The aim of the paper concerns the analysis of the contributions presented by Meade, Harrod and Hicks at the Symposium on Keynes’ General Theory during the Oxford Meeting in September 1936 to stress an important event for the development of macroeconomic theory. Moreover, this paper focuses on Hicks’ IS-LM Model, discussing its origin and its theoretical and methodological implications. It also points out the evolution of Hicks’ thought on some relevant issues as the relationship between Keynes and Marshall and that between Marshall and Walras, the analysis of expectations and of time in his IS-LM model and the liquidity preference theory. The first crucial proposition of the paper is that the contributions by Meade, Harrod and Hicks do not belong to a unique IS-LM approach, because they are analytically different and also differ in methodological terms, moreover Meade and Harrod did not share Hicks’ intellectual background. The second proposition is that the evolution and change of Hicks’ opinion on ISLM model is a signal of discontinuity in his thought, but does not disprove his original attempt of limiting the theoretical content of Keynes’ General Theory within the neoclassical tradition.

Il Simposio su "Mr.Keynes' System" all'Oxford Meeting e il Modello IS-LM

SCHILIRO', Daniele
2005-01-01

Abstract

The aim of the paper concerns the analysis of the contributions presented by Meade, Harrod and Hicks at the Symposium on Keynes’ General Theory during the Oxford Meeting in September 1936 to stress an important event for the development of macroeconomic theory. Moreover, this paper focuses on Hicks’ IS-LM Model, discussing its origin and its theoretical and methodological implications. It also points out the evolution of Hicks’ thought on some relevant issues as the relationship between Keynes and Marshall and that between Marshall and Walras, the analysis of expectations and of time in his IS-LM model and the liquidity preference theory. The first crucial proposition of the paper is that the contributions by Meade, Harrod and Hicks do not belong to a unique IS-LM approach, because they are analytically different and also differ in methodological terms, moreover Meade and Harrod did not share Hicks’ intellectual background. The second proposition is that the evolution and change of Hicks’ opinion on ISLM model is a signal of discontinuity in his thought, but does not disprove his original attempt of limiting the theoretical content of Keynes’ General Theory within the neoclassical tradition.
2005
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/1668923
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact