Harvard, the Chicago tradition, and the quantity theory: a reply to James Ahiakpor

D. Laidler, R.J. Sandilands

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

James Ahiakpor's critique of our 2002 work on the relationship between a certain 1932 Harvard memorandum on antidepression policies and the 1932 Harris Foundation manifesto dealing with the same issues misses the significance of these documents, and of the relationships between them, both for the literature of the time, and for later debates about the origins of 1930s Chicago ideas about monetary economics. He is correct to locate these documents in a more general quantity theoretic tradition, but his discussion here is marred by a serious misunderstanding of the so-called forced saving doctrine and its place in that tradition. Finally, Ahiakpor fails to appreciate that the absence of positive policy proposals from the 1934 Harvard studies of The Economics of the Recovery Program, a point that he himself notes, is a major contributing factor to that book's mediocrity.
LanguageEnglish
Pages573-592
Number of pages20
JournalHistory of Political Economy
Volume42
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Economics
Quantity theory
Mediocrity
Manifesto
1930s
Recovery
Misunderstanding
Doctrine
Factors
Monetary economics

Keywords

  • quantity theory
  • chicago tradition
  • forced saving
  • depression
  • harvard
  • james ahiakpor
  • critique
  • reply

Cite this

@article{64354d2363144e9fbfc6e28c16973fd9,
title = "Harvard, the Chicago tradition, and the quantity theory: a reply to James Ahiakpor",
abstract = "James Ahiakpor's critique of our 2002 work on the relationship between a certain 1932 Harvard memorandum on antidepression policies and the 1932 Harris Foundation manifesto dealing with the same issues misses the significance of these documents, and of the relationships between them, both for the literature of the time, and for later debates about the origins of 1930s Chicago ideas about monetary economics. He is correct to locate these documents in a more general quantity theoretic tradition, but his discussion here is marred by a serious misunderstanding of the so-called forced saving doctrine and its place in that tradition. Finally, Ahiakpor fails to appreciate that the absence of positive policy proposals from the 1934 Harvard studies of The Economics of the Recovery Program, a point that he himself notes, is a major contributing factor to that book's mediocrity.",
keywords = "quantity theory, chicago tradition, forced saving, depression, harvard, james ahiakpor, critique, reply",
author = "D. Laidler and R.J. Sandilands",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1215/00182702-2010-026",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "573--592",
journal = "History of Political Economy",
issn = "0018-2702",
number = "3",

}

Harvard, the Chicago tradition, and the quantity theory : a reply to James Ahiakpor. / Laidler, D.; Sandilands, R.J.

In: History of Political Economy, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2010, p. 573-592 .

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Harvard, the Chicago tradition, and the quantity theory

T2 - History of Political Economy

AU - Laidler, D.

AU - Sandilands, R.J.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - James Ahiakpor's critique of our 2002 work on the relationship between a certain 1932 Harvard memorandum on antidepression policies and the 1932 Harris Foundation manifesto dealing with the same issues misses the significance of these documents, and of the relationships between them, both for the literature of the time, and for later debates about the origins of 1930s Chicago ideas about monetary economics. He is correct to locate these documents in a more general quantity theoretic tradition, but his discussion here is marred by a serious misunderstanding of the so-called forced saving doctrine and its place in that tradition. Finally, Ahiakpor fails to appreciate that the absence of positive policy proposals from the 1934 Harvard studies of The Economics of the Recovery Program, a point that he himself notes, is a major contributing factor to that book's mediocrity.

AB - James Ahiakpor's critique of our 2002 work on the relationship between a certain 1932 Harvard memorandum on antidepression policies and the 1932 Harris Foundation manifesto dealing with the same issues misses the significance of these documents, and of the relationships between them, both for the literature of the time, and for later debates about the origins of 1930s Chicago ideas about monetary economics. He is correct to locate these documents in a more general quantity theoretic tradition, but his discussion here is marred by a serious misunderstanding of the so-called forced saving doctrine and its place in that tradition. Finally, Ahiakpor fails to appreciate that the absence of positive policy proposals from the 1934 Harvard studies of The Economics of the Recovery Program, a point that he himself notes, is a major contributing factor to that book's mediocrity.

KW - quantity theory

KW - chicago tradition

KW - forced saving

KW - depression

KW - harvard

KW - james ahiakpor

KW - critique

KW - reply

UR - http://hope.dukejournals.org/

U2 - 10.1215/00182702-2010-026

DO - 10.1215/00182702-2010-026

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 573

EP - 592

JO - History of Political Economy

JF - History of Political Economy

SN - 0018-2702

IS - 3

ER -