Jane Humphries (UK) Ian Steedman (UK) commentcomment should should be sent be sentto the to authorthe author of the of originalthe original article article with with a request a request they theyrespond respond to any to pointsany points of possible of possible misunder- misunder- MushtaqMushtaq Khan Khan (UK) (UK) TerryTerry Ward Ward (UK) (UK) standing.standing. The Thecomment comment should should not benot submitted be submitted for publication for publication before before this thisresponse response has beenhas been received received unless unless the originalthe original PeterPeter Kriesler Kriesler (Australia) (Australia) HughHugh Whittaker Whittaker (New (New Zealand) Zealand) authorauthor does doesnot reply not reply within within a reasonable a reasonable time. time. MichaelMichael Landesmann Landesmann (Austria) (Austria) CopyrightCopyright and andPermissions Permissions It is Ita conditionis a condition of publication of publication in the in Journalthe Journal that thatauthors authors grant grant an exclusive an exclusive licence licence to the to Cambridgethe Cambridge Political Political Economy Economy Society.Society. This Thisensures ensures that thatrequests requests from from third third parties parties to reproduce to reproduce articles articles are handledare handled efficiently efficiently and consistentlyand consistently and willand will TheThe Cambridge Cambridge Journal Journal of Economics, of Economics, founded founded in the in thetraditions traditions of Marx, of Marx, Keynes, Keynes, Kalecki, Kalecki, Joan Joan Robinson Robinson also alsoallow allow the articlethe article to be to as be widely as widely disseminated disseminated as possible. as possible. As part As partof the of licencethe licence agreement, agreement, authors authors may mayuse theiruse their own own and andKaldor, Kaldor, welcomes welcomes contributions contributions from from heterodox heterodox economics economics as well as well as other as other social social science science disciplines. disciplines. materialmaterial in other in other publications, publications, provided provided that thatthe Journalthe Journal is acknowledged is acknowledged as the as originalthe original place place of publication of publication and andOxford Oxford University Press as the publisher in writing. For information on how to request permissions to reproduce articles/informa- WithinWithin this thisorientation orientation the thejournal journal provides provides a focus a focus for theoretical,for theoretical, applied, applied, interdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, history history of of University Press as the publisher in writing. For information on how to request permissions to reproduce articles/information tionfrom from this journal,this journal, please please visit visitwww.oxfordjournals.org/jnls/permissions. www.oxfordjournals.org/jnls/permissions. thoughtthought and andmethodological methodological work, work, with with strong strong emphasis emphasis on realisticon realistic analysis, analysis, the thedevelopment development of critical of critical perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evidence, and the construction of policy. The Editors wel- AdvertisingAdvertising perspectives, the provision and use of empirical evidence, and the construction of policy. The Editors wel- Inquiries about advertising should be sent to Linda Hann, Oxford Journals Advertising, 1 Fernham Road, Shellingford, come submissions in this spirit on economic and social issues including, but not only, unemployment, Inquiries about advertising should be sent to Linda Hann, Oxford Journals Advertising, 1 Fernham Road, Shellingford, come submissions in this spirit on economic and social issues including, but not only, unemployment, Oxfordshire,Oxfordshire, SN7 SN7 7PU. 7PU. Email: Email: [email protected]. [email protected]. Tel: Tel:+44 +44(0)1367 (0)1367 710022 710022 (please (please call callduring during UK UKworking working inflation,inflation, the theorganisation organisation of production, of production, the thedistribution distribution of the of thesocial social product, product, class class conflict, conflict, economic economic hourshours only). only). underdevelopment, globalisation and international economic integration, changing forms and boundaries underdevelopment, globalisation and international economic integration, changing forms and boundaries © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2014 of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2013 of markets and planning, and uneven development and instability in the world economy. All rightsAll rights reserved; reserved; no part no partof this of publicationthis publication may maybe reproduced, be reproduced, stored stored in a retrievalin a retrieval system, system, or transmitted or transmitted in any in formany form or or by anyby means,any means, electronic, electronic, mechanical, mechanical, photocopying, photocopying, recording, recording, or otherwise or otherwise without without prior prior written written permission permission of the of Publish-the Publish- AbstractedAbstracted and andIndexed Indexed by Geoby GeoAbstracts, Abstracts, Social Social Sciences Sciences Abstracts, Abstracts, ISI: ISI:Social Social Sciences Sciences Citation Citation Index, Index, Journal Journal ers, orers, a licenceor a licence permitting permitting restricted restricted copying copying issued issued in the in UKthe byUK the by Copyrightthe Copyright Licensing Licensing Agency Agency Ltd, Ltd,90 Tottenham 90 Tottenham Court Court of Economicof Economic Literature, Literature, e-JEL, e-JEL, Social Social Science Science Research Research Network Network (SSRN), (SSRN), British British Humanities Humanities Index, Index, Research Research in in Road,Road, London London W1P W1P 9HE, 9HE, or in or the in USA the USA by the by Copyright the Copyright Clearance Clearance Center, Center, 222 Rosewood222 Rosewood Drive, Drive, Danvers, Danvers, MA MA01923. 01923. EconomicEconomic Papers Papers (RePEc) (RePEc) and andEconLit. EconLit. TypesetTypeset by Newgen by Newgen Knowledge Knowledge Works Works Pvt. Pvt.Ltd., Ltd., Chennai, Chennai, India India PrintedPrinted by C.O.S. by C.O.S. Printers, Printers, Singapore Singapore Cambridge Journal of Economics 2014, 38, 1295–1305 doi:10.1093/cje/beu055

Introduction

S. Blankenburg Downloaded from

This Special Issue assembles contributions to a conference on “The future of capitalism”, organised by the Cambridge Journal of Economics. and held in Cambridge (UK) on 25 and 26 June 2011, on the occasion of G.C. Harcourt’s 80th birthday. The conference attracted over 100 participants and 30 speakers from the UK, Europe, the United States, Australia, India and South Africa, amongst these many of G.C. Harcourt’s col- http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ leagues and former students. G.C. Harcourt joined the Cambridge Journal of Economics as an associate editor (Australia) from its first published volume in 1977. On his return to Cambridge and the UK in 1982, he became a full member of the sitting editorial board until his return to Australia in 2010. G. C. Harcourt’s contribution to the Cambridge Journal of Economics, over more than three decades, has been vital to the journal and its objec-

tives, as well as an integral part of his own research activity. As he notes on his curricu- at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 lum vitae, as of 2011: “I obviously do most editorial work for the Cambridge Journal of Economics, where in addition to the usual weekly chores I have edited or co-edited three special issues- the memorial issues for Joan Robinson, Piero Sraffa and Richard Kahn”. This research activity has been prolific, including 29 books and over 360 journal articles and book chapters, not counting numerous notes and non-academic publications (see Harcourt 1999 for detail). It has been (and continues to be) motivated by three main concerns. First, to ensure that Post-Keynesian economic analysis firmly establishes itself as a school of economic thought. This has entailed reviewing and systematically analysing pioneering contributions to this tradition of thought and to give structure to its underlying vision of economic life, by bringing out differences as well as similarities between (and amongst) early and later theoretical and empirical contributions. It has also entailed the development of new analytical concepts to try and bridge some of the differences constructively (e.g. and for most recent references, Harcourt 2006, 1997 and Harcourt and Kriesler 2013). Second, to advocate an ‘open-door’ policy within a, broadly speaking, heterodox economic ‘house’: In order to build a lasting and influential alternative to neoclassical economics, Post-Keynesian economic thought needs to remain in an open-minded dialogue with some of the mainstream of economic analysis as well as with its own neigh- bours, such as Marxian and Sraffian approaches, with whom it shares analytical and intellectual roots in classical political economy. (e.g. Harcourt 1996). And third, to promote progressive economic theorising as a means to an end, namely to improve economic life for the vast majority of people in the here and now through translating

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved. 1296 S. Blankenburg economic theory into progressive economic policy proposals in various contexts (e.g. Harcourt 1994). The conference invitation and a subsequent call for papers on the conference theme reflected these interests: It invited contributions on the economic and political nature of the current crisis of global capitalism, on policy and reform agendas for future economic governance, as well as on heterodox economic theory concerns and economic method. The contributions in this Special Issue thus cover a wide range of areas of economic analysis: Methodological considerations about how best to ‘do’ progressive political economics, contributions to the theory of economic growth and structural change, analyses of core changes and characteristics of contemporary global capitalism, and discussions of specific policy concerns. Downloaded from Their unifying thread is their concern, not only with the critical analysis of existing theory and policy, but with proposals to help promote progressive change and reform in the real world. G.C. Harcourt’s own work is a core point of reference for these contributions. A cou- ple of contributions focus directly on specific aspects of his work; most recognise G.C. http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ Harcourt’s work, his pivotal role in the development of Post-Keynesian economics, his voice for pluralism and his insistence on the need to keep economic analysis relevant to the real-world concerns of ordinary people as a core inspiration for their own work and way of ‘doing economics’. This is entirely in line with the spirit of the conference and subsequent call for papers: To honour G.C. Harcourt’s outstanding services to the Cambridge Journal of Economics and to the economics profession by inviting debate and

discussion on the core interests and themes that have informed his own career. The at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 scope and depth of the contributions in this Special Issue thus reflect those of G.C. Harcourt’s own contribution to the profession and in this sense are, we hope, a fitting tribute to his work and career.

The contributions to this Special Issue Wendy Harcourt’s contribution opens this Special Issue with an overview over entry points to the discussion and conceptualisation of alternatives to contemporary neoliberal capitalism. W. Harcourt takes her inspiration from approaches that are critical of the “mainstream culture of economics” (Harcourt 2014: 1308) with its deeply rooted belief in progress driven by the economic forces of growth, trade and aid and its uncrit- ical acquiescence to the growing domination of the world economy by the priorities of international finance. These alternatives share two core premises: that the time has come to think ‘big’ and to question core values and institutions underlying the existing order of things; and that alternatives to this existing order will emerge, not from grand system thinking, but from “the experiences of networks of people” (Harcourt 2014: 1308) operating across different spatial and cultural contexts to promote shared values of ecological, gender and social justice. Specifically, W. Harcourt surveys three sets of literatures on alternatives to a neoliberal world order: debates about a New Green Deal, contributions by feminist scholars and Buen Vivir (Well-Being). Those promoting a New Green Deal explore the possibility space for steering high-productivity economies away from the short-termist dictates of private market economies dominated by large corporations. They advocate investment projects based on wider collective decision-making that reflects long-term concerns about ecological balance and social Introduction 1297 sustainability. The aim is a new social economy founded on economic democracy, social entrepreneurship and participatory political decision-making beyond formal liberal political democracies. The selected feminist contributions Harcourt then reviews have in common that they go beyond a critique of the gendered aspects of present- day capitalist economies as a vehicle to promote reform within the existing order of things. Instead, they develop specific proposals for a “transformative politics of place” (Harcourt 2014: 1321) that has the potential to transcend dominant capitalist values and institutions and to replace these with more egalitarian and community-based forms of social interaction. Finally, the Andean concept of Buen Vivir (Well-Being) provides a concrete example of a regionally specific alternative to capitalist economic development and neoliberal growth models. As W. Harcourt argues, Buen Vivir and Downloaded from similar projects across the globe challenge capitalism to take pluralism and diversity seriously. In this sense, such projects constitute a relevant anti-dote to the belief that capitalist (neoliberal) globalisation is unstoppable and inevitable. Harcourt acknowledges that “to work with these plural visions, the tensions within them, acknowledging the context in which they are formed, learning from popular movements and political http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ activism in the co-production of knowledge” (Harcourt 2014: 1325) is a steep challenge. Beyond shared and often complementary critiques of contemporary capitalism, surely a core future concern for progressive intellectuals and activists alike is further work on how – and if - these diverse approaches can, eventually, be harnessed to develop a viable overall alternative to the existing order of things. Harcourt’s survey and discussion of different sources for thinking ‘big’ about alter-

natives to neoliberal capitalism, beyond the traditional confines of ‘economics’ as a at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 discipline, is followed by a wide range of contributions that return ‘to the fold’, so to speak: They discuss specific aspects of economic theory and economic policy with a view to provide suggestions and contributions as to how best to take forward progressive thinking in these areas. The first set of papers included here – by Velupillai, Dow and Dow, Palley, Tregenna, Andreoni and Scazzieri and by Pagano – is primarily concerned with different aspects of economic method and theorising. The second set of contributions – by Amato and Fantacci, Nevile and Kriesler and by Arestis, Charles and Fontana – focuses primarily on current economic policy issues. The Special Issue winds up with two papers – by Cohen and Repapis - that are particularly close to G.C Harcourt’s manifold intellectual and scientific concerns, throughout his career: The history of economic thought and the preservation of our knowledge and appreciation of core economic thought - of our intellectual heritage, that is – by means of book reviews. K. Vela Velupillai (2014) provides a poignant opening shot to the various theoretical and policy-oriented analyses and reform proposals in this Special Issue by making the economic theory of economic policy his subject. In the first part of his contribution, Vellupilai delivers a brief but characteristically devastating de-construction of any case mainstream economics may have thought it had to promote a precise ‘science’ of economic policy. Differentiating between a “pre-Lucasian” and an “ultra-Lucasian” period of “mathematical modes” (Velupillai 2014: 1329), he traces the path taken by mainstream theory, from early but ambiguous origins in the 1920s and 1930s to fully- fledged dogmatism (mostly) under the auspices of the founders of DSGE-style economics, towards a conceptualisation of economic policy as sets of mathematically formalised rules. Velupillai then proceeds to show why the “Emperor’s New (mathematical) Clothes” 1298 S. Blankenburg (Velupillai 2014: 1329) are an illusion, based on the faulty and inconsistent application of specific mathematical modes to policy problems that are simply not formalisable in any meaningful way (see also e.g. Velupillai 2005 and Lawson 2013 in this journal). What is left is ideology disguised as ‘science’. Velupillai argues that debunking the Emperors’ fake clothes, including derived policy prescriptions, is a useful and necessary first step towards a “political economy of the theory of economic policy” (Velupillai 2014: 1335). The next step is to “reverse the trend that was begun by the neoclassicals and is being a carried on, uncompromisingly, by the new classicals” (Velupillai 2014: 1335), using our imagination and creativity, rather than a rigid reliance on mathematical formalism, to address the “pervasive uncomputabilities and undecidabilities” that can be found “in every kind of formal mathematics” (Velupillai 2014, 1334). Downloaded from Alistair and Sheila Dow are also concerned with interactions between politics and economics, but approach this undoubtedly ‘big’ question from a different angle. They argue that central to a return to political economy is a re-consideration of the role of economic history as a core input to economic analysis, and propose a specific method through which to make use of insights from economic history for economic theoris- http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ ing. In this view, the study of economic history neither provides “a homogeneous data pool” (Dow and Dow 2014: 1341) for testing universalist theories, nor is it confined to an a-theoretical examination of specific facts, circumstance or ideas with no possibility of generalisations. Instead, the authors suggest that we think of (economic) “history as a narrative on the basis of analogies” (Dow and Dow 2014: 1343). That is, we build historically informed narratives about specific economic phenomena and then

explore the extent to which the concepts emerging from such analyses can be applied at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 to other contexts by stressing similarities (positive analogies) or, borrowing from J.M. Keynes, by using negative analogy (stressing differences). Dow and Dow illustrate this approach by introducing Harold Innis’s Staples Approach to the explanation of the specific macroeconomic dynamics of a natural resource exporting economy, and then applying this to the modern financial sector. The main characteristic of interest in Innis’s approach is that it combines detailed factual accounts of historical episodes in the Canadian economy with a larger narrative that outlines the dynamics of dependent economic development in natural resource-dominated economies. The application to the modern financial sector retains this historically and sectorally specific characterisation of a wider mode of production, but proceeds via negative analogy to differentiate the nature of the products under consideration. In this way, Dow and Dow argue, we can arrive at economic theorising that is grounded in economic history and that “focuses on the characteristics of production within a particular sector, and the size and distribution of rents, the institutional environment and the role of the state which have arisen because of these characteristics” (Dow and Dow 2014: 1348). The authors make it clear that such an approach will, inevitably, yield competing narratives, since (our understanding of the history of) ideas and ideology will shape our interpretation of economic history: “Where there are multiple interpretations, the one that has greatest impact is the one adopted by the most powerful groups in society in their efforts to promote their own interests”. (Dow and Dow 2014: 1343–1344). Tom Palley’s contribution moves on from explicit methodological considerations. He builds on existing theoretical models – with their own, implicit and explicit, methodological assumptions – to develop a “neo-Kaleckian-Goodwin model of capitalist economic growth” (Palley 2014: 1355) that focuses on a specific theoretical innovation, namely the role of managerial pay in determining growth and income distribution Introduction 1299 in the US over the past 30 years. Palley’s model adopts standard neo-Kaleckian arguments about the recursive relationship between capital accumulation, functional income distribution, aggregate demand and capacity utilisation (see e.g. Hein et al 2011), but then adds a number of “twists”: First, the rate of technical progress depends positively on the rate of employment, reflecting the idea that the pace of innovation picks up in response to tightening labour markets. This allows Palley to achieve a determinate equilibrium unemployment rate. Second, Kalecki’s concept of monopoly power determines the functional distribution of income (between labour and capital), but Goodwin-style labour market bargaining is now dominated by the division of the wage bill between workers and managers, rather than workers and capitalists. Together, the assumptions introduce a ‘secondary’ causal loop to the original neo-Kaleckian Downloaded from model: The rate of capital accumulation impacts on employment growth and technical progress, and these, in turn affect the rate of employment. Changes to the employment rate then impact both the supply side of the economy (via their impact on the rate of technical innovation) and its demand side (via the new “wage-bill division” effect). As Palley acknowledges, Kalecki had, of course, argued for treating manag- http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ ers’ pay as a deduction from the surplus (Palley 2014: 1357). He also is fully aware that his synthesized model does not (yet) take on board the cyclical growth dynamics of Goodwin’s 1967 model. With this in mind, the model shows that a shift within the wage-bill towards managerial pay could be a core explanatory factor of slow(er) growth in the US over the past three decades. Put differently, the well-known negative impacts of an increase in income inequalities on growth in advanced capitalist econo-

mies in this period may at least partly have worked, and continue to work, through a at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 new channel, that of divides within the subordinate class, subject to the same bargaining dynamics formerly modelled on the core class divide between labour and capital. An additional result of the model is that both profit – and wage-led accumulation is possible, depending on whether the functional distribution of income is dominant or the “wage-bill division” effect. The papers by Fiona Tregenna and by Antonio Andreoni and Roberto Scazzieri shift the focus from theories of growth to the closely related topic of structural change. Tregenna’s contribution is concerned with heterodox theories of deindustrialisation, and more specifically with the comparative merits and limitations of structuralist and Kaldorian approaches, on the one hand, and a new Marxist perspective, on the other that she develops in this paper. In her view, a main limitation of Kaldorian-style approaches to understanding processes of deindustrialisation is that these remain fundamentally wedded to the concept of sectors, in a national accounting sense. Tregenna acknowledges that this literature has yielded a number of insights into different types of deindustrialisation across advanced and developing economies, but argues that a Marxian-inspired de-construction of the very concept of ‘sectors’ can help us to gain a more sophisticated understanding of the economic dynamics involved in deindustrialisation processes. Specifically, she develops a Marxian typology that links conventional sectoral categories – manufacturing, mining and agriculture and services – to a typically Marxian distinction between unproductive and productive (surplus-value- creating) activities, under capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production (Tregenna 2014: 1377). This allows her to differentiate between two basic forms of de-industrialisation: Form I analyses relative shifts from manufacturing to non-surplus-value-producing activities and Form II concerns relative shifts toward other surplus-value-producing activities. Tregenna argues that this typology provides an organising framework for a 1300 S. Blankenburg more nuanced analysis of the causes and effects of different deindustrialisation processes, by taking more explicit account of the technological and organisational complexities associated with different activities and the diverse effects these can have on economic growth. In her analysis it is therefore much less clear a priori that a decline in manufacturing will always have a predominantly negative effect on the economy, than the Kaldorian emphasis on manufacturing as the main engine of growth would suggest. Andreoni and Scazzieri share with Tregenna an interest in developing more nuanced typologies to understand different processes of structural change, beyond sectoral changes. Their focus, however, is on the transformation of production structures since the Industrial Revolution, “as the principal locus of trajectories of structural change” Downloaded from (Andreoni and Scazzieri 2014: 1391), rather than on more recent deindustrialisation processes, and their main theoretical point of reference is classical political economy as well as the modern heterodox theory of structural dynamics, rather than Marxian economics, more specifically. The authors take the well-known distinction, in classical political economy, between increasing and decreasing returns trajectories of structural http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ change as their starting point that, respectively, reflect opportunities and constraints in production structures. Their aim is to identify “fundamental causal structures behind increasing and decreasing returns” (Andreoni and Scazzieri 2014: 1392) by disentangling persistent from contingent aspects of specific historical increasing and decreasing returns trajectories, and to develop a theoretical framework for the design of structural policies on this basis. To this purpose, they provide a detailed “causal

reconstruction” (Andreoni and Scazzieri 2014: 1394) of increasing and decreasing at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 returns, and of structural opportunities and constraints in production units at different levels of aggregation. This discussion of “triggers of change” (Andreoni and Scazzieri 2014: 1391) emphasises the complexities of interaction between the technological and organisational domains of production units and activities. Consequently, there is, of course, a “plurality of structural trajectories that any given economic system may follow” (Andreoni and Scazzieri 2014: 1405). Which potential structural trajectories may be actualised will critically depend on long-run institutional context or variety, and on short- to medium-run policy interventions. The authors suggest that the structural and institutional (and policy) levels of the analysis of the (historical) dynamics of capitalist production structures should be separated, and close their contribution by exploring the implications of their approach for the design of structural policies – that is, policies that may support an increasing returns trajectory and prevent a decreasing returns one. Ugo Pagano’s paper provides an interesting bridge between the more theory- oriented and the more policy-oriented contributions in this Special Issue. Pagano suggests a theoretical characterisation of contemporary capitalism as “intellectual monopoly capitalism” (Pagano 2014: 1410), but also explores the implications of this analysis for our understanding of the causes of the 2007/08 financial crisis and, more generally, the financialisation of advanced economies over the past three decades. Pagano argues that the core characteristic of contemporary capitalism is the global monopolisation of knowledge (see also Pagano 2007 in this journal). Taking Marx’ and Braverman’s analyses of capital-labour relations as his point of departure, Pagano suggests that while both were aware of the importance of scientific management and the tendency towards monopolising knowledge in the hands of capitalists and managers, they did not foresee the most recent stage of this tendency, namely the systematic transformation of knowledge into firms’ capital assets, or what he later refers to Introduction 1301 as “the enclosure of ideas”, in parallel to land enclosures preceding the Industrial Revolution (Pagano 2014: 1416). This growing commodification of knowledge, and the extension of private property rights to intangible (intellectual) assets, has been a core driver, not only of the monopolisation of private economic power, but also of science in its service. Pagano describes this in terms of a shift from open markets and open science to closed markets and closed science. Open markets here mean non- monopolised markets (not unregulated markets) and open science refers essentially to publically funded, openly accessible knowledge. This new “intellectual monopoly capitalism” creates its own new tensions and crisis: At a general level, this includes the trade-off between privatising knowledge and facilitating its diffusion to promote firm competition, but also hightened income inequalities and labour market segmentation Downloaded from between employees of firms rich in commodified knowledge and those that aren’t. More specifically, the commodification of knowledge promotes financialisation by allowing firms (and their employees) to be traded on closed financial markets as if they were merely a collection of non-human tradable assets. For Pagano, these parallel processes of knowledge commodification and of the growing monopolisation of http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ tradable non-tangible assets (firms) should be considered a core cause of both, the global financial crisis and financialisation, more broadly. Pagano combines a theoretical analysis of this new stage of advanced capitalism with a brief description of actual historical stages of its development over recent decades and an exploration of policy implications – all of which, he makes clear, could be expressed in several ‘economic’ languages: Liberal, Keynesian or Marxist.

Massimo Amato and Luca Fantacci then enter the terrain of economic policy at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 properly: Their concern is with a reform of the international monetary system, and more specifically, with the possibility of returning to J.M. Keynes’s proposal for an International Clearing Union that overcomes the limitations of relying on a reserve currency (see also D’Arista 2009 in this journal). Amato and Fantacci argue that while J.M. Keynes’s proposal at Bretton Woods was sidelined in favour of Dexter White’s plan for an International Stabilization Fund to provide international liquidity via a reserve currency, we should now consider a contemporary revival of J.M. Keynes’s proposal for an international currency. Amato and Fantacci provide a detailed account of the original Bretton Woods negotiations about a clearing union, followed by a systematic discussion of the core differences between a national reserve currency and an international currency unit without reserve function. They recognize that the new monetary order proposed by J.M. Keynes entails an important shift in the distribution of power, away from creditors to “a system where the (purchasing) power is associated with a (purchasing) duty, and more generally power is associated with responsibility, and both are shared by creditors and debtors” (Amato and Fantacci 2014: 1447). Amato and Fantacci then consider the proposal, in 2009, by the governor of the People’s Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, to enhance the use of Special Drawing Rights as an international reserve asset, arguing that this should be taken further to “transform the SDR from reserve asset to currency unit” (Amato and Fantacci 2014: 1450) along J.M. Keynes’s original plans for a Clearing Union. In their view, the core objective of a reformed international monetary system has to be a monetary regime that defines “the rules not only of money creation, but also of its circulation and destruction, in order to ensure that imbalances are always reabsorbed. This implies that the liquidity created may always remain liquid, i.e. that money cannot be hoarded and thus must be spent.” (Amato and Fantacci 2014: 1450). 1302 S. Blankenburg John Nevile and Peter Kriesler’s contribution moves away from international economic policy issues and into ongoing debates about how best fiscal and monetary policies can ensure high and more egalitarian growth, in particular in crisis-ridden non- eurozone Western economies, such as the UK, the US and Australia.1 Taking Harcourt (2010) on “Finance, speculation and stability: post-Keynesian policies for modern capitalism” as a core point of reference, the authors first engage with differing views on the relationship between long- and short-run economic dynamics, arguing that these have to be considered in an integrated manner, be this in regard to cyclical and trend dynamics or, more specifically, the relationship between inflation and unemployment and its impact on economic growth and investment. This discussion provides them with a solid basis on which to defend, in line with other Keynesian/post-Keynesian contributions Downloaded from in this area, the centrality of fiscal over monetary policies to combat deep economic recessions. Nevile and Kriesler advance both broad principles as well as a more detailed ‘policy package’ for fiscal policies in non-eurozone Western economies, while question- ing the efficacy of existing monetary policy channels. Their fiscal policy proposals focus on increased government expenditure to expand physical and human capital, and they http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ acknowledge that, if central bank control were to be extended to a fairly large range of assets via asset-based reserve requirements, this, in combination with a long-term low interest rate policy, could help macroeconomic stabilization in the long run. Philip Arestis, Aurelie Charles and Guiseppe Fontana raise a more specific policy issue, namely the interactions between financialisation, income inequalities and labour market stratification in the US over the last three decades. The importance of increas-

ing income inequalities as a causal factor of the global financial crisis and the sub- at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 sequent ‘Great Recession’ is, by now, widely recognised, at least amongst heterodox economists. The authors argue that the process of financialisation was itself instrumen- tal in producing these distributional changes and proceed to highlight “two further striking features of the financialisation period” (Arestis, Charles and Fontana 2014: 1477): that financialisation has led to wage premia for managerial and financial occupations, and that these premia have been unequally distributed across demographic groups in the US labour market. The authors’ empirical analysis of US demographic and earnings data confirms these observations: It shows that the income distribution effects of financialisation have been accompanied by a shift in occupational stratification away from service and toward managerial and financial jobs. This has particularly advantaged white men in these positions at the expense of other gender and race groups, both within managerial and financial occupations as well as through the shift away from service occupations. Arestis, Charles and Fontana suggest that social norms may be an important concept to explain these results. Social norms about preferred occupations, in terms of social status, income, wealth and security features, may have been reinforced through the income distribution effects of financialisation and may themselves have contributed to the observed changes in the occupational stratification of the US labour market. Avi Cohen turns to an area of economic analysis that has been particularly central to G.C. Harcourt’s own research agenda and contribution: the history of economic analysis and, specifically, the capital theory controversies. Following Joan Robinson’s lead

1 A recently published Special Issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics on ‘Prospects of the Eurozone’ provides the interested reader with a detailed discussion of similar policy debates for Eurozone economies (Blankenburg, King, Konzelmann and Wilkinson (eds) 2013). Introduction 1303 that Thornstein Veblen had anticipated her own critique of neoclassical capital theory, Cohen revisits Veblen’s attacks on the capital theories of J.B. Clark and Irving Fisher. Beyond providing a detailed account of these controversies about which, as he points out, little has been written, Cohen reconnects Veblen’s arguments with those made several decades later by Joan Robinson and G.C. Harcourt in the Cambridge capital theory controversies. He argues that immediate similarities in regard to the measurement and meaning of capital are only the manifestations of a deeper shared “vision of economics” and of “economic life” (Cohen 2014: 1498–1499) that conflicts with its neoclassical counterpart. The “Veblen/Robinson/Harcourt vision” (Cohen 2014: 1505) is, fundamentally, a surplus approach to the analysis of capitalist accumulation dynamics that puts the capitalist firm centre stage, regards market interactions as Downloaded from shaped by social class, institutions and relations of power, and considers agency-structure interactions as governed by historical processes and cumulative causation. The social dimension of capital is therefore the most important, and equilibrium analysis an inadequate tool of investigation. By contrast, the neoclassical “vision of economic life” is based on the belief in the fundamental harmony between equal individuals, http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ connected through voluntary (market) choices. Collective outcomes are adequately analysed through inter-temporal equilibrium analysis. The physical and financial dimension of capital are therefore the only relevant ones, and history serves to provide data to test specific aspects and variants of a-historical models of the economy. For Cohen, these different, and quite obviously irreconcilable visions, rough approxima- tion as these may be, are at the heart of older and more recent capital theory contro-

versies, and “help account for the lack of definitive resolution” (Cohen 2014: 1511) at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 of these controversies. Cohen acknowledges that both “visions” have inherent roots in underlying ideologies, and argues that what matters is to make these ideologies visible and accessible, instead of burying them under layers of formalisation. He concludes with a list of “three unresolved issues” (Cohen 2014: 1511) that emerge from the capital theory controversies and continue to pose an (essentially methodological) challenge for future progressive economic research: What place exactly to accord history in economic analysis, how precisely to theorise agency-structure relations taking account of cumulative causation, and how to achieve the “right combination that intertwines vision, reasoned analysis and ideological passion” (Cohen 2014: 1512) in economic theorising. The closing contribution of this Special Issue by Constantinos Repapis is dedicated to an analysis of G.C. Harcourt’s book reviews. As Repapis shows, with over 100 book reviews across 24 journals over more than 50 years, G.C. Harcourt is in a league of his own, ahead of Edgeworth and Pigou. Through the lens of these book reviews, Repapis considers G.C. Harcourt’s wider methodological approach to economic analysis. He argues that G.C. Harcourt’s book reviewing activity forms an integral part of his wider research agenda and his way of “doing economics” (Repapis 2014: 1527): As Cohen, Repapis emphazises the importance, G.C. Harcourt attributes to the identification and development of “a general vision of the socio-economic order” (ibid) that underlies and holds together disparate contributions to the Keynesian/Post-Keynesian school of economic thought for which his own work has been central. And as Cohen, Repapis also stresses that at the heart of this “vision” lies the recognition that the study of institutions, history, social reality and political power is inseparable from that of economic life, coupled with a profound scepticism of the powers of mathematical formalism as an appropriate tool of economic analysis. Repapis argues that G.C. Harcourt’s 1304 S. Blankenburg book reviewing activity makes an important own contribution to bringing this “vision” out into the clear, by mapping new texts and emphazising connections between the arguments made, across sectarian lines within his own tradition as well as across the demarcation line(s) between heterodox and mainstream contributions. In this way, G.C. Harcourt’s book reviews succeed in making core contributions to economic analysis part of an “ongoing narrative” (Repapis 2014: 1534) that highlights similarities and differences between competing visions of economic life, and also pinpoints core theoretical turning points and changes in the evolution of a progressive “vision” of economic life. The contributions to this Special Issue span a wide range of areas of economic analysis and, between them address, a number of specific questions. As has been highlighted Downloaded from in passing, many of the issues raised in this Special Issue also are part of ongoing and sometimes long-standing debates in the pages of this journal. While the contributions to this Special Issue have been grouped here according to their primary focus on either theoretical or policy concerns, what unites them is, in fact, a shared methodological position that precludes an artificial separation between economic theory and http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ economic policy. This position insists on economics as a social science that treats the analysis of socio-political settings and historical context as an integral part of studying and researching economic concerns. It also emphasises that the core purpose of economic theorising is to engage with and change social reality. Some contributions (e.g. Dow and Dow, Vellupilai, Cohen and Repapis) provide a more explicit discussion of methodological choices within this broad approach, at different levels of the analysis.

The majority of contributions takes this basic methodological outlook as a given. As at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 a result, however specific or general the precise question addressed, the analysis and discussion provided by all contributors keeps a close eye on the potential policy implications of theoretical considerations as well as on how policy debates might feed back into current and future debates about economic theory. Furthermore, the breadth and scope of the topics covered in this Special Issue is not coincidental: It reflects the fact that a progressive alternative to mainstream economic theory, and to (neoliberal) capitalism, is perhaps not simply a matter of com- ing up with one sweeping theoretical and system alternative. While, as W. Harcourt rightly points out, those critical of the status quo do need to think ‘big’ and now is the time, pluralism and diversity are inherent to economic/social science heterodoxy. The combined ‘monolith’ of neoclassical economics –cum – neoliberal capitalism will not be challenged by an alternative ‘monolith’, but by a piecemeal opposition to the tensions created by neoliberal capitalism and its dubious theoretical reliance on neoclassical economic theory. This opposition will and has to draw on multiple sources of inspiration, in most areas of economic theorising and economic policy, as well as take important clues from evolving and often disparate alternative political practices. Thus, the progress of progressive political economics will be path-dependent and gradual, for theoretical, methodological as well as political reasons. The inseparability of economic theory from economic policy concerns, the focus on the search for progressive alternatives to the status quo and the need for heterodox pluralism also are the hallmarks of G.C Harcourt’s contribution not only to the Cambridge Journal of Economics but to progressive political economics, over more than 50 years. In this sense, the contributions assembled in this Special Issue, are also a very fitting and resounding tribute to the achievements and motivations of one of our most long- standing and active editors. Introduction 1305 References Amato, M and L. Fantacci. 2014. Back to which Bretton Woods? Liquidiy and clearing as alternative principles for reforming international money, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1431–1452. Andreoni, A. and R. Scazzieri. 2014. Triggers of change: structural trajectories and production dynamics, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1391–1408. Arestis, P., A. Charles and G. Fontana. 2014. Identity economics meets financialisation: Gender, race and occupational stratification in the US labour market, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1471–1491. Blankenburg, S., L. King, S. Konzelmann and F. Wilkinson (eds). 2013. Prospects for the Eurozone. Special Issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics vol. 37 (3) May. Cohen, A.J. 2014. Veblen contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt lineages in capital controversies and beyond, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38 (6): 1493–1515. Downloaded from D’Arista, J. 2009. The evolution of the international monetary system. Cambridge Journal of Economics 33 (4): 633–652. Dow, A. and S. Dow 2014. Economic history and economic theory: the Staples approach to economic development, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1339–1353. Harcourt, G.C. 1994. Taming speculators and putting the world on course to prosperity: a

‘modest proposal’. Economic and Political Weekly 29: 2490–92. http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ Harcourt, G.C. 1996. How I do economics. In: Medema. S.G and J. Samuels (eds). Foundations of economic research: How do economists do economics?. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Harcourt, G.C. and P.A. Riach 1997. A ‘Second Edition’ of Keynes’s General Theory. Volumes 1 and 2. London: Routledge. Harcourt, G.C. 1999. ‘Horses for courses’: The making of a Post-Keynesian Economist, in: A. Heertje (ed). The Makers of Modern Economics, Volume IV. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 32–69. Reprinted in: G.C. Harcourt 2012. The Making of a Post-Keynesian Economist. Cambridge Harvest. Houndmills, Baskingsoke, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan, pp. 11 – 51. at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 Harcourt, G.C. 2006. The structure of Post-Keynesian Economics. The core contributions of the pio- neers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harcourt, G.C. 2010. Finance, speculation and stability: post-Keynesian policies for modern capitalism. In: Fontana, G., J. McCombie and M. Sawyer (eds). Macroeconomics, Finance and Money: Essays in honour of Philip Arestis. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Harcourt, G.C. and P. Kriesler (eds). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics. Volumes 1 and 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harcourt, W. 2014. The future of capitalism: a consideration of alternatives, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1307–1328. Hein, E., M. Lavoie and T. van Treeck. 2011. Some instability puzzles in Kaleckian models of growth and distribution: a critical survey. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35 (3): 583–612. Lawson, T. 2013. What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics 37 (5): 947–983. Nevile, J.W. and P. Kriesler. A bright future can be ours! Macroeconomic policy for non-eurozone Western countries, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1453–1470. Pagano U. 2007 Cultural Globalization, Institutional Diversity and the Unequal Accumulation of Intellectual Capital. Cambridge Journal of Economics 31 (5): 649–667. Pagano, U. 2014. The crisis of intellectual monopoly capitalism, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1409–1429. Palley, T. I. 2014. A neo-Kaleckian-Goodwin model of capitalist economic growth: monopoly power, managerial pay and labour market conflict, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1355–1372. Repapis. C. 2014. The scholar as reader: the last 50 years of economic theory seen through G.C. Harcourt’s book reviews, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1517–1540. Tregenna, F. 2014. A new theoretical analysis of deindustrialisation, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1373–1390. Velupillai, K.V. 2005. The unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics 29 (6): 849–872. Velupillai, K. V. 2014. Towards a political economy of the theory of economic policy, Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1329–1338. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2014, 38, 1517–1540 doi: 10.1093/cje/bes082 Advance Access publication 7 February 2013

The scholar as reader: the last 50 years of economic theory seen through G.C. Harcourt’s book reviews Downloaded from

Constantinos Repapis*

G.C. Harcourt has written over 100 book reviews during the last 50 years. These are published in a number of journals and on widely different topics. In this article this http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ literature is used in order to discuss three important issues. (i) How did Harcourt engage with the developments in economic theory across the different schools in economics during this period? (ii) What do these book reviews tell us about how Harcourt does economics? (iii) Why is this reviewing activity such an important part of Harcourt’s research activity and what does this tell us about the structure of post-Keynesian economics? This article argues that book reviews as well as review articles are a constitutive element of how Harcourt does economics, as they organ- ise different and occasionally disparate theoretical contributions into a coherent

narrative that gives form and substance to his theoretical approach. at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014

Key words: Post-Keynesian economics, Review articles, Book reviews, Heterodox economics JEL classifications: A11, B31, B41, B50

1. Introduction I rejoice to concur with the common reader; for by the common sense of readers uncorrupted with literary prejudices, after all the refinements of subtilty and the dogmatism of learning, must be finally decided all claim to poetical honours. (Johnson, 1866, p. 614)

This celebrated phrase by Dr Johnson has been the basis of the common reader tradition in English literary theory and criticism. Virginia Woolf, in her collection of essays titled The Common Reader, notes: ‘the common reader … differs from the critic and the scholar’ (Woolf, 1925, p. 1). He is ‘worse educated and nature has not gifted him so generously’ (Woolf, 1925, p. 1). However, he is still the person for whom literature and literary criticism ultimately takes place, and that is why he deserves ‘all claim to poetical honours’.

Manuscript received 29 November 2011; final version received 10 August2012. Address for correspondence: St Peter’s College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2DL, UK; email: con- [email protected] * St Peter’s College, University of Oxford. I would like to thank Dr John Latsis, Dr Gay Meeks, Dr Samer Frangie, Dr Foteini Lika and the participants of the conference ‘The Future of Capitalism’ for their insight- ful comments. Furthermore, this paper has greatly benefited from the detailed comments of four anonymous referees; my sincere thanks. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved. 1518 C. Repapis A central issue in the tradition of the common reader is this tension between the amateur reader and the academic, the scholar or man of learning. In a world of increasing segmentation in fields of knowledge and narrowing specialisation, the academic reader finds himself detached from his amateur counterpart. In fact, their viewpoints are increasingly in conflict. Frank Kermode makes the following comment: the time is long past when the Common Reader could expect to follow the discourses of theoretical professors, and we have a rather remarkable situation in which literary theorists would actually be offended if it were suggested that they had obvious relation to common readers. They claim to be specialists, with no more obligation to common readers than theoretical physicists have. (Kermode, 1989, p. 8) Downloaded from And yet the concept of the common reader persists, with celebrated literary critics writing hundreds of book reviews and review articles for a wide non-specialist read- ership. These literary critics—often academics—mediate between academia and the public. They are, to use Christopher Knight’s (2003) felicitous book title when dis-

cussing the reviewing work of Denis Donoghue, Frank Kermode and George Steiner, http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ Uncommon Readers that serve the common reader. G.C. Harcourt is himself an uncommon reader of books and economic theory over the last 50 years.1 He writes his reviews in the ‘conversational style’,2 with a view of informing a wider audience of the developments in economic theory. He is an ‘insider’ who writes reviews both for the academic and the general reader who has some basic knowledge of economics. His targeted audience is then not only the specialist, but also—to quote (out of context) Kermode’s definition of the new common reader—‘the person [who] has attended a university and studied with accomplished scholars, but at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 then has gone out into the professional world to make a living’ (Knight, 2003, p. 154). This interest in including in the academic discussion a wider audience of profes- sionals is directly linked with the Cambridge tradition in which Harcourt is situated. Famously, Alfred Marshall in his Principles avoided putting diagrams and mathematics in the main text, delegating technical analysis to footnotes and the appendix, so that the text was approachable to ‘business men’ (Keynes, 1924, p. 334). This ‘common reader’ in the Cambridge tradition of economics is best captured by the following quote of Lionel Robbins when he speaks of the Principles: He [Marshall] wanted to be read just as Adam Smith was read—by people of good general education. And I [Robbins] used to belong to the Reform Club, which has a very famous library which was initiated by Francis Place, whose name some of you may have heard of. And the

1 In his academic career, Harcourt has held the title of Reader twice. Once in 1965–67 as Reader in Economics at the University of Adelaide (from 1967 to 1985 he was Professor of Economics there) and then as Reader in the History of Economic Theory at the University of Cambridge. 2 The conversational style of the review is a characteristic of the common reader literary tradition. Knight, in different parts of his book Uncommon Readers, identifies several elements as central to what we mean when we say that a reviewer employs the conversational style. These are (i) the reviewer avoids unnecessar- ily technical language, so the common reader tradition ‘stands opposed to the cloistering of knowledge in dogmatism and a sectarian language’ (Knight, 2003, p. 8); (ii) the reviewer has a large corpus of reviews in which the reader repeatedly gets into contact with the reviewer, so that there is ‘continuity of the relation, the way in which over time this relation starts to seem more like an ongoing conversation’ (Knight, 2003, p. 165); and (iii) the reviewer is always tolerant of other viewpoints, both of the writer and the reader, i.e. ‘not the tolerance of an everything is commensurable with everything else sort, but a tolerance for those views and beliefs that we do not share, though we can imagine how other, well-meaning people just might’ (Knight, 2003, p. 390). These characteristics are also present in Harcourt’s reviewing activity and it is in this way that it can be claimed that he employs a conversational style of writing. Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1519 economics section of the Reform Club library did pretty good on the pamphlet literature and on the nineteenth-century literature in general, but it stops, roughly speaking, with Marshall. Economics, as it developed in the nineteenth century, was not a subject which was part of the obligatory reading of a well-educated gentleman. And Marshall wanted to get to the well-educated gentleman as well as professional economists. (Robbins, 2000, p. 307)

Harcourt’s academic work aims to inform the same dual audience. This is nowhere more evident than when he is reviewing the work of others. His broad reviewing activity can be separated into three categories: (i) intellectual portraits or reviews encom- passing the whole work of a fellow economist’s lifetime contribution; (ii) review articles that survey a specific field of research (e.g. the Cambridge–Cambridge capital theory controversies); and (iii) book reviews in academic and popular journals.3 Downloaded from While much attention has been given to his work on intellectual portraits and his review articles, his book reviews have not attracted equal interest. Therefore, this article’s focus is to investigate this reviewing activity with the purpose of understanding how Harcourt mediates this difficult ground between specialist academic research and the informed public, and why he finds this to be an important activity. It will be argued http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ that this reviewing activity is a constituent part of how he does economics. His interest in identifying ‘key texts’ and the vision of the social world that emanates from these texts makes this reviewing activity vital to the school of economics he is situated in, and useful to a wider audience that is interested in a general understanding of the deeper forces that shape today’s economic reality. Therefore readers become informed of what the key texts of the discipline are and also why they are important. However, before developing this thesis further, it is important to outline Harcourt’s extensive book at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 reviewing activity over the last 50 years.

2. Overview of Harcourt’s book reviews Harcourt has written more than 100 book reviews. Parallels in output across the profession are hard to find. Edgeworth, to take a famous example, has 75 book reviews collected in volume three of his Papers Relating to Political Economy (Edgeworth, 1925), and although this is not Edgeworth’s complete reviewing activity, it shows the degree of Harcourt’s own achievement.4 After all, even 75 reviews proved to be more than enough for Pigou and elicited the famous comment that ‘I shall not, naturally, attempt to review reviews’ (Pigou, 1925, p. 182) when he was reviewing Edgeworth’s Papers for the Economic Journal. Nevertheless, Pigou remarks ‘among the authors whose works are considered are the following important writers: Marshall, Sidgwick, Böhm-Bawerk, Pareto … Dr. Keynes [J.N.K.], Professor Fisher … Professor J.B. Clark’ (Pigou, 1925, p. 183). It may be argued that Harcourt can match this roll call of names, since the authors whose work Harcourt has reviewed includes six Nobel Laureates and many of the most prominent economists of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

3 There are, however, no clear lines of demarcation between these categories and it is possible that a book review can double as an intellectual portrait (see, e.g., Harcourt, 1999A) or indeed has the length, form and complexity of argument of a review article (see, e.g., Harcourt, 1975A). Nevertheless, book reviews are a distinct literary activity and the minimum requirement for club membership is that specific books are explicitly identified and act as instigators for writing the review. Furthermore, Harcourt also wrote book notes for some journals, which are almost always very concise. 4 An almost contemporary example would be Kurt W. Rothschild, who has written 140 book reviews during his life (see Altzinger, 2011). 1520 C. Repapis Among the authors whose works are considered—to use Pigou’s phrase—are (in alphabetical order) Athanasios (Tom) Asimakopoulos, Victoria Chick, Paul Davidson, Avinash Dixit, Maurice Dobb, Frank Hahn, Robert Heilbroner, John Hicks, Nicholas Kaldor, Paul Krugman, Hyman Minsky, Michio Morishima, Arthur Okun, Luigi Pasinetti, Don Patinkin, Joan Robinson, Wilfred Salter, Amartya Sen, Robert Solow, Piero Sraffa, Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin. The reviews have been published across 24 journals (see Table 1). What is impressive is not only the number of reviews, but also the dispersion across journals. Harcourt reviewed books for journals that are in the core of the discipline as well as specialist and interdisciplinary journals. The journals could be categorised into five broad and occasionally overlapping groups: (1) recognised journals that determine the core of the discipline; (2) Downloaded from Australian journals; (3) other UK-based journals; (4) history of economic thought journals and/or journals specialising in post-Keynesian theory; and (5) interdisciplinary journals. What becomes immediately apparent from the table is that most of his reviews appeared in the Economic Journal (Harcourt, 1964, 1965A, 1965B, 1966, 1967, 1969A, 1969B, 1970A, 1972B, 1973B, 1977D, 1979A, 1983B, 1984B, 1986B, 1987C, 1990C, http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ 1990D, 1991B, 1992, 1994A, 1997B, 1997D, 1998, 1999B, 2002B, 2002D; Harcourt and Sheridan, 1971). With the addition of those reviews in Economica (Harcourt, 1972A, 1977A, 1977C, 1978, 1979D, 1981B, 1982C, 1984A, 1985A, 1986C, 1987B, 1993B, 2000C, 2006B, 2008B, 2012B), the Journal of Economic Literature (Harcourt, 1970B, 1971, 1974, 1975B, 1979B, 1979C, 1980, 1985B, 1990B, 1994B, 1999C, 2000B, 2003A) and the Journal of Political Economy (Harcourt, 1973A) it is found at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 Table 1. Journals for which Harcourt wrote book reviews

Name of Journal No. of reviews

Australian Accountant 1 Australian Journal of Political Science 2 Cambridge Review 1 Economic Analysis and Policy 1 Economic and Labour Relations Review 1 Economic and Political Weekly 1 Economic Forum 1 Economic Journal 28 Economic Record 11 Economica 16 European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 4 History of Economic Ideas 1 History of Economics Review 2 History of Political Economy 3 Journal of Economic Literature 13 Journal of Economic Studies 2 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 1 Journal of International and Comparative Economics 1 Journal of Political Economy 1 Manchester School 6 Review of Income and Wealth 1 Review of Political Economy 1 Social Alternatives 1 Soundings 1 Current total 101 Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1521 that more than half of his book reviews have been published in these journals (58 in total). Less in number are his contributions to Australian journals, with most book reviews in the Economic Record (Harcourt, 1962A, 1962B, 1963, 1968, 1975A, 1977B, 1982A, 1982B, 1986A, 2011B; Harcourt and Massaro, 1964) and fewer in the other Australian journals (Harcourt, 1954, 1987D, 2005; Harcourt and McFarlane, 1990; McFarlane and Harcourt, 1990). Then he contributed to UK-based journals, such as the Manchester School (Harcourt, 1991C, 1993A, 1995B, 1996A, 1996C, 1997C) and the Journal of Economic Studies (Harcourt, 2000A, 2002C), a total of eight reviews. Eleven reviews were published in journals specialising in history of economic thought or post-Keynesian economics (Harcourt, 1991A, 1996B, 1999A, 2003B, 2004, 2006A, 2006C, 2008A, 2009, 2011A, 2012A). Finally, few reviews appeared in inter- Downloaded from disciplinary journals and journals which cannot be classified in the above categories5 (Harcourt, 1981A, 1983A, 1990A, 1997A, 1997E, 2002A; Harcourt and Kitson, 1993; Harcourt and Turnell, 2005). Furthermore, Harcourt’s reviews span over the last 50 years. As Table 2 shows from the early 1960s onwards, there is no decade in which Harcourt did not write at least http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ one book review per year and from the 1970s onwards the average increases to two. Tables 1 and 2 show the extent to which Harcourt’s authoritative opinion on new academic monographs may have influenced prevailing tastes and opinions in the academic community. Most of his reviews from 1962 until the end of the 1980s were in journals at the core of the discipline (17 in the Economic Journal, 11 in Economica and eight in the Journal of Economic Literature) and a minority were in Australian journals

and, especially, the Economic Record (10). From the early 1990s, Harcourt’s review- at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 ing activity becomes more varied as he reviews in new journals appearing from the 1980s onwards and steadily proportionately less in the core journals of the discipline, although this activity never really ceases (see, e.g., Harcourt, 2012B). Nevertheless, a clear change can be discerned between this and the previous period. During this latter period, Harcourt’s reviews appear for the first time in a number of journals and especially in history of economic thought journals, as it is in these last two decades that he reviews for the first time in the History of Political Economy, the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, History of Economic Ideas and in the History of Economics Review. This change is further supported by an analysis of the books that Harcourt reviews during these different time periods. From the 1960s to the mid-1970s, the substantial

Table 2. Chronology of reviews

Period of publication No. of reviews

1950–59 1 1960–69 12 1970–79 20 1980–89 18 1990–99 28 2000–09 18 2010– 4

5 This includes journals that appear to have had a short life span, such as Economic Forum and the Journal of International and Comparative Economics. 1522 C. Repapis majority of his reviewing work is in capital theory, economic growth and related themes (Harcourt, 1962A, 1962B, 1966, 1967, 1969B, 1970B, 1971, 1972A, 1972B, 1973A, 1973B, 1975A; Harcourt and Massaro, 1964). A second general topic is books in applied work, occasionally with emphasis on Australia (Harcourt, 1964, 1965A, 1969A, 1970A). This is consistent with Harcourt’s general academic output at the time. In fact it can be said that some of the heat of the battle of the Cambridge controversies was played out in these reviews. As Harcourt writes ‘when I returned to Adelaide in early 1967 … I also started to work on capital theory issues’ (Harcourt, 2001, p. 325). He notes that these topics absorbed much of his energy for the next 10 years or so. The decade from the mid-1970s to the end of the 1980s is a period of rapid devel- Downloaded from opment in post-Keynesian economics. Harcourt occupies a central position in the development of the school and his contributions are not restricted to original articles, but also in reviewing the work of others and synthesising these different contributions in survey articles that identify the core defining characteristics of this approach. In his entry on post-Keynesian economics in The New Palgrave, he defined post-Keynesian- http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ ism as ‘the work of a heterogeneous group of economists who nevertheless are united not only by their dislike of mainstream neoclassical theory but also by their attempts to provide coherent alternative approaches to economic analysis’ (Harcourt, 1987A, p. 924). He reviews work by the different strands of the school, from work on Kalecki (Harcourt, 1977C), Minsky’s book on Keynes (Harcourt, 1977A), post-Keynesian monetary theory (Harcourt, 1987C), to the work of neo-Ricardians (Harcourt, 1979B,

1979C, 1979D) and Kaldor’s Economics without Equilibrium (Harcourt, 1986B). All at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 of these reviews appear in the Economic Journal, the Journal of Economic Literature or Economica. This is important as these reviews are accessible to a wide audience of professional economists, some of who would have been informed of the developments in post-Keynesian economics through them. Furthermore, as post-Keynesian work became increasingly published in book form or in heterodox economic journals, these reviews became an important outlet of information about the school in mainstream journals. During this period, Harcourt also reviewed books outside the post-Keynesian tradition: he reviewed two volumes of John Hicks’s papers (Harcourt, 1979A, 1983B), Don Patinkin’s Keynes’ Monetary Thought (Harcourt, 1977B), Abba Lerner’s selected writings (Harcourt, 1984B) and a number of books on capital theory and growth across different traditions (Harcourt, 1977D, 1980, 1982C). Also, it is interesting to note that he was open to other heterodox traditions and, in 1985, he wrote a favourable review on neo-Austrian economics, noting that he ‘has learned a lot from the subtle analysis by Hayek and others on the workings of the market in an uncertain environment, analysis that in many respects matched those of Keynes and Joan Robinson, though the policy conclusions drawn were very different’ (Harcourt, 1985A, p. 398). The next two decades, from the early 1990s until today, find Harcourt reviewing books on similar themes as before. Although his reviews also appear in new journals from the 1990s, thematically little separates these books from those of the previous decade. Apart from new contributions in post-Keynesian theory (Harcourt, 1990B, 1990D, 1996C, 2003A, 2009), now most of the books reviewed are in the history of economic thought (Harcourt, 1993A, 1996B, 1999B, 2000C, 2002D, 2006A, 2006B, 2008B, 2011A). However, there is much overlap between these two categories, as Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1523 post-Keynesian theory has complex links with the texts that form the corpus of the history of economic thought.6 Furthermore, his interest in intellectual biographies, which from the late 1970s became an important part of his literary output, also occu- pied him as a reader and he reviewed books on the lives of Austin and Joan Robinson (Harcourt, 1991A, 1994A), Skidelsky’s Keynes (Harcourt and Turnell, 2005), as well as the collected writings of Kalecki (Harcourt, 1991B, 1992), Dan Usher (Harcourt, 1995B) and A.K. Dasgupta (Harcourt, 2012B). When reviewing some of his col- league’s Festschrifts he turns the book review into a miniature intellectual biography, and to this we owe the splendid note on Tarshis (Harcourt, 1999A). Finally, of the many remaining strands that run through Harcourt’s work, it is worth singling out something that is a theme connecting almost all the reviews that deal with the history Downloaded from of economic thought, and that is how a study of the history of thought can improve our understanding of today’s problems and occasionally offer policy recommendations. In a recent review of The Return to Keynes, he writes:

The book itself was put together both before and during the crisis. The main thrust is that after http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ the high watermark in the 1980s and 1990s of the policy ineffectiveness ‘School’, indeed, of the view that government intervention was positively harmful, and the virtues of markets as provid- ers of as much stability in economies as could be expected in an imperfect world, pragmatic policies were quietly returning and were being moderately successful until the recent collapse of the whole unsupportable house of financial cards made more drastic intervention necessary. (Harcourt, 2011A, p. 159)

He concludes the review by saying ‘Not only does it [this book] sensibly inform us

about what should be done about the major problems facing the interrelated financial at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 and real world of today, but it also does proper justice to Keynes’s fundamental contributions’ (Harcourt, 2011A, p. 163). This intricate connection between the history of economic thought and modern theory is typical of much of post-Keynesian literature, and Sheila Dow shows that within this tradition a theorist is expected to be able to meaningfully engage with ideas and texts from the history of the subject in order to be able to formulate an appropriate modern theory of the world (see Dow, 2002). Therefore ‘post-Keynesian history of thought … is an attempt to understand the history of ideas in terms of the context in which they developed, but with the goal of informing modern theory development’ (Dow, 2002, p. 333). This echoes Kenneth Boulding’s insight when he wrote that great writers of the past need to be studied ‘from the point of view of what they have to say to us today’ (Boulding, 1971, p. 234). Boulding distinguishes between a view of history in which the present is the outcome of linear scientific progress, with previous writers being at best giants on whose shoulders modern theorists stand and with a view in which older texts may be revisited and provide new independent avenues for modern research. Boulding calls this second view the ‘principle of the extended present’ (Boulding, 1971, p. 227). Like Dow, he finds that theoretical economics oper- ates within an ‘extended present’, where writers of the past can fruitfully engage with current theoretical developments, both for pedagogic reasons—as students learn by

6 An analysis on the ‘organic way’ in which the history of economic thought is embedded in the post- Keynesian tradition can be found in Dow (2002). Dow persuasively argues that ‘[the way] history of thought is understood within the school … does not allow for history of thought to be fitted into dualistic categories, or indeed to be separated off from economics itself’ (Dow, 2002, p. 319). 1524 C. Repapis studying complex alternative views of the economy—and also because ‘past writers have things to say which no present writer is saying’ (Boulding, 1971, p. 233). Harcourt acknowledges this complex link between key texts from the past and modern theory in his book reviews. However, it can be claimed that what is at work here is not simply a return to a fixed and unalterable number of texts, but a dynamic process in which each period’s pioneering contributions gradually earn their place as important texts set in historical time. This adds another dimension to Boulding’s ‘extended present’ principle, as Harcourt’s book reviewing activity can be seen as a first attempt in interacting with new texts, and therefore evaluating and re-evaluating the place of these and older texts within the list of modern classics. In order to see how and why this happens, it is important to analyse how reviewing activity in general and book Downloaded from reviewing in particular fit within Harcourt’s research scheme.

3. Book reviews in Harcourt’s research scheme http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ This account of Harcourt’s book reviewing activity shows how much time and effort he has spent over the last 50 years reading and reviewing the work of others. In fact, it opens up an important question, why devote so much time to review the work of others? An activity that today among many economists may be viewed as secondary to their primary research output, and definitely not worth the time and effort Harcourt seems to have put into it. Or to put it another way, how do these reviews fit within Harcourt’s research scheme?

Mark Perlman, in the preface to Harcourt’s (1995A) Capitalism, Socialism and at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 Post-Keynesianism: Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt, notes that his multifaceted contributions can be summarised as appearing under four headings: ‘a) works analysing contemporary economic theoretical problems, b) works synthesizing states of debates in economic theory, c) works having a distinctly biographical flavour and pertaining to various contemporary economists and d) works pertaining to economic and allied social policies’ (Perlman, 1995, p. viii). Harcourt’s book reviews fall into all of these categories. His reviews deal with technical points, especially when reviewing books on capital theory in the 1960s and 1970s, have biographical flavour and/or relate to contemporary economic and social problems. However, this or any other categorisation of the reviews misses the point of what Harcourt has achieved by this unified corpus of work. Viewed together these reviews say something fundamental on how Harcourt does economics; they constitute a unified view of what economics is, what the limits of the discipline are and whose vision shaped the discipline in becoming an appropriate vehicle for analysing events in the social sphere. This ‘grand view’ can be found at the core of all of his book reviews. It explains why they often include character sketches of the book’s author, as if the author and the book constitute one broad intellectual entity, and a complete understanding of the work presupposes some idea about the person who wrote it. Thus, he writes in his review of Hicks’s Economic Perspectives that: Hicks’s greatest strength is his ability so to understand economic worlds and their actors, especially businessmen, accountants, and bankers, as to capture in his models exactly those aspects of their practices and behaviour that are particularly relevant to the problems in hand. Hicks is eclectic, a horses for courses man, adjusting the elements as the problems themselves change. Part of his ability derives from his understanding of other great model-builders and their methods. (Harcourt, 1979A, p. 144) Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1525 When reviewing Stiglitz’s Whither Socialism? Harcourt discusses Stiglitz’s critique of the Arrow–Debreu model from the literature of the economics of information, and then adds that ‘[Stiglitz] has not a high opinion of human nature … yet there is an overlay of idealism which allows him both to appreciate what the original socialists in their best moments wished to achieve and what he, working as a policy advisor in the pragmatic but humane environment of a mixed economy, might also hope to achieve’ (Harcourt, 1997E, p. 590). This view of the author vis-à-vis his work shows the economist as a social theorist trying to understand and also, when possible, shape the world around him, guided by his principles and a world view of what fundamentally drives human action. This is why Harcourt is dismissive of economists who lack this intellectual core and who build systems that are ‘condemned to mechanical appli- Downloaded from cations of the maximising or minimising under constraints theorems of Samuelson’s Foundations—clever in one dimension but basically boring, unimaginative, repetitive’ (Harcourt, 1997E, p. 591). This view of published work as a manifestation of the intellectual core of the author also enables Harcourt to describe something different, that is, any fundamental change http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ in the intellectual outlook of the authors’ view of the social world. An example of this may be found by looking again into Harcourt’s review of Hicks’s Economic Perspectives. Harcourt comments on Hicks’s ‘new work’ and especially on his book Capital and Time, and notes that this work ‘represents his attempt to escape from neoclassical stat- ics, to go beyond analysing time only in so far as it shares the characteristics of space, in order to analyse processes, for example, “impulses” and the “early phases” that fol-

low their occurrence’ (Harcourt, 1979A, p. 145). At the core of this change is Hicks’s at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 ‘ceaseless preoccupation with the characteristics of time, the importance of historical processes, and how best to integrate the two in models’ (Harcourt, 1979A, p. 145). The importance of historical processes is something that increasingly preoccupied Harcourt in his work and became a constituent element of post-Keynesian economics. In his review of Kaldor’s Economics without Equilibrium, he notes approvingly that ‘Kaldor asks us to consider constructing a different kind of abstract model to the general equilibrium one. The latter he [Kaldor] argues, “has created a serious brake on the development of economic thought”, so much so that modern theorists’ views of the world have become so distorted as to make them fit their images to the theory rather than the other way round’ (Harcourt, 1986B, p. 541). Furthermore, in his review of a volume of Selected Essays by Victoria Chick, he calls her work that links models with actual processes occurring in societies with histories, institutions and specific ‘rules of the game’ ‘a blessed relief!’ (Harcourt, 1993B, p. 492). But arguably the greatest praise he reserves for Pasinetti’s work and he notes approvingly that an explicit characteristic of his work is ‘the distinction between economic principles which are independent of institutions and economic principles which are situation-specific and dependant on particular institutions, but which, nevertheless, have the first set of principles underlying them’ (Harcourt, 2009, p. 205). Pasinetti’s ability to build a novel ‘grand view’ of the socio-economic order makes Harcourt on many occasions repeat his claim that ‘Pasinetti is probably the last great system builder of our profession’ (Harcourt, 2009, p. 204). Harcourt’s interest in the view of an abstract intellectual system as a ‘whole’ is nowhere more apparent than in his review articles, or what Perlman calls ‘works synthesizing states of debate in economic theory’ (Perlman, 1995, p. viii). Harcourt’s work on the Cambridge–Cambridge capital theory controversies is well known. His review articles 1526 C. Repapis are effectively written from the perspective of an author interested in what is left after two ‘grand views’ clash: the neoclassical view of equilibrium and distribution based on marginalist lines, captured in one commodity models, and an alternative world, where capital is heterogeneous and the simple neoclassical ‘parables’ of production and distribution do not hold. Without going into any detail, it is interesting to note that generally there is very little disagreement between the two sides on the purely technical points of the debate. What is at issue is what these technical findings mean. Avi Cohen, in a recent article, discussed the history of capital controversies from Böhm-Bawerk to Bliss (Cohen, 2010). There he outlines ‘two main “motives” for maintaining faith in a vision’, in this case the simple one-sector neoclassical model. ‘One is a methodological “deter- mination to ignore logical anomalies in a theory until they are shown to be empirically Downloaded from important” when no better rival theory is available’ (Cohen, 2010, p. 15). The other is an ‘ideological commitment to the vision. Capital theory has always been a normatively charged subject, involving a justification of the returns to capital and capitalists’ (Cohen, 2010, p. 15). It is interesting to note that one may maintain the ideological commitment without resorting to the same methodology as the neoclassical economist.7 Also one http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ may have a redistributive agenda and believe in neoclassical models, for example, to try to produce a policy package that redistributes resources in a general equilibrium world where the second welfare theorem holds. The methodological difference between these two visions seems to be resurfacing regularly in the debate. It is interesting to note that the stress on the neoclassical side is that no better rival theory is available, and this is the main obstacle in overthrowing

the old paradigm. The question is what does ‘better rival theory’ mean? A theory that at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 keeps the basic intuitions but can be more generalised? A theory that follows the same methodology as the existing core of neoclassical theory but somehow performs better where the simple one-sector model failed? This last question seems to be moving in the right direction. In a very interesting introduction by James Mirrlees in a 1970s’ collection of articles, titled Models of Economic Growth, the following remark on the Cambridge capital theory controversies is made: If anything explains the heat of debates in growth theory, it is the difficulty thinkers in the scholastic tradition have in appreciating that, for workers in the scientific tradition, it makes sense to entertain a model and use it without being committed to it; while the scientists cannot imagine why mere models should be the object of passion. I think that, in this, the scientists are right. (Mirrlees, 1973, p. xxi)

If one reads through the whole of the introduction, Mirrlees takes a very cautious attitude towards growth models, saying time and again that one should criticise the use of models and that models should be build with an eye to particular uses. Further, he argues that what matters is economic intuition and ‘good economic intuition can produce illuminating models and good economic analysis can make them generate insights’ (Mirrlees, 1973, p. xx). This is interesting because Harcourt finds himself in some agreement with this line of argument, for example in his essay ‘How I do Economics’, he writes, ‘How do I think we ought to do economics? I am a “horses

7 There are heterodox schools of thought that are in favour of a free-market system, but do not share the enthusiasm for the technical apparatus that methodologically defines the mainstream way of doing economics. A good example is neo-Austrian economics, which has consistently advocated in favour of free-market policies but has also rejected mainstream views of uncertainty and individual action (for a brief survey see Kirzner, 1987). Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1527 for courses” person—how you do it depends upon what the purpose is’ (Harcourt, 2001, p. 326).8 And yet he has referred to the previous quote on the scholastic versus the scientific ‘traditions’ in doing economics at least twice with disapproval, once in a review survey (Harcourt, 1976) and in a book review (Harcourt, 1991A, p. 161). In one thing both Mirrlees and Harcourt agree, that these two traditions in economics are so different as to be effectively distinct. The question therefore is: can Harcourt’s way of doing economics be dismissed as mere scholasticism? Or to put it another way: should Harcourt, who can be seen as the best example of a reader-commentator of other people’s written work within the post Keynesian tradition, be described as a scholastic commentator? It is important to first define scholasticism. Although this is a loaded term and there Downloaded from is bound to be controversy, and apart from the narrow historically grounded definition, the Oxford English Dictionary gives also this second definition: ‘servile adherence to the methods and teaching of the schools; narrow or unenlightened insistence on traditional doctrines and forms of exposition’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, p. 631). But this second definition could not be more at odds with Harcourt’s work and reviewing http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ activity. If anything, in his reviews he stresses the existence of more than one school or method of doing economics. For example, when reviewing with Michael Kitson in Fifty Years of Economic Measurement, they note that ‘this volume is an articulate celebra- tion of orthodox empirical economics’ and add ‘the neoclassical approach is a way of doing economics, it is not the way’ (Harcourt and Kitson, 1993, p. 446, original emphasis). Nevertheless, the multiplicity of approaches and Harcourt’s assertion that

he is a ‘horses for courses’ person should not detract from the fact that he does think at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 that one approach is generally better equipped to deal with issues in the social sphere, both from an analytical and a policy perspective. But this insistence cannot be called narrow, as he reads and comments on academic work that lies outside the confines of the post-Keynesian movement and is quick to praise others, even when they come from other traditions or have different views to his own (see, e.g., Harcourt, 1995B). There is another element in Harcourt’s work that would be at odds with seeing his work as slavish adherence to established modes of thought and expression. This is that his work displays reflective characteristics, i.e. the author realises and verbalises the natural bias of his intellectual position. So, he has no problems in acknowledging that some of his theoretical or policy stances have doctrinal tones; what he dislikes is the occasional insistence of his intellectual opponents that their work is not equally tainted or, in short, equally human in scope and motivation. Furthermore, Harcourt’s work displays a readiness to reconsider established dogmas at the core of the discipline. This is not only evident in his work and the work of other Cambridge (UK) economists during the capital theory controversies, where findings of a technical nature led to questions on the internal logic of the neoclassical paradigm, but also in his continual search both introspectively and in the work of others of new ways to see and analyse the social

8 Harcourt repeats on a number of occasions that he uses a ‘horses for courses’ approach in economics (see, e.g., Hamouda and Harcourt, 1988, p. 25). What he means is that the nature of the problem that the economist is considering determines the approach and also the level of abstraction employed. Therefore, the use of technique, from rigorous mathematical modelling to more literary and open-ended approaches is determined by the kind of questions the economist is asking. Specific examples of this methodology can be found in Harcourt (2001, pp. 326–7). This is very different from the mainstream way of doing economics, in which ‘the technique tends to determine what problems may be addressed’ (Hamouda and Harcourt, 1988, p. 25, footnote 18). The difference between these two approaches is further discussed in footnote 14. 1528 C. Repapis world. It is in this framework that his book reviews should be placed, as the product of genuine interest in the work of others, whatever their political and intellectual back- ground or tradition. His willingness to revise established dogmas also explains his admiration for economists who are ready to change their intellectual outlook as society changes or as they reach an analytical impasse. It is interesting to note that these characteristics that have made Harcourt’s work as a theorist and reviewer fit awkwardly in the definition of scholasticism have made Robert Heilbroner and William Milberg use this term to describe the developments in mainstream economic theory during the last quarter of the twentieth century. In The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought, they argue that all periods of economic thought up to and including the Keynesian period display a ‘continuously visible concern with Downloaded from the connection between theory and “reality”‘ (Heilbroner and Milberg, 1997, p. 3) and they continue: By way of contrast, the mark of modern-day economics is its extraordinary indifference to this

problem. At its peaks, the ‘high theorizing’ of the present period attains a degree of unreality http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ that can be matched only by medieval scholasticism. (Heilbroner and Milberg, 1997, pp. 3–4)

Furthermore, they argue that the core of the problem is that mainstream economic theory during this period displays an ‘absence of a new commanding vision’ and in its place there is ‘an enlargement of the role of analysis to the point where it not only obscured the absence of a new commanding vision, but served, in large degree, as a substitute for it’ (Heilbroner and Milberg, 1997, p. 101). In contrast, Harcourt, in his reviewing activity, not only remains committed to a at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 vision of society that has clear and deep links with the Keynesian period (the last period in which the link between theory and reality are central to the way of doing economics according to Heilbroner and Milberg), but also implicitly uses this conceptual distinction between vision and analysis in his reviewing work. His focus is to see what remains if one peels off the analytical apparatus and lays bare the vision of society resting at the core of each contribution. Seeing book reviews from this view- point raises, and partially answers, the following fundamental questions: what is the use of Harcourt’s book reviews for the reader? Or what purpose do they serve for the academic community? These are important questions in understanding Harcourt’s contribution as a reviewer.9

4. Why read a book review by Harcourt? As previously noted, Harcourt’s book reviews have been published in a variety of academic journals. It naturally follows that the readerships of these journals would have different interests and make different demands from the authors of book reviews. Furthermore, the extended period for which Harcourt has been writing book reviews has also seen some change in the representative reader for some of these journals, as

9 It is worth noting that Harcourt reviewed The Crisis of Vision for the Economic Journal and wrote that ‘I think there is much good sense in their general thesis and in their argument that apologetics for capitalism underlie what unified vision and analysis there is’ (Harcourt, 1997D, p. 1922). However, he seems to suggest in his review that there is a ‘vision’ in modern economic analysis, it is simply submerged below layers of highly technical analysis. That is why he concludes that ‘the criticisms in the book are meant to urge readers to recognise the implicitly capitalist nature of the analysis and approach of much modern economics’ (Harcourt, 1997D, p. 1922). Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1529 discipline-wide changes inevitably affected how accessible some of them are for the interdisciplinary reader or even for the non-specialist. Nevertheless, Harcourt’s book reviews show considerable consistency in focus, overall structure of the review and approach to the book under review. It can be claimed that a reader can identify themes that regularly resurface in many of Harcourt’s book reviews. These recurrent themes that form the body of a ‘typical’ book review are: (i) approachability of the text for the student and/or the non-specialist reader; (ii) assessing the contribution in light of the relevant literature; (iii) seeing the book beyond its immediately relevant literature in the technical sense and across the different traditions or schools of thought; (iv) plac- ing the book within the author’s own intellectual development; (v) considering the internal consistency of the argument in the book; and (vi) discussing the relevance of Downloaded from the book’s argument for understanding real-world phenomena. These themes cannot be viewed as a ‘checklist’ and there is no single book review that comprehensively discusses all these aspects. They are, however, themes that appear repeatedly across time and in all types of journals. Furthermore, they make Harcourt’s book reviews more than a précis. His reviews become literary pieces that ‘engage in conversation’ the http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ writer of the book and the prospective reader. The use of at least some of these themes for the reader of the review is quite straight- forward and can be found in standard book reviews by any author. For example, the approachability of the text for the non-specialist and the technical knowledge necessary to understand the basic argument in the book is something Harcourt routinely comments on, especially when he is reviewing books on capital theory or with a tech-

nical edge (see, e.g., Harcourt, 1965B, 1969B, 1977D). However, the link between at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 mathematical analysis and economic argument is symbiotic in much of the economic literature, and Harcourt can be critical when results are presented without the proper technical analysis to back them up. When reviewing Economic Growth by Eltis, he not only criticises the implicit assumption made by the author that most students of economics have too little knowledge of mathematics, but argues that ‘Yet the act of faith required to accept that results of equilibrium comparisons predict accurately the outcomes of dynamic growth processes requires a Billy Graham-type fervour which most teachers would hope was lacking in their pupils’ (Harcourt, 1969B, p. 591). In fact the relation between technical analysis and economic argument in not simply a question of exposition, as it relates to the internal consistency of the argument, and this has always been a central consideration in assessing novel contributions in economics.10 It is without question that book reviews in economics are expected to address this issue and this was the only substantive comment Pigou made on Edgeworth’s reviewing activity, as he notes how courteous Edgeworth was in his criticisms of the logical fallacies of others (see Pigou, 1925, p. 182). Harcourt’s reviews become more radical in content when he is assessing the overall contribution of the book. In general, book reviewers consider the synthetic or pioneering nature of the thesis of the book and discuss how the book relates to the literature it reviews or directly contributes into. This is useful both for the specialist and non- specialist reader who may see the book as an entry point into a complex and technical literature or as a substantial contribution to it. However, Harcourt’s reviews do not end

10 But for Harcourt, technical analysis can never be an end in itself. He makes this point when reviewing volume II of Hicks’s collected essays (see Harcourt, 1983B). 1530 C. Repapis there. He takes a step further by seeing how the main thesis of the book engages with contributions in traditions outside the one in which the book is situated. Occasionally this becomes the overarching theme of the review. In Harcourt and Kitson’s (1993) review, Fifty Years of Measurement—a book that commemorates the 50 years of work at the National Bureau of Economic Research—the whole neoclassical tradition in measurement as exemplified in this volume is considered. Harcourt and Kitson note that the purpose of the volume is ‘to provide a series of comprehensive survey articles on the state of the art in measurement which will be of value to graduate students in particular and to the profession generally’ (Harcourt and Kitson, 1993, p. 437). However, the reviewers find that in these survey articles ‘there is, however, little acknowledge- ment of the existence, let alone importance, of alternative approaches to applied work’ Downloaded from (Harcourt and Kitson, 1993, p. 446). The review is used to revisit this tradition in measurement from the vantage point of the Cambridge (UK) tradition in applied economics and see how theoretical questions form and inform empirical work across traditions. This suggests a pluralist methodology of how to do economics that is a central fea- http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ ture of Harcourt’s approach and the school of thought he contributes to. Recently, in an article that focuses on how to teach economics, Dow contrasted two different views of pluralism: the mainstream one focusing on mathematics ‘as the solution to what is seen as a regrettable plurality, putting all argument on an equal footing’ (Dow, 2009, p. 42) and what she calls ‘methodological pluralism’. Methodological pluralism means ‘studying these different frameworks [mainstream, neo-Austrian, post-Keynes-

ian], with a view to analysing each in its own terms, and also discussing the frame- at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 works themselves’ (Dow, 2009, p. 46). Harcourt’s book reviews are an example of this approach. In his reviews he not only discusses the framework in which a contribution is made, but also the merits of the contribution within its framework. He can therefore be critical of dogmatic applications of policies, which he is in broad sympathy with, when the realities of the situation do not fit them. This can be seen in his review of Rousseas’s book on Post Keynesian Monetary Economics, where Harcourt writes: ‘I do think that Rousseas risks falling into the trap of the very people he criticises, that of being almost completely technocratic about policy proposals and so neglecting the political realities in which they are to be applied’ (Harcourt, 1987C, p. 757). He is equally critical of authors that do not pay due tribute to the analytical advances of mainstream economics. In his review of The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought, he writes that the book ‘reflects a shrewd understanding of the conceptual basis of the modern literature, though the authors are not always fair to its achievements within its own lights’ (Harcourt, 1997D, p. 1922). This pluralist methodology means that the review becomes a springboard for opening the discussion between readers, the author and the reviewer on the book’s merits within and between frameworks of analysis. This means that Harcourt has found another use for the book review; as a vehicle for dialogue with the book writer and by extension with the wider reading public. For example, in Harcourt (1975A) he synthesises a review of four books by Maurice Dobb, Frank Hahn, John Hicks and Harry Johnson into a narrative on ‘the great problems of the classical political economists—the theory of value and distribution allied with the process of the accumulation of capital goods over time in a decentralised, usually competitive, capitalist economy’ (Harcourt, 1975A, p. 339). Such a synthesis is, by construction, an atypical book review by established standards, as it forces contributions from different traditions into a single narrative. It is, however, not surprising that Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1531 Harcourt takes this line, as he routinely transcends the boundaries of the tradition in which a book is situated and tries to translate the essence of the contribution in terms that would appeal to economists trained in other traditions. That such an approach would cause controversy, especially between traditions that do not always share the same technical apparatus and therefore form research questions at least superficially differently, is unavoidable. In this instance it elicited responses by the authors involved and a further comment by Harcourt (Harcourt, 1975C). This example also shows that this instigation to discussion is occasionally achieved by asking the prospective reader to approach the book from a novel and unconventional vantage point so that a broader understanding of the subject is achieved. There remains a question as to whether literary activities such as the one described Downloaded from above have any value for the prospective reader. The core question is essentially metatheoretical and relates to deeper issues of methodological coherence within and between the different traditions in economics. Harcourt’s take on the subject is that while schools of thought phrase their research questions differently and place emphasis on different tools and forms of exposition, they are all part of one unified field of study http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ and a comparative study of findings between traditions and across methodological lines is intelligible and can yield fruitful results. From this vantage point the book review can play a vital role in organising the different contributions as if in an imaginary rubric, by explaining the relation of theoretical and empirical findings not only within traditions but also between them, so that the prospective reader is informed on how this new contribution fundamentally adds to the existing body of knowledge beyond sectarian lines.

Therefore, from the reader’s perspective, book reviews can be seen as counterparts to at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 review and survey articles. Weintraub (1991) explores the use of survey articles within economics and discusses their importance in summarising and codifying the state of economic research. Survey articles define the subfield of study that they cover, standard- ise the language in the subfield, order the contributions in a historical narrative and by importance, and lastly make accessible the perceived findings of this field to non-specialists. Tiago Mata further considers how these reviews ‘construct identity’ when he writes on the role that the Cambridge capital theory controversies played in founding the post- Keynesian movement. He argues that ‘it was the device of the historical narrative that provided the group [the post-Keynesians] with an identity’ (Mata, 2004, p. 242). Therefore it can be said that ‘the survey truly constructs history’ (Weintraub, 1991, p. 130). It is understandable that survey articles are needed in economics, especially if we consider that mainstream journal articles utilise technically complex forms of argument and focus on specific aspects of the perceived grander problem, so that the non- specialist may find it difficult to make sense of the literature without a survey. Books, however, usually present a more unified picture of the world. Therefore, two distinct links can be considered between these two literary activities. First, book reviews may be viewed as natural extensions of review articles, by explaining how this new book fits in or engages with the ‘world vision’ created by a specific literature in economics. In this way book reviews add to and amend the canonical work of review articles. Second, they may be seen as vehicles fostering plurality, effectively opening a discussion with authors whose vision of society is different from that of the reviewers. This activity, necessary so that the canon never fossilises into a dogma, keeps the debate going and makes the reader implicitly aware of the natural limits of all narrative structures, however well constructed. The reader is asked to keep an open mind, as new, perhaps better, narratives that fit with what is happening in today’s world emerge. This means that 1532 C. Repapis the book reviewer has to genuinely engage with the central vision of the book and the wider ramifications this vision has for his own understanding of the world. It follows that Harcourt’s interest in the broader meaning of the specific contribution is central to all his reviewing activity. This is because it is a core aspect of the way post-Keynesian theory links theoretical analysis with developments in the real world. What forms the core of this school is a specific ‘vision’ of society, as this vision is what gives this tradition its coherence. While questions of coherence between the different strands of post-Keynesian analysis remain unresolved,11 the suggestion made in this article is that the role of identifying key texts and the ‘grand visions’ that these texts give rise to are a recurrent theme in all strands of post-Keynesian economics, even if all strands do not place these texts in the same order of preference or draw exactly Downloaded from the same insights from them. Therefore it can be argued that there is relatively more agreement on identifying these key texts than on other issues, although this again is not an iron law and, for example, King mentions how both Victoria Chick and Paul Davidson make little reference to Kalecki’s work in some of their key contributions (see King, 2003, p. 212). It is, however, interesting that this very practice of not refer- http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ ring to Kalecki’s work is perceived by King as a clear indication on the authors’ view of the importance of Kalecki’s contributions as expressed in his key texts. Such inferences have no exact parallel in the mainstream way of doing economics, where references are to specific analytical findings and not to ‘key texts’ and the vision these texts are related to. This attribute of post-Keynesian economics is also noted by Dow, who writes ‘all schools of thought have texts that refer to the development of the paradigm. But what

is notable about post-Keynesian economics is that this is not confined to histories or at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 surveys. It is also evident in the main post-Keynesian texts’ (Dow, 2002, p. 325). Given the importance of texts and their grand visions in providing coherence in the post-Keynesian research agenda, it is natural to constantly consider how new books or other theoretical contributions engage with these central texts. Therefore, the check for consistency and overall coherence of the school’s main thesis is ex post, by identifying the contributions, both past and present, that form its theoretical core and explain what is happening in the social sphere. These contributions may articulate their core vision using different analytical tools or start from essentially different premises regarding individual and collective actions, as individual action is affected by institutions, political and social forces that exist in specific historical settings. In such a framework, book reviews as well as review articles play a key role beyond that of popularising specific analytical findings to a broader audience. Furthermore, the focus on specific ‘grand visions’ shifts the centre of gravity away from the technical apparatus of the analysis towards ‘key texts’ that these visions are uniquely identified with or originally gave rise to. These texts are visited and revisited and form fixed points in a historical sequence of narratives that bind theoretical analysis with real-world developments. This view can also explain the organic way that post-Keynesian analysis is linked with important texts in the history of the subject. Dow explains ‘history of thought is pursued primarily to inform modern economics … this goal is seen as being best served by building up a historian’s understanding of older texts’ (Dow, 2002, p. 321).

11 Issues of coherence are still debated in the literature. Harcourt has discussed this issue in a number of his contributions (see Harcourt, 1987A, for a brief analysis and Hamouda and Harcourt, 1988, for a more extensive treatment). For an analysis that takes into account the perspectives of other leading figures in post- Keynesian economics and contrasts them to Harcourt’s view, see King (2003, pp. 203–20). Also see Kerr (2005) for a critical account of King’s position. Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1533 The mainstream analysis Harcourt engages with as the ‘other pole’ to the way he does economics in many of his reviews is organised along different lines. It could be said that their check for in-school consistency is ex ante, in that by adhering to a general set of agreed assumptions and a rigid technical apparatus they find specific analytical conclusions.12 These abstract findings need not constitute a coherent picture ex post, as a slightly different set of assumptions would produce different and occasionally antithetical formalised findings that can naturally coexist as theoretical results that relate to specifically set abstract problems. In many cases these abstract findings are only intelligible within the specific modelling framework in which they are developed. Therefore, the link of these findings with reality has two parts. First, the statistical techniques developed exclusively for and in parallel with theory for formally show- Downloaded from ing the empirical relevance of competing theoretical results.13 Second, as theoretical results that inform public debate. Here economists from the different strands within the tradition engage in a matching exercise, debating which specific model better fits the real situation considered and therefore which theoretical result is relevant for dealing with the situation from a policy perspective. The link between theory and the social http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ sphere is not through ‘key texts’ and the ‘grand vision’ that emanates from them, but rather through ‘key findings’ that inform public debate and can be applied to a variety of real-life situations.14 In this tradition, book reviews as well as other reviewing activity have a limited role to play, as ‘key findings’ that link theory with events in the real world derive legitimacy in this school not from specific texts but from the technical apparatus within which they are exactly defined.15 Therefore, reviews both in the form

of book reviews and review articles do not have the constitutive role that they play in at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014

12 E.g. one usual assumption of this school is atomistic agents. 13 It is beyond the scope of this paper to assess whether econometrics can effectively invalidate specific theoretical results and in this way link theory with reality. There is, however, a literature that suggests that econometric practices can be applied to ‘verify almost any hypothesis’ (Heilbroner and Milberg, 1997, p. 93). Herein the reader can also find a survey of the relevant literature on this subject. This gives credence to the claim made by L. Summers: ‘[econometric] results are rarely an important input to theory creation or the evolution of professional opinion generally’ (Summers, 1991, p. 133). In this article there is an implicit agreement with these claims, and by formulating this two-fold link between theory and reality there is at least the suggestion that theoretical results directly affect public debate in spite of, or irrespective to, the statistical analysis undertaken. 14 This can also explain that while Harcourt and Mirrlees may appear to agree on a ‘horses for courses’ methodology, they mean two entirely different things. Mirrlees, in his introduction on Models of Economic Growth, repeatedly mentions that ‘one should criticise the uses of the models, not the models alone’ (Mirrlees, 1973, p. xxi). And on another occasion, ‘when … a particular model is used for evaluating policy in a particular country, the relation of model to reality is the central justification’ (Mirrlees, 1973, p. xvi). Therefore, theorists may advance different models that share the same technical apparatus and debate on their relative applicability in dealing with specific policy issues. Mirrlees writes, ‘I do not think it is easy to criticise a proposed relationship between model and reality—to show that it is too unrealistic for the purpose at hand: but it can be done’ (Mirrlees, 1973, p. xvi, original emphasis). In contradistinction, Harcourt admits that ‘post Keynesian theory is holistic in terms of world view, not in terms of technique. It is the policy problem which determines the choice of method and technique—the neo-Ricardians may be an exception’ (Hamouda and Harcourt, 1988, p. 25 footnote 18). Harcourt dismisses any attempt to formalise techniques used by post-Keynesian theorists along mainstream lines saying that ‘our own view is that this is a misplaced exercise, that to attempt to do so is mainly to search for what Joan Robinson called “only another box of tricks” to replace the complete theory of mainstream economics which all strands [of post Keynesianism] reject’ (Hamouda and Harcourt, 1988, p. 25). 15 This does not necessarily mean that there is no such underlying vision and the difference of opinion between Heilbroner, Milberg and Harcourt on this point has been noted in footnote 9. The relevant argument here is that, within this school, links between ‘general visions’ and policy conclusions are not central to the discourse employed by the practitioners. 1534 C. Repapis the post-Keynesian tradition and this may explain why reviewers and readers in this tradition are prone to downplay the importance of a good review.

5. Conclusion In this article the nature of Harcourt’s book reviewing activity was considered. An effort was made to understand how this literature fits within Harcourt’s research agenda and why reviews in general are important for the school of thought in which Harcourt’s research is central. Central to his approach of doing economics is developing a general vision of the socio-economic order and identifying the vision behind the theoretical contributions he reviews.16 His approach as a reader and reviewer is based Downloaded from on the principle that if one is open about the natural bias of his intellectual position, then he can fruitfully engage with the work of others and try to understand the nature of their contribution. This approach gives him the ability to cross sectarian lines and review work beyond that which is solely identified with his tradition. Furthermore, this extensive reviewing activity gave structure to the type of post-Keynesian thought he http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ contributes to by clarifying what the issues are and ordering contributions thematically and in relative importance. This idea that new texts are parts of an ongoing narrative set in historical time not only tightens the link between theoretical contributions and their inbuilt vision of the social order, but also allows him to identify major changes in the views of those academics who shape this general vision through their work. However, this is not a static exercise that admits no new heroes. Harcourt incessantly

looks for work that offers novel insights on how to analyse economic reality and is at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 quick in identifying new key contributions. His book review of Minsky’s John Maynard Keynes is revealing in this respect. He writes ‘Professor Minsky has written a highly personal interpretation of Keynes’ contributions in the General Theory. The argument may not completely persuade on the score of what Keynes “really” meant; it is highly relevant for both analytical and policy issues today. Moreover, in the fullness of time, we may end up persuaded on the first point too’ (Harcourt, 1977A, p. 306). This openness to engage with new viewpoints that have substantial claims in explaining what is happening in the world today gives a dynamic element to Harcourt’s approach of doing economics, as it has inbuilt the ability to radically revise established beliefs and entrenched dogmas. His view, always sceptical of the highly abstract mathematical constructs that dominate mainstream analysis and appear unmoved by changes in the social sphere, arrives at an understanding of the world that explicitly considers institutions, political and social realities. He writes, ‘the resulting picture of the world that emerges may be less defined but also perhaps less distorted’17 (Harcourt and Kitson, 1993, p. 446). Such a dynamic element is needed if economic theorists today are to overcome the current crisis in the subject and radically alter their basic understanding of the

16 The best articulation of what is meant by vision in this context is given by Heilbroner and Milberg, who write, ‘by vision we mean the political hopes and fears, social stereotypes, and value judgements—all unarticulated, as we have said—that infuse all social thought, not through their illegal entry into an otherwise pristine realm, but as psychological, perhaps existential, necessities’ (Heilbroner and Milberg, 1997, p. 4). 17 This line almost echoes the famous motto associated with Alfred Marshall’s way of doing economics: ‘it is better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong’ (Shove, 1942, p. 323). This shows the deep methodological links that Harcourt has with the Cambridge tradition of economics. Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1535 economy by moving towards a new vision that has clear and complex links with reality. This approach is part of Harcourt’s substantial legacy to the profession. That this vision is lacking in much of today’s mainstream analysis has become increasingly apparent, as there is no end in sight for the current financial crisis. Roger Backhouse and Bradley Bateman write, ‘it became clear during the crisis that academic economics, at least as it then was, could not say what this new society should look like’ (Backhouse and Bateman, 2011, p. 145). ‘Wanted: Worldly Philosophers’, they write in the New York Times on 5 November 2011. Robert and Virginia Shiller argue that ‘economics needs to … aspire to broader vision’ (Shiller and Shiller, 2011, p. 2). Harcourt’s way of doing economics can inspire a new generation of worldly philosophers that consider different ways in theorising about the crisis and the solutions to it (see, e.g., Dow, 2012). As for Downloaded from the way forward, in his review of The Crisis of Vision he prophetically writes:

I interpret them [the authors of the book] as calling for a unified attempt in our profession to model an integrated world, its major problems and their causes, and to suggest practical national

and international institutions through which to tackle them, to make the world’s economies http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ operate better—much—than they do at the moment. This is a noble idea, an update of the aims of those idealists, not least Keynes, who gathered at Bretton Woods in the early 1940s to try and achieve the same ends. (Harcourt, 1997D, p. 1922)

This is more relevant today than ever.

Bibliography at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 Altzinger, W. 2011. Kurt W. Rothschild (1914–2010): a modest and upright character with an outstanding publication record, Intervention. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies, vol. 8, no. 1, 12–21 Backhouse, R. E. and Bateman, B. W. 2011. Capitalist Revolutionary, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Boulding, K. E. 1971. After Samuelson, who needs Adam Smith? History of Political Economy, vol. 3, no. 2, 225–37 Cohen, A. J. 2010. Capital controversy from Böhm-Bawerk to Bliss: badly posed or very deep questions? Or what ‘we’ can learn from capital controversy even if you don’t care who won, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 32, no. 1, 1–21 Dow, S. 2002. History of economic thought in the post Keynesian tradition, pp. 319–36 in Weintraub, E. R. (ed.), The Future of the History of Economics, Durham, NC, Duke University Press Dow, S. 2009. History of thought and methodology in pluralist economics education, International Review of Economics Education, vol. 8, no. 2, 41–55 Dow, S. 2012. Different approaches to the financial crisis, Economic Thought, vol. 1, no. 1, 80–93 Edgeworth, F. Y. 1925. Papers Relating to Political Economy, London, Macmillan Hamouda, O. F. and Harcourt, G. C. 1988. Post Keynesianism: from criticism to coherence? Bulletin of Economic Research, vol. 40, no. 1, 1–33 Harcourt, G. C. 1954. Review of The Measurement of Australian Industrial Production by W. E. G. Salter, Australian Accountant, vol. 24, no. 10, 427–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1962A. Productivity and technical change, Economic Record, vol. 38, no. 83, 388–94 Harcourt, G. C. 1962B. Review of Choice of Techniques: An Aspect of the Theory of Planned Economic Development by A. K. Sen, Economic Record, vol. 38, no. 84, 529–32 Harcourt, G. C. 1963. Review of Economic Philosophy by J. Robinson, Economic Record, vol. 39, no. 88, 492–3 Harcourt, G. C. 1964. Review of An International Comparison of Factor Costs and Factor Use by B. S. Minhas, Economic Journal, vol. 74, no. 294, 443–5 Harcourt, G. C. 1965A. Review of Taxation in Australia. Agenda for Reform by R. I. Downing, H. W. Arndt, A. H. Boxer and R. L. Mathews, Economic Journal, vol. 75, no. 297, 150–1 1536 C. Repapis Harcourt, G. C. 1965B. Review of the books: The Theory of Inflation. A Review by A. J. Hagger and Inflation and the Theory of Money by R. J. Ball, Economic Journal, vol. 75, no. 299, 597–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1966. Review of Monopolistic Competition, Technical Progress and Income Distribution by J. G. M. Hilhorst, Economic Journal, vol. 76, no. 304, 873–4 Harcourt, G. C. 1967. Review of Modern Capital Theory by D. Dewey, Economic Journal, vol. 77, no. 306, 359–61 Harcourt, G. C. 1968. Review of Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth: Essays Presented to Maurice Dobb, edited by C. H. Feinstein, Economic Record, vol. 44, no. 3, 384–9 Harcourt, G. C. 1969A. Review of Economic Enquiry in Australia by C. D. W. Goodwin, Economic Journal, vol. 79, no. 315, 662–4 Harcourt, G. C. 1969B. Review of Economic Growth. Analysis and Policy by W. A. Eltis, Economic Journal, vol. 79, no. 315, 590–2 Harcourt, G. C. 1970A. Review of Macroeconomic Activity: Theory, Forecasting, and Control—An Downloaded from Econometric Approach by M. K. Evans, Economic Journal, vol. 80, no. 318, 345–7 Harcourt, G. C. 1970B. Review of The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution by C. E. Ferguson, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 8, no. 3, 809–11 Harcourt, G. C. 1971. Review of Theory of Economic Growth by M. Morishima, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 9, no. 1, 91–2 Harcourt, G. C. 1972A. Review of Growth Theory: An Exposition, the Radcliffe Lectures delivered http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ in the University of Warwick, 1969, by R. M. Solow, Economica, vol. 39, no. 153, 107–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1972B. Review of On Concepts of Capital and Technical Change by T. K. Rymes, Economic Journal, vol. 82, no. 326, 760–3 Harcourt, G. C. 1973A. The rate of profits in equilibrium growth models: a review article, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 81, no. 5, 1261–77 Harcourt, G. C. 1973B. Review of Growth and Stability in a Mature Economy by J. Cornwall, Economic Journal, vol. 83, no. 331, 946–9 Harcourt, G. C. 1974. Review of Keynes and the Monetarists and Other Essays by S. Weintraub with H. Habibagahi, H. Wallich and E. R. Weintraub, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 12, at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 no. 1, 123–5 Harcourt, G. C. 1975A. Decline and rise: the revival of (classical) political economy, Economic Record, vol. 51, no. 3, 339–56 Harcourt, G. C. 1975B. Review of The Image of Australia: British Perception of the Australian Economy from the Eighteenth to the Twentieth Century by C. D. W. Goodwin, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 13, no. 1, 52–4 Harcourt, G. C. 1975C. Revival of political economy: a further comment, Economic Record, vol. 51, no. 3, 368–71 Harcourt, G. C. 1976. The Cambridge controversies: old ways and new horizons—or dead-end? Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 28, no. 1, 25–65 Harcourt, G. C. 1977A. Review of John Maynard Keynes by H. P. Minsky, Economica, vol. 44, no. 175, 306–7 Harcourt, G. C. 1977B. Review of Keynes’ Monetary Thought: A Study of its Development by Don Patinkin, Economic Record, vol. 53, no. 4, 565–9 Harcourt, G. C. 1977C. Review of The Intellectual Capital of Michal Kalecki: A Study in Economic Theory and Policy by G. R. Feiwel, Economica, vol. 44, no. 173, 92–4 Harcourt, G. C. 1977D. Review of The Theory of Equilibrium Growth by A. K. Dixit, Economic Journal, vol. 87, no. 348, 794–5 Harcourt, G. C. 1978. Review of The Megacorp and Oligopoly. Micro Foundations of Macro Dynamics by A. S. Eichner, Economica, vol. 45, no. 179, 318–19 Harcourt, G. C. 1979A. Review of Economic Perspectives. Further Essays on Money and Growth by J. Hicks, Economic Journal, vol. 89, no. 353, 144–6 Harcourt, G. C. 1979B. Review of Marx after Sraffa by I. Steedman, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 17, no. 2, 534–6 Harcourt, G. C. 1979C. Review of Neo-Ricardian Theory: With Applications to some Current Economic Problems by B. Naslung and B. Sellstedt, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 17, no. 2, 528–30 Harcourt, G. C. 1979D. Review of Sraffa and the Theory of Prices by A. Roncaglia, Economica, vol. 46, no. 183, 316–17 Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1537 Harcourt, G. C. 1980. Review of Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution by D. J. Harris, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 18, no. 3, 1084–6 Harcourt, G. C. 1981A. Notes on the social limits to growth, Economic Forum, Summer, 1–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1981B. Review of Asset Accumulation and Economic Activity: Reflections on Contemporary Macroeconomic Theory by J. Tobin, Economica, vol. 48, no. 191, 313–14 Harcourt, G. C. 1982A. Review of Economic Crisis, Cities and Regions: An Analysis of Current Urban and Regional Problems in Australia by F. J. B. Stilwell, Economic Record, vol. 58, no. 1, 104–6 Harcourt, G. C. 1982B. Review of Prices and Quantities: A Macroeconomic Analysis by A. M. Okun, Economic Record, vol. 58, no. 4, 395–6 Harcourt, G. C. 1982C. Review of the books: Capital Theory and Dynamics by E. Burmeister and Interest and Profit by C. Dougherty. Economica, vol. 49, no. 195, 368–70 Harcourt, G. C. 1983A. The irrelevance of conventional economics: a review article, Social Downloaded from Alternatives, vol. 3, no. 2, 61–2 Harcourt, G. C. 1983B. Review of Money, Interest and Wages: Collected Essays on Economic Theory, vol. II, by J. Hicks, Economic Journal, vol. 93, no. 369, 215–17 Harcourt, G. C. 1984A. Review of Keynesian Economics: The Search for First Principles by A. Coddington, Economica, vol. 51, no. 202, 207–9 Harcourt, G. C. 1984B. Review of Selected Economic Writings of Abba P. Lerner, edited by D. C. http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ Colander, Economic Journal, vol. 94, no. 375, 672–4 Harcourt, G. C. 1985A. Review of the books: The Capitalist Alternative: An Introduction to Neo- Austrian Economics by A. H. Shand and Radical Political Economy: An Introduction to Alternative Economics by B. Burkitt, Economica, vol. 52, no. 207, 397–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1985B. Review of The Crisis in Economic Theories, edited by G. Caravale, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 23, no. 1, 95–7 Harcourt, G. C. 1986A. Review of A Course Through Life: Memoirs of an Australian Economist by H. W. Arndt, Economic Record, vol. 62, no. 2, 238–9 Harcourt, G. C. 1986B. Review of Economics Without Equilibrium: The Okun Memorial Lectures at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 at Yale University by N. Kaldor with a Preface by J. Tobin, Economic Journal, vol. 96, no. 382, 540–1 Harcourt, G. C. 1986C. Review of Markets and Macroeconomics: Macroeconomic Implications of Rational Individual Behaviour by S. Moss, Economica, vol. 53, no. 209, 124–5 Harcourt, G. C. 1987A. Post-Keynesian economics, pp. 924–7 in Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. and Newman, P. (eds), The New Pelgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, vol. 3, London, Macmillan Harcourt, G. C. 1987B. Review of Economics in Disarray, edited by P. Wiles and G. Routh, Economica, vol. 54, no. 213, 113–4 Harcourt, G. C. 1987C. Review of Post Keynesian Monetary Economics by S. Rousseas, Economic Journal, vol. 97, no. 387, 756–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1987D. Review of Structured Chaos: The Process of Productivity Advance, Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 17, no. 2, 255–7 Harcourt, G. C. 1990A. Different approaches and uncomfortable critiques: Joan Robinson and the economics profession, Cambridge Review, vol. 111, no. 2308, 27–32 Harcourt, G. C. 1990B. Review of Economics Exiles by J. E. King, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 28, no. 2, 670–2 Harcourt, G. C. 1990C. Review of Kalecki’s Relevance Today, edited by M. Sebastiani, Economic Journal, vol. 100, no. 402, 989–91 Harcourt, G. C. 1990D. Review of Keynes’s Principle of Effective Demand, by E. J. Amadeo, Economic Journal, vol. 100, no. 399, 295–7 Harcourt, G. C. 1991A. Review of books: Joan Robinson and the Americans by M. S. Turner, Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory (vol. I), edited by G. R. Feiwel, The Economics of Imperfect Competition and Employment: Joan Robinson and Beyond (vol. 2), edited by G. R. Feiwel, History of Political Economy, vol. 23, no. 1, 158–64 Harcourt, G. C. 1991B. Review of Collected Works of Michal Kalecki, volume I: Business Cycles and Full Employment, edited by J. Osiatynski, Economic Journal, vol. 101, no. 409, 1608–10 Harcourt, G. C. 1991C. Review of Economic Theory, Welfare and the State: Essays in Honour of John C. Weldon, edited by A. Asimakopulos, R. D. Cairns and C. Green, Manchester School, vol. 59, no. 2, 191–3 1538 C. Repapis Harcourt, G. C. 1992. Review of Collected Works of Michal Kalecki, volume II: Capitalism— Economic Dynamics, edited by J. Osiatynski, Economic Journal, vol. 102, no. 414, 1265–7 Harcourt, G. C. 1993A. Review of Interpreting Ricardo by T. Peach, Manchester School, vol. 61, no. 4, 458–9 Harcourt, G. C. 1993B. Review of On Money, Method and Keynes: Selected Essays—Victoria Chick, edited by P. Arestis and S. C. Dow, Economica, vol. 60, no. 240, 492–3 Harcourt, G. C. 1994A. Review of Austin Robinson: The Life of an Economic Adviser by A. Cairncross, Economic Journal, vol. 104, no. 426, 1190–2 Harcourt, G. C. 1994B. Review of Capital and Credit: A New Formulation of General Equilibrium Theory by M. Morishima, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 32, no. 2, 686–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1995A. Capitalism, Socialism and Post-Keynesianism. Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt, Aldershot, Edward Elgar Harcourt, G. C. 1995B. Review of The Collected Papers of Dan Usher, volume I and II, by Dan Downloaded from Usher, Manchester School, vol. 63, no. 3, 345–7 Harcourt, G. C. 1996A. Review of Finance, Development and Structural Change: Post-Keynesian Perspectives, edited by Philip Arestis and Victoria Chick, Manchester School, vol. 64, no. 3, 324–6 Harcourt, G. C. 1996B. Review of The Legacy of Hicks: His Contributions to Economic Analysis, edited by H. Hagemann and O. F. Hamouda, European Journal of the History of Economic http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ Thought, vol. 3, no. 1, 152–5 Harcourt, G. C. 1996C. Review of Unemployment, Imperfect Competition and Macroeconomics: Essays in the Post Keynesian Tradition by M. C. Sawyer, Manchester School, vol. 64, no. 1, 104–5 Harcourt, G. C. 1997A. The Kaldor legacy: reviewing Nicholas Kaldor, Causes of Growth and Stagnation in the World Economy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996), Journal of International and Comparative Economics, vol. 5, 341–57 Harcourt, G. C. 1997B. Review of Economic Growth and the Structure of Long-Term Development: Proceedings of the IEA Conference held in Varenna, Italy, edited by L. L. Pasinetti and R. M. Solow, Economic Journal, vol. 107, no. 444, 1572–5 at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 Harcourt, G. C. 1997C. Review of Full Employment and Growth: Further Keynesian Essays on Policy by J. Tobin, Manchester School, vol. 65, no. 4, 477–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1997D. Review of The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought by R. Heilbroner and W. Milberg, Economic Journal, vol. 107, no. 445, 1921–3 Harcourt, G. C. 1997E. Stiglitz, Joseph E.: whither socialism? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 153, no. 3, 590–1 Harcourt, G. C. 1998. Review of Learning from ‘Learning by Doing’: Lessons for Economic Growth by R. M. Solow, Economic Journal, vol. 108, no. 451, 1870–2 Harcourt, G. C. 1999A. In honour of Lorie Tarshis, History of Economics Review, vol. 30, 177–8 Harcourt, G. C. 1999B. Review of Economics and its Discontents: Twentieth Century Dissenting Economists by R. P. F. Holt and S. Pressman, Economic Journal, vol. 109, no. 459, F793–5 Harcourt, G. C. 1999C. Review of The Myth of Adam Smith by S. Rashid, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 37, no. 4, 1710–11 Harcourt, G. C. 2000A. Maynard Keynes resurrected? Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, 210–21 Harcourt, G. C. 2000B. Review of Contesting the Australian Way: States, Markets and Civil Society, edited by P. Smith and B. Cass, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 38, no. 2, 433–5 Harcourt, G. C. 2000C. Review of Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution: Studies of the Inter-war Literature on Money, the Cycle and Unemployment by D. Laidler, Economica, vol. 67, no. 266, 297–8 Harcourt, G. C. 2001. How I do economics, pp. 323–33 in 50 Years a Keynesian and Other Essays, London, Palgrave Harcourt, G. C. 2002A. The problem with markets, Soundings, no. 21, 65–8 Harcourt, G. C. 2002B. Review of Dilemmas in Economic Theory: Persisting Foundational Problems of Microeconomics by M. Mandler, Economic Journal, vol. 112, no. 480, F379–81 Harcourt, G. C. 2002C. Review of Economic Events, Ideals and Policies: The 1960s and After, edited by G. Perry and J. Tobin, Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, 168–74 Harcourt, G. C. 2002D. Review of Keynes on Population by J. Toye, Economic Journal, vol. 112, no. 480, F391–4 Developments in economic theory: Harcourt’s book reviews 1539 Harcourt, G. C. 2003A. Review of A Post Keynesian Perspective on Twenty-first Century Economic Problems, edited by P. Davidson, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 41, no. 2, 589–90 Harcourt, G. C. 2003B. Review of Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy: A Centenary Estimate, edited by T. Cozzi and R. Marchionatti, History of Political Economy, vol. 35, no. 3, 582–6 Harcourt, G. C. 2004. Review of General Equilibrium: Problems and Prospects, edited by Fabio Petri and Frank Hahn, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 11, no. 4, 643–6 Harcourt, G. C. 2005. Review of Emotions in Finance: Distrust and Uncertainty in Global Markers by J. Pixley, Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 320–2 Harcourt, G. C. 2006A. Review of Economists in Cambridge, A Study Through Their Correspondence, 1907–1946, edited by Maria Cristina Marcuzzo and Annalisa Rosselli, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 13, no. 2, 290–2 Harcourt, G. C. 2006B. Review of Keynes, Pigou and Cambridge Keynesians: Authenticity and Downloaded from Analytical Perspective in the Keynes–Classics Debate by G. M. Ambrosi, Economica, vol. 73, no. 290, 359–61 Harcourt, G. C. 2006C. Review of The Worldly Philosophers at Fifty, edited by W. Milberg, History of Political Economy, vol. 38, no. 4, 776–8 Harcourt, G. C. 2008A. On Paul Krugman on Maynard Keynes’ General Theory, History of Economics Review, vol. 47, 125–31 http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ Harcourt, G. C. 2008B. Review of The Cambridge Companion to Keynes, edited by R. E. Backhouse and B. W. Bateman, Economica, vol. 75, no. 300, 804–5 Harcourt, G. C. 2009. A revolution yet to be accomplished: reviewing Luigi Pasinetti, Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians, History of Economic Ideas, vol. XVII, 203–8 Harcourt, G. C. 2011A. The Return to Keynes, edited by Bradley Bateman, Toshiaki Hirai and Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 18, no. 1, 159–64 Harcourt, G. C. 2011B. Review of Macroeconomics in the Small and the Large. Essays on Microfoundations, Macroeconomic Applications and Economic History in Honour of Axel at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014 Leijonhufvud, edited by R. E. A. Farmer, Economic Record, vol. 87, no. 276, 170–2 Harcourt, G. C. 2012A. Review of Keynes on Monetary Policy, Finance and Uncertainty, Liquidity Preference Theory and the Global Financial Crisis by Jorg Bibow, Review of Political Economy, vol. 24, no. 1, 157–61 Harcourt, G. C. 2012B. Review of The Collected Writings of an Indian Sage: The Collected Works of A.K. Dasgupta, edited by Alaknanda Patel, Economica, vol. 79, no. 313, 199–202 Harcourt, G. C. and Kitson, M. 1993. Fifty years of measurement: a Cambridge view, Review of Income and Wealth, vol. 39, no. 4, 435–47 Harcourt, G. C. and Massaro, V. G. 1964. Mr. Sraffa’s Production of Commodities, Economic Record, vol. 40, no. 91, 442–54 Harcourt, G. C. and McFarlane, B. J. 1990. Review of Political Essays by H. Stretton, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 25, 356–8 Harcourt, G. C. and Sheridan, K. 1971. Review of Structural Changes in Japan’s Economic Development by M. Shinohara, Economic Journal, vol. 81, no. 324, 1002–4 Harcourt, G. C. and Turnell, S. 2005. On Skidelsky’s Keynes, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 40, no. 47, 4931–46 Heilbroner, R. and Milberg, W. 1997. The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press Johnson, S. 1866. Lives of English Poets, vol. II, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Kermode, F. 1989. An Appetite for Poetry, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Kerr, P. 2005. A history of post-Keynesian economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 29, 475–96 Keynes, J. M. 1924. Alfred Marshall, 1842–1924, Economic Journal, vol. 34, no. 135, 311–72 King, J. E. 2003. A History of Post Keynesian Economics since 1936, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Kirzner, I. M. 1987. Austrian school of economics, pp. 145–51 in Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. and Newman, P. (eds), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, vol. 1, London, Macmillan Knight, C. J. 2003. Uncommon Readers: Denis Donoghue, Frank Kermode, George Steiner, and the Tradition of the Common Reader, Toronto, University of Toronto Press 1540 C. Repapis Mata, T. 2004. Constructing identity: the post Keynesians and the capital controversies, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 26, no. 2, 241–59 McFarlane, B. and Harcourt, G. C. 1990. Economic planning and democracy, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 25, no. 2, 326–32 Mirrlees, J. A. 1973. Introduction, pp. xi–xxii in Mirrlees, J. A. and Stern, N. H. (eds), Models of Economic Growth, London, Macmillan Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. Scholasticism, p. 631 in Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C. (eds), Oxford English Dictionary, vol. XIV (Rob-Sequyle), Oxford, Clarendon Press Perlman, M. 1995. Preface, pp. vii–xii in Capitalism, Socialism and Post-Keynesianism. Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt, Aldershot, Edward Elgar Pigou, A. C. 1925. Professor Edgeworth’s collected papers, Economic Journal, vol. 35, no. 138, 177–85 Robbins, L. 2000. A History of Economic Thought, Princeton, Princeton University Press Downloaded from Shiller, R. J. and Shiller, V. M. 2011. ‘Economists as Worldly Philosophers’, Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper no. 1788 Shove, G. F. 1942. The place of Marshall’s Principles in the development of economic theory, Economic Journal, vol. 52, no. 208, 294–329 Summers, L. 1991. The scientific illusion in empirical macroeconomics, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol. 93, no. 2, 129–48 http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/ Weintraub, E. R. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press Woolf, V. 1925. The Common Reader, 1st series, London, Harcourt at Physical Sciences Library on November 25, 2014