Examining Hicks’s Claim That Any Connection Between Champernowne’s 1936 Review of Economic Studies Review and His 1937 Econometrica Review Is ‘…What Any Intelligent Person Could Have Got From a Careful Reading of the General Theory.’

Abstract

Hicks’s assessment of the value of Champernowne’s 1936 contribution to the Review of Economic Studies about the General Theory, that “What is common between my paper and [Champernowne’s] seems to be no more than what any intelligent person could have got from a careful reading of the General Theory” (Letter from Hicks to Young, quoted by Young, 1987, p.95) has a major flaw in it. The problematic nature of Hicks’s assessment of Champernowne’s 1936 contribution can be seen when one compares Champernowne’s June 1936 article with Hicks’s own June 1936 article reviewing the General Theory, titled “Keynes’s Theory of Employment”, that appeared in the Economic Journal. The only possible conclusion when comparing the 1936 Hicks and Champernowne reviews is that Champernowne is far, far ahead of Hicks in his understanding of Keynes’s ideas and evaluation of the technical elements in the General Theory as of June 1936. The same conclusion is reached when comparing Reddaway’s June 1936 Economic Record review and Hicks’s 1936 Economic Journal review. Reddaway is far ahead of Hicks. Hicks’s understanding, of what he believes Keynes to be doing in the General Theory in June 1936 Economic Journal article, has no IS-LM model at all while Keynes’s IS-LP(LM) model is provided on pages 298-299 of chapter 21 of the General Theory. Both Reddaway and Champernowne had IS-LM type models. This means that as of June 1936, Hicks is far, far behind in his assessment of Keynes when compared to Champernowne, Reddaway, and Keynes. Hicks completely overlooked Keynes’s IS-LP(LM) model in his June 1936 review.

Keywords: IS-LM, IS-LP(LM), Reddaway, Champernowne, Keynes, Chapter 21, Chapter 15, Keynes’s Views of Math

JEL Classification: B10, B12, B14, B16, B20, B22