Abstract Joan Robinson sought to make Marx’s economics intelligible to both academic colleagues and followers of Marx, in a twofold approach. First, she adopted Kalecki’s antipathy to the labour theory of value and his insights (following Rosa Luxemburg) into realisation problems in the schemes of reproduction; second, following Sraffa’s reading of Ricardo, she recognised the importance of surplus production as an alternative to neoclassical theory: both culminating in a stripped down two-sector scheme her mature work, The Accumulation of Capital. This scheme is recast here as an input–output framework, providing a generalisation that addresses some of its limitations: the need for an interface with the Kahn/Keynes employment multiplier, the absence of circulating capital inputs, and the lack of a systematic treatment of prices. Furthermore, a somewhat surprising result is the derivation of a core role for Marx’s category of surplus value in the employment multiplier derived from Robinson’s system.
琼·罗宾逊试图通过双重途径，让马克思的学术同事和追随者都能理解马克思的经济学。首先，她采用了卡莱茨基对劳动价值论的反感，以及他(继罗莎·卢森堡之后)对再生产方案中实现问题的见解;其次，在斯拉法阅读李嘉图之后，她认识到剩余生产作为新古典主义理论替代品的重要性:两者都以她成熟的作品《资本积累》(the Accumulation of Capital)中剥离的两部门方案而达到高潮。这个方案在这里被重新塑造为一个投入产出框架，提供了一个概括，解决了它的一些局限性:需要与卡恩/凯恩斯的就业乘数接口，缺乏流动资本投入，以及缺乏对价格的系统处理。此外，一个有点令人惊讶的结果是，马克思的剩余价值范畴在从鲁宾逊的体系中推导出的就业乘数中扮演了核心角色。
{"title":"Joan Robinson’s intelligible Marxism and <i>The Accumulation of Capital</i>: a generalisation of the two-sector reproduction scheme","authors":"Andrew B Trigg","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead038","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Joan Robinson sought to make Marx’s economics intelligible to both academic colleagues and followers of Marx, in a twofold approach. First, she adopted Kalecki’s antipathy to the labour theory of value and his insights (following Rosa Luxemburg) into realisation problems in the schemes of reproduction; second, following Sraffa’s reading of Ricardo, she recognised the importance of surplus production as an alternative to neoclassical theory: both culminating in a stripped down two-sector scheme her mature work, The Accumulation of Capital. This scheme is recast here as an input–output framework, providing a generalisation that addresses some of its limitations: the need for an interface with the Kahn/Keynes employment multiplier, the absence of circulating capital inputs, and the lack of a systematic treatment of prices. Furthermore, a somewhat surprising result is the derivation of a core role for Marx’s category of surplus value in the employment multiplier derived from Robinson’s system.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135253243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The role of morals, ethics and values in economics is a much-discussed topic. The purpose of this article is to review the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey’s contribution to this debate. He particularly points out the importance of emotion. Indeed, emotion has remained a blind spot in the author’s thinking on values, given the extent to which the debate on rationality and value has taken precedence. We begin by showing the contiguity of the notions of valuation and emotion in the author’s thinking. We then discuss the role of emotion in the conduct of moral inquiry by situating his thinking in relation to emotivism, before more specifically addressing the role of emotion in Dewey’s thinking. Finally, we discuss how Dewey’s thinking can contribute to the debate on values and valuation in economics.
{"title":"Valuation and emotion according to John Dewey","authors":"Emmanuel Petit, Jérôme Ballet","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The role of morals, ethics and values in economics is a much-discussed topic. The purpose of this article is to review the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey’s contribution to this debate. He particularly points out the importance of emotion. Indeed, emotion has remained a blind spot in the author’s thinking on values, given the extent to which the debate on rationality and value has taken precedence. We begin by showing the contiguity of the notions of valuation and emotion in the author’s thinking. We then discuss the role of emotion in the conduct of moral inquiry by situating his thinking in relation to emotivism, before more specifically addressing the role of emotion in Dewey’s thinking. Finally, we discuss how Dewey’s thinking can contribute to the debate on values and valuation in economics.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135344401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract There are two fundamental theories of the nature of money: the commodity theory and the credit theory. These theories, with their contrasting core emphases on a commodity or on debt, are widely recognised as being wholly incompatible. However, we argue that the core emphases at least are reconcilable in determining a more sustainable way of conceptualising money. We demonstrate, first, the fatal problems of the two conceptions of money, and the necessity of reconciling their contrasting core emphases to address the puzzle of money. Second, we find another theoretical tradition represented by Karl Marx and Tony Lawson that provides methods to achieve the desired reconciliation. Marx applies duality analysis to the nature of money, and Lawson draws on social positioning theory. This paper can aid scholars in better understanding the nature of money.
{"title":"Reconciling two concepts of money: Karl Marx and Tony Lawson","authors":"Xiuhui Li","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead037","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There are two fundamental theories of the nature of money: the commodity theory and the credit theory. These theories, with their contrasting core emphases on a commodity or on debt, are widely recognised as being wholly incompatible. However, we argue that the core emphases at least are reconcilable in determining a more sustainable way of conceptualising money. We demonstrate, first, the fatal problems of the two conceptions of money, and the necessity of reconciling their contrasting core emphases to address the puzzle of money. Second, we find another theoretical tradition represented by Karl Marx and Tony Lawson that provides methods to achieve the desired reconciliation. Marx applies duality analysis to the nature of money, and Lawson draws on social positioning theory. This paper can aid scholars in better understanding the nature of money.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135770789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study presents a theoretical framework that connects functional income distribution and personal income distribution from the Kaleckian perspective and investigates the effects of changes in mark-up rate and interest rate on income inequality in terms of the Gini coefficient. The results demonstrate that a rise in the mark-up rate with weak bargaining power of workers raises the Gini coefficient irrespective of a profit-led or wage-led demand regime. The analyses also demonstrate that a decline in the interest rate negatively affects the Gini coefficient if and only if the bargaining power of workers is sufficiently strong.
{"title":"Income inequality in terms of a Gini coefficient: a Kaleckian perspective","authors":"Shinya Fujita","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead036","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study presents a theoretical framework that connects functional income distribution and personal income distribution from the Kaleckian perspective and investigates the effects of changes in mark-up rate and interest rate on income inequality in terms of the Gini coefficient. The results demonstrate that a rise in the mark-up rate with weak bargaining power of workers raises the Gini coefficient irrespective of a profit-led or wage-led demand regime. The analyses also demonstrate that a decline in the interest rate negatively affects the Gini coefficient if and only if the bargaining power of workers is sufficiently strong.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135109518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper contributes to the literature on innovation and development by analysing the absorptive and connectivity capacities of Latin American innovation systems between 1970 and 2017. Applying network analysis to a USPTO database containing Latin American inventors, we build and analyse collaboration networks in the process of invention and knowledge appropriation. The structural properties and the evolution of such networks allow us to measure critical attributes of the Latin American innovation systems. Specifically, the networks exhibit low absorptive capacity and high external openness, which are critical linkages with external nodes in the network growth process. We identify different trajectories of innovation systems within the region, analysing specific paths of capability (de)accumulation and network maturity against the backdrop of national development trajectories.
{"title":"Absorptive capacities and external openness in underdeveloped innovation systems: a patent network analysis for Latin American countries 1970–2017","authors":"Carlos Bianchi, Pablo Galaso, Sergio Palomeque","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead034","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper contributes to the literature on innovation and development by analysing the absorptive and connectivity capacities of Latin American innovation systems between 1970 and 2017. Applying network analysis to a USPTO database containing Latin American inventors, we build and analyse collaboration networks in the process of invention and knowledge appropriation. The structural properties and the evolution of such networks allow us to measure critical attributes of the Latin American innovation systems. Specifically, the networks exhibit low absorptive capacity and high external openness, which are critical linkages with external nodes in the network growth process. We identify different trajectories of innovation systems within the region, analysing specific paths of capability (de)accumulation and network maturity against the backdrop of national development trajectories.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135109881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In this paper, we discuss Joan Robinson’s views through the lenses of her 127 book reviews, an activity which she engaged in throughout her life. A complete list of them—so we hope—is presented with full reference to the original place of publication, in the form of tables arranged by decade. We follow her work in chronological order, taking each decade as the framework to analyse what she was working on at the time and show how her reviews were—at times loosely, at times closely—connected with her scientific and political concerns. In some cases, the reviews amounted to review essays, which she reprinted in her Collected Economic Papers, but even in the short reviews she managed to give full expression to her views on the topic or author, and thus they offer us additional insights into her mode of thought, examples of her crisp prose and forceful style of argument. Her reviews ranged over a great variety of topics, reflecting over 60 years of the development of economics, or at least those aspects and topics which she deemed relevant at the time, and so they come to form part of her intellectual legacy, as much as her published work.
{"title":"Joan Robinson through the lenses of sixty years of book reviews","authors":"Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, Giulia Zacchia","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead029","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, we discuss Joan Robinson’s views through the lenses of her 127 book reviews, an activity which she engaged in throughout her life. A complete list of them—so we hope—is presented with full reference to the original place of publication, in the form of tables arranged by decade. We follow her work in chronological order, taking each decade as the framework to analyse what she was working on at the time and show how her reviews were—at times loosely, at times closely—connected with her scientific and political concerns. In some cases, the reviews amounted to review essays, which she reprinted in her Collected Economic Papers, but even in the short reviews she managed to give full expression to her views on the topic or author, and thus they offer us additional insights into her mode of thought, examples of her crisp prose and forceful style of argument. Her reviews ranged over a great variety of topics, reflecting over 60 years of the development of economics, or at least those aspects and topics which she deemed relevant at the time, and so they come to form part of her intellectual legacy, as much as her published work.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"364 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135939037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This essay presents Kalecki’s notes on Joan Robinson’s Essay on Marxian Economics, (hitherto published only in a Polish translation) introduced by an explanation of the part that Kalecki’s work played in Robinson’s reconsideration of Marx in the light of the new ideas coming from Keynes and Kalecki. Kalecki defended Marx against Robinson’s more extreme accusations of inconsistency. Kalecki’s notes are given in an appendix to this essay.
{"title":"Kalecki’s notes on Robinson’s <i>Essay on Marxian Economics</i>","authors":"Jan Toporowski","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead031","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay presents Kalecki’s notes on Joan Robinson’s Essay on Marxian Economics, (hitherto published only in a Polish translation) introduced by an explanation of the part that Kalecki’s work played in Robinson’s reconsideration of Marx in the light of the new ideas coming from Keynes and Kalecki. Kalecki defended Marx against Robinson’s more extreme accusations of inconsistency. Kalecki’s notes are given in an appendix to this essay.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135981906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alexandre Truc, Olivier Santerre, Yves Gingras, François Claveau
Abstract Economics has the reputation to be an insular discipline with little consideration for other social sciences and humanities (SSH). Recent research (Angrist et al., 2020) challenges this perception of economics: the perception would be historically inaccurate and especially at odds with the recent interdisciplinarity of economics. By systematically studying citation patterns since the 1950s in thousands of journals, we offer the best established conclusions to date on this issue. Our results do show that the discipline is uniquely insular from a historical point of view. But we also document an important turn after the 1990s that drastically transformed the discipline as it became more open, very quickly, to the influence of management, environmental sciences and to a lesser degree, a variety of the SSH. While this turn made economics less uniquely insular, as of today economics remains the least outward-looking discipline with management among all SSH. Furthermore, unlike in the other major social sciences, the most influential journals in economics have not significantly contributed to the recent increase in the interdisciplinarity of the discipline. While economics is changing, it is too soon to claim that it has completed an interdisciplinary turn.
经济学一直被认为是一门孤立的学科，很少考虑其他社会科学和人文科学。最近的研究(Angrist et al.， 2020)挑战了这种对经济学的看法:这种看法在历史上是不准确的，特别是与最近经济学的跨学科性不一致。通过系统地研究自20世纪50年代以来数千种期刊的引文模式，我们提供了迄今为止关于这一问题的最佳确定结论。我们的结果确实表明，从历史的角度来看，这门学科是独特的孤立。但我们也记录了20世纪90年代之后的一个重要转折，它彻底改变了这门学科，因为它变得更加开放，非常迅速，受到管理学、环境科学和其他一些学科的影响。虽然这一转变使经济学不再那么孤立，但时至今日，经济学仍然是所有学科中最不外向型的学科。此外，与其他主要社会科学不同，经济学领域最具影响力的期刊并没有对该学科跨学科性的近期增长做出显著贡献。尽管经济学正在发生变化，但现在断言它已经完成了跨学科的转变还为时过早。
{"title":"The interdisciplinarity of economics","authors":"Alexandre Truc, Olivier Santerre, Yves Gingras, François Claveau","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead021","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Economics has the reputation to be an insular discipline with little consideration for other social sciences and humanities (SSH). Recent research (Angrist et al., 2020) challenges this perception of economics: the perception would be historically inaccurate and especially at odds with the recent interdisciplinarity of economics. By systematically studying citation patterns since the 1950s in thousands of journals, we offer the best established conclusions to date on this issue. Our results do show that the discipline is uniquely insular from a historical point of view. But we also document an important turn after the 1990s that drastically transformed the discipline as it became more open, very quickly, to the influence of management, environmental sciences and to a lesser degree, a variety of the SSH. While this turn made economics less uniquely insular, as of today economics remains the least outward-looking discipline with management among all SSH. Furthermore, unlike in the other major social sciences, the most influential journals in economics have not significantly contributed to the recent increase in the interdisciplinarity of the discipline. While economics is changing, it is too soon to claim that it has completed an interdisciplinary turn.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136353699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson made in 2012 a proposal for banking sector reform, which aimed at eliminating the ability of commercial banks to create money. They claim that their proposal would return the monopoly of money creation to the state, would reduce the debt level in society, and in turn would end the need for expensive bail-outs of too-big-to-fail banks by taxpayers. This paper will discuss the theory-external post-Keynesian criticism of the reform proposal as well as a theory-internal criticism, which focusses on the impact of this proposal for the banks’ customers, the commercial banks and the taxpayers. The analysis will show that Jackson and Dyson’s proposal is not a progressive solution but a Trojan Horse.
Andrew Jackson和Ben Dyson在2012年提出了银行业改革的建议，旨在消除商业银行创造货币的能力。他们声称，他们的提议将把货币创造的垄断权交还给国家，将降低社会的债务水平，进而不再需要纳税人为“大到不能倒”的银行提供昂贵的纾困。本文将讨论对改革方案的理论-外部后凯恩斯主义批评以及理论-内部批评，重点讨论该方案对银行客户、商业银行和纳税人的影响。分析将表明，杰克逊和戴森的提议不是一个进步的解决方案，而是一个特洛伊木马。
{"title":"Positive money: progressive solution or Trojan Horse?","authors":"Christian Etzrodt","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead035","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson made in 2012 a proposal for banking sector reform, which aimed at eliminating the ability of commercial banks to create money. They claim that their proposal would return the monopoly of money creation to the state, would reduce the debt level in society, and in turn would end the need for expensive bail-outs of too-big-to-fail banks by taxpayers. This paper will discuss the theory-external post-Keynesian criticism of the reform proposal as well as a theory-internal criticism, which focusses on the impact of this proposal for the banks’ customers, the commercial banks and the taxpayers. The analysis will show that Jackson and Dyson’s proposal is not a progressive solution but a Trojan Horse.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136354590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses Joan Robinson’s remarks on the importance of historical time in economic analysis. On the one hand, Joan Robinson expressed skepticism with equilibrium analysis as such, arguing that as soon as economists take into account the uncertainty of expectations, history needs to replace equilibrium. On the other hand, Robinson stressed that, while building economic models, one must be aware that it is historical time rather than logical time that rules reality, warning against the methodological mistake of confusing comparisons of equilibrium positions with a movement between them. We argue that these criticisms point to the possibility of thinking in terms of two different ‘levels’ of historical time—a higher (fundamentalist) level, and a practical (and more analytically tractable) lower level. Using this distinction, we provide a taxonomy of existing strands of post-Keynesian growth theory that are consistent with the concept of low-level historical time. It is shown that despite appearances to the contrary, much post-Keynesian growth theory displays fidelity to Joan Robinson’s concern with the importance of historical time.
{"title":"Joan Robinson’s historical time and the current state of post-Keynesian growth theory","authors":"Ettore Gallo, M. Setterfield","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper discusses Joan Robinson’s remarks on the importance of historical time in economic analysis. On the one hand, Joan Robinson expressed skepticism with equilibrium analysis as such, arguing that as soon as economists take into account the uncertainty of expectations, history needs to replace equilibrium. On the other hand, Robinson stressed that, while building economic models, one must be aware that it is historical time rather than logical time that rules reality, warning against the methodological mistake of confusing comparisons of equilibrium positions with a movement between them. We argue that these criticisms point to the possibility of thinking in terms of two different ‘levels’ of historical time—a higher (fundamentalist) level, and a practical (and more analytically tractable) lower level. Using this distinction, we provide a taxonomy of existing strands of post-Keynesian growth theory that are consistent with the concept of low-level historical time. It is shown that despite appearances to the contrary, much post-Keynesian growth theory displays fidelity to Joan Robinson’s concern with the importance of historical time.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44737224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：