Keynes and Hayek: The Money Economy

Keynes and Hayek: The Money Economy

Keynes and Hayek: The Money Economy

Keynes and Hayek: The Money Economy

Synopsis

John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek had serious differences of opinion when it came to assessing the fractured inter-war world. G.S. Steele picks apart this debate and argues persuasively that Hayek's outlook will prove to be the more enduring.

Excerpt

I was taught Keynes as an undergraduate, but I discovered Hayek much later and by accident. Then I realised that what I had been taught was not Keynes after all. in my rediscovery I was guided by Axel Leijonhufvud's On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes, from which this book draws heavily. I acknowledge permission from the Oxford University Press to quote extensively from that source.

Although there are many textbooks that purport to represent Keynes, there is none that attempts to represent Hayek. This book is neither textbook, nor original contribution. Rather, its design is to serve those who - alert to criticisms of textbook representations of Keynes and to the revived interest in his great rival - seek a single source as an introduction to the issues. This might be it.

Some of the account and argument of this text have their origin in earlier publications, for which reason acknowledgement is courteously extended to: The American Journal of Economics and Sociology; Economic Affairs; History of Political Economy; Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems; and The Scottish Journal of Political Economy.

I am appreciative of Lancaster University for considering it appropriate that academics have periodic study-leave to pursue special interests. For help in shaping the presentation of my arguments, I acknowledge the meticulous attention given by Glenys Ferguson to the whole of the first-draft manuscript. in respect of specific chapters, I am grateful for the helpful comments of John King and Nicholas Snowden. of course, I alone am responsible for the many faults that remain.

I am unpersuaded by writers who - sensing 'gender imbalance' - believe that there is much to be gained, and little to be lost, in replacing masculine nouns and pronouns with feminine counterparts or in disfiguring their text with repetitious alternates or cumbersome twinnings. Here the traditional forms are adopted with no intention to demean.

G.R. steele
Lancaster University
July 2000 Management School

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.