Book reviews - Rezensionen

Abstract

Th ese two books are part of a series on Archival Insights into the Evolution of Economics. Th e use of archival material is the main common thread running through the papers, though even that is not universal (for example, a three page chapter by T.G. Moore in the second of the volumes mentioned on a memoir of Department of Economics at Chicago). Books on or with titles referring to particular traditions or schools of thought always face the diffi culty of defi ning what that tradition or school is. But no such attempt at defi nition is made in these books, and one is left wondering what is meant by the term ›anti-Keynesian tradition‹ and to some degree the Keynesian tradition. Th ere are obviously many ways to be anti something, and the term Keynesian itself has multiple interpretations and questions as to the relationship between Keynes and Keynesian. And anti-Keynesian is not used here to mean those who have explicitly sought to undermine Keynes or Keynesian economics. Th e chapters in the Keynesian Tradition book at least could be seen as having the common theme of people in one way or another associated with Keynes himself and/or explicitly developing a Keynesian approach. Th e blurb on the back of the Anti-Keynesian Tradition states that it »provide[s] a comprehensive over-view of the Anti-Keynesian Tradition, and its main players«. Th e book cannot qualify as being comprehensive – perhaps not surprising in a relatively short book – and each of us would, no doubt, point to many ›main players‹ who are not included. But there are also chapters included, which are interesting in themselves, but do not relate to main players or even some anti-Keynesian tradition. An example is the chapter by Michael Oliver on the British experience in the period 1960 to 1972 with the shift from fi xed to fl oating exchange rates. Th e Keynesian Tradition opens with a chapter by Nerio Naldi on Piero Sraff a, followed by Eleonora Sanfi lippo on collaboration between Keynes and Robertson. Th e next chapter by Daniele Besoni on »Harrod‘s discontent with Harrodian growth theory« illustrates some of the diffi culties I found with this book. Th e essay itself is an interesting and scholarly exploration of the relationship between Harrod and Harrodian growth theory, as often indicating the tensions between an author and the theory or approach to which the author‘s name is applied. Th ere is very little reference to Keynes nor attempt to link Harrod‘s work with Keynes or Keynesians. It could, of course, be said that with the focus on the savings – investment relationship and the involvement of the multiplier and accelerator it is ›obvious‹ that Harrod‘s growth theory is part of the Keynesian tradition. Goulven Rubin contributes a chapter on Patinkin‘s interpretation of Keynesian economics. Th e brief chap-