2013년 2월 24일 일요일

[발췌: Samuelson in] New Economics: Keynes' Influence on Theory And Public Policy

편저자: Seymour E. Harris
자료: 구글도서
Kessinger Publishing, 2005


※ 구글도서의 다음 목차에선 목차의 제목을 제대로 알 수 없다.
* * *

Chapter 11_ The General Theory (1), by Abba P. Lerner
Chapter 12_ The General Theory (2), by Alvin Hansen

※ 발췌(excerpts): 

새뮤얼슨의 이 글은 다른 학술지(아마도 Econometrica)에 실렸던 (아마도) "Lord Keynes and The General  Theory"라는 제목의 소론과 같은 글로 보인다(확인해 보니 같은 글).


Chapter 13_ The General Theory (3), by Paul A. Samuelson

The death of Lord Keynes will undoubtedly afford the occasion for numerous attempts to appraise the character of the man and his contribution to economic thought. The personal details of his life and antecedents very properly receive notice elsewhere in this volume.

It is perhaps not too soon to venture upon a brief and tentative appraisal of Keynes' lasting impact upon the development of modern economic analysis. And it is all the more fitting to to so now that his major work has just completed the first decade of its very long life.

The Impact of the General Theory

I have always considered it a priceless advantage to have been born as an economist prior to 1936 and to have received a thorough grounding in classical economics. It is quite impossible for modern students to realize the full effect of what has been advisably called "The Keynesian Revolution"[1] upon those of us brought up in the orthodox tradition. What beginners today often regard as trite and obvious was to us puzzling, novel, and heretical.

To have been born as an economist before 1936 was a boonㅡyes. But not to have been born too long before!

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!

The General Theory caught most economists under the age of 35 with the unexpected virulence of a disease first attacking and decimating an isolated tribe of south sea islanders. Economist beyond fifty turned out to be quite immune to the ailment. With time, most economists in-between began to run the fever, often without knowing or admitting their condition.

I must confess that my own first reaction to the General Theory was not at all like that of Keats on first looking into Chapman's Homer. No silent watcher, I, upon a peak in Darien. My rebellion against its pretentions would have been complete, except for an uneasy realization that I did not at all understand what it was about. And I think I am giving away no secrets when I solemnly averㅡupon the basis of vivid personal recollectionㅡthat no one else in Cambridge, Massachusetts, really knew what it was about for some 12 to 18 months after its publication. Indeed, until the appearance of the mathematical models of Meade, Lange, Hicks, and Harrod, there is reason to believe that Keynes himself did not truly understand his own analysis.

Fashion always plays an important role in economic science; new concepts becomes the ^mode^ and then are passe. A cynic might even be tempted to speculate as to whether academic discussion is itself equilibrating: whether assertion, reply, and rejoinder to not represent an oscillating divergent series, in whichㅡto quote Frank Knight's characterization of sociologyㅡ"bad talk drives out good." 

In this case, gradually and against heavy resistance, the realization grew that the new analysis of ^effective demand^ associated with the General Theory was not to prove such a passing fad, that here indeed was part of "the wave of the future." This impression was confirmed by the rapidity with which English economists, other than those at Cambridge, took up the new Gospel: e.g. Harrod, Meade, and others, at Oxford; and still more surprisingly, the young blades at the London School, like Kaldor, Lerner, and Hicks, who threw off their Hayekian garments and joined in the swim.

In this country it was pretty much the same story. Obviously, exactly the same words cannot be used to describe the analysis of income determinants of, say, Lange, Hart, Harris, Ellis, Hansen, Bissell, Haberler, Slichter, J.M. Clark, or myself. And yet he Keynesian taint is unmistakably there upon every one of us

Instead of burning out like a fad, today, ten years after its birth, The General Theory is still gaining adherents and appears to be in business to stay. Many economists who are most vehement in criticism of the specific Keynesian policiesㅡwhich must always be carefully distinguished from the scientific analysis associated with his nameㅡwill never again be the same after passing through his hands.[2]

I has been wisely said that only in terms of a modern theory of effective demand can one understand and defend the so-called "classical" theory of unemployment. It is perhaps not without additional significance, in appraising the long-run prospects of the Keynesian theories, that no individual, having once embraced the modern analysis, hasㅡas far as I am awareㅡlater returned to the older theories. And in universities, where graduate students are exposed to the old and new income analyses, I am told that it is often only too clear which way the wind blows.

Finally, and perhaps most important from the long-run standpoint, the Keynesian analysis has begun to filter down into the elementary text-books; and, as everybody knows, once an idea gets into these, however bad it may be, it becomes practically immortal.

(...)

댓글 쓰기