Where is the Serious Study of the Hayek / Keynes Interaction?

Hayek detonated Keynes’ great “Treatise” which Keynes intended as his calling card as a serious theoretical economist, and Keynes was forced to start over.  And we can see Keynes adopting and recasting a variety of Hayek conception in his “The General Theory” — and attempting to parley and brush off all sorts of other Hayekian conceptions in that same work.

Axel Leijonhufvud and others macroeconomists have given various Hayekian versions of Keynesian economics, and David Laidler has given us an account of many of the pre-Keynesian & non-Keynesian elements which make up “mainstream” Keynesian economics — but who has done a detailed study of how the encounter with Hayek transformed the economics of Keynes?

Such a study, as far as I am aware, doesn’t exit.

There really isn’t a serious study of the flip side of this either, how the encounter with Keynes transformed the economics of Hayek.

Such things would be very useful.

UPDATE:  There are books which don’t do exactly what I am wishing for, but which do limn parts of the Hayek – Keynes “debate”, e.g. The Hayek-Keynes Debate by John Cochrane & Fred Glahe and Gerald O’Driscoll’s Economics as a Coordination Problem, among others, but none of these are history of economic thought books charting out all of the specific development of specific ideas and arguments over time.

This entry was posted in Tweets. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Where is the Serious Study of the Hayek / Keynes Interaction?

  1. Ryan Murphy says:

    Do you mean how they influenced one another? Or how we should understand each of their economics in terms of one another today? Or how they should be thought of in terms of history of thought?

    For the first, I would say they were talking passed each other. Keynes had little idea of what Hayek was talking about and Hayek under-emphasized (at the time) the issues of the fall in nominal income. For the second, the answer is unambiguously monetary disequilibrium theoyr. For the third, Caldwell’s introduction to Contra Keynes and Cambridge is as good as any, isn’t it?

  2. Greg Ransom says:

    Caldwell’s introduction to Contra Keynes and Cambridge is really just a broad brush introductory outline, and really doesn’t get much into the weeds, which is appropriate for what it is.

  3. Ryan Murphy says:

    If memory serves, isn’t it something like 50 pages? He gets into Sraffa and all of it. Are you looking for an article or a full length book?

  4. Greg Ransom says:

    To me it’s an outline, Ryan. Certainly a number of articles and a solid book would be needed to tackle to problem. This is complex stuff with many angles, covering a period of dynamic change in the scientific assumptions and approach, and with loads of background understanding behind each dimension.

Comments are closed.