No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
Apart from the voluminous literature on pragmatic issues of employment policy written after the appearance of J. M. Keynes's General Theory, relatively few authors have probed the conceptual foundations of unemployment theories. The object of this essay is to review or reinterpret the main analytical systems that have been used in attempts to explain unemployment, to discuss their relevance to reality, and to suggest an alternative model.
Consistency as an Optimum Property of Classical General Equilibrium Systems. Classical general equilibrium theory, in particular Pareto's system, may be interpreted in two ways: either in the sense that once the equilibrium values of the variables are realized, the economic system will remain stationary as long as the parameters of the equations remain unchanged; or, and this applies to Pareto more than to Walras, in the sense that the equilibrium values, in a certain competitive framework, represent an “optimum” situation, any deviation from which involves a welfare-loss.
The set of equilibrium prices and quantities is the solution of a system of equations implicitly assumed to be consistent. The equilibrium values are in fact those that render mutually compatible the results of the maximizing behaviour of individuals, given the psychological and technological parameters and the initial distribution of assets. In order to yield an equilibrium solution, a system of equations must be consistent. But, although consistency is necessary for an optimum solution, it is not sufficient.
page 495 note 1 Pigou, A. C., Employment and Equilibrium (London, 1941), 80-1.Google Scholar
page 495 note 2 Keynes, J. M., “The General Theory of Employment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, LI, 02, 1937, 223.Google Scholar
page 495 note 3 Lange, O., “Say's Law: A Restatement and Criticism,” in Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics, in Memory of Henry Schultz, ed. Lange, O., McIntyre, F., and Yntema, T. O. (Chicago, 1942), 52.Google Scholar
page 496 note 10 Selected Essays of Karl Marx, trans, by Stenning, H. J. (New York, 1896), 39.Google Scholar A modern Marxist concedes that, with reference to the 1848 prediction: “for once the eagerness of Marx and Engels got in the way of their dialectic”! Jackson, T. A., Dialectics: The Logic of Marxism and Its Critics (London, 1934), 434.Google Scholar
page 496 note 11 Marx, and Engels, , Selected Correspondence (London, 1934), 51.Google Scholar
page 497 note 8 Klein, Lawrence R., The Keynesian Revolution (New York, 1947), 83.Google Scholar
page 497 note 9 Ibid., 42.
page 497 note 10 Ibid., 202-3.
page 497 note 11 Economic Journal, LIX, 1944, 360-83.Google Scholar
page 497 note 12 Ibid., 367.
page 498 note 13 Haavelmo, T., “The Notion of Involuntary Economic Decisions,” Econometrica, XVIII, no. 1, 1950, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 498 note 14 Ibid., 2.
page 498 note 15 Ibid., 3.
page 498 note 16 Ibid., 4.
page 499 note 17 Hickman, W. Braddock, “The Determinacy of Absolute Prices in Classical Economic Theory,” Econometrics, XVIII, no. 1, 1950, 19.Google Scholar