Abstract
Post-Keynesian growth theory is normally seen as originating from Harrod’s 1939 ‘Essay in Dynamic Theory’. Harrod, however, was trying to lay the foundations of a new approach to economic dynamics, and often complained of misinterpretation. In this paper, the grounds of Harrod’s argument are examined and compared with the ‘textbook’ interpretation. The latter is shown to be extremely reductive, as it ignores both Harrod’s interest in the trade cycle and his methodological criticism of the ‘time-lag theories of the cycle’, and it also underrates the interesting implications of his non-linear approach and the epistemic implications of the instability principle.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
