Search results

Offers a response to David Laidler’s article “More on Hawtrey, Harvard and Chicago”, in this issue. Asserts that the unique Chicagoan quantity‐theory of the early 1930s embodied a policy framework which left it immune from the Keynesian revolution and contained important linkages with Friedman’s views in its business‐cycle analysis and policy positions. Claims that this tradition explains why Chicago (and not Harvard) originated the monetarist counter‐revolution.

Responds to George Tavlas’ comments in “More on the Chicago tradition”, in this issue, and once again assesses the contribution of individuals to “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s.

The similarities among the writings of Ralph Hawtrey, Lauchlin Currie and Milton Friedman are re‐affirmed, as is the influence of the former on what Friedman has called “the Chicago tradition” of the 1930s. The underconsumptionist analysis of Paul Douglas is not integral to that tradition.

Adam Smith’s theory of economic growth, as presented in the Wealth of Nations, is based upon the potential for increasing returns in manufacturing generated by increased specialization and division of labour and upon the accumulation of real capital, which is necessary to support the greater division of labour. The increasing returns part of Smith’s theory leaves open the possibility that bank credit, issued judiciously, might be used to extend the market and so increase an economy’s growth rate. However, Smith’s theory of bank credit and note extension is quite conservative. Henry Dunning Macleod, a century after Smith, made much of the potential of credit to extend the market. Notes Smith’s apparent inconsistency and considers reasons why he might have chosen not to promote the use of credit to enhance economic growth.

An interview with Milton Friedman in 1996 ‐ presents his reflections on some of the important issues surrounding the evolution of, and currrent debates within, modern macroeconomics. A world‐renowned economist and prolific author since the 1930s, Milton Friedman has had a considerable impact on macroeconomic theory and policy making. Associated mostly with monetarism and the efficacy of free markets, his work has ranged over a broader area ‐ microeconomics, methodology, consumption function, applied statistics, international economics, monetary theory, history and policy, business cycles and inflation. In the interview discusses Keynes’s General Theory, monetarism, new classical macroeconomics, methodology, economic policy, European union and the monetarist counter‐revolution.

How well does the “Law of One Price” operate across countries? Interest in this question has been stimulated by the Monetary Aproach to the Balance of Payments (Frenkel and Johnson (1975)) which uses the law to determine the price of traded goods in open economies.

A review article of Pasinetti and Schefold’s edition of the papers at a conference in Marseilles, 1997, on the impact of Keynes in the twentieth century. The book itself is in three parts – theory; Keynesianism in European countries; and institutional discussions of Keynesian policies. The essay concentrates on the issues raised in the first part by Pasinetti, Leijonhufvud and Skidelsky. Pasinetti uses his vital distinction between principle and theory to examine why the Keynesian revolution may not have succeeded. Leijonhufvud identifies Keynes as the last of the classics, contrasting his approach with those he calls the moderns. Skidelsky asks what policies Keynes would advocate today, had he remained ageless with us.

The existence of a stable relation between the demand for real cash balances and some few variables relating it to real economic activity is one of the cornerstones of the monetarist approach. Such a relation permits us not only to analyze the impact of monetary change on economic activity but, since it is stable, it also has important predictive content. A better insight is then possible on the analysis of the effects of monetary policy. On this basis, it has been shown that money really matters and that the money supply is, with regard to economic stability, a powerful but also a dangerous weapon when heedlessly used by governments.

This study examines empirically the stability of the demand for money under two different financial systems. One system pays interest on money deposited at the bank and charges interest on bank loans; the other does not pay interest on money deposited in the bank, and enters into a profit‐sharing contract with the bank borrower instead of charging interest on bank loans. The first system resembles the western financial system and the second resembles the Islamic financial system. A study by Darrat (1988) studies the behavior of demand for money in Tunisia, and concluded that interest‐free money is more stable than the interest‐bearing money. The behavior of demand for money in fifteen countries has been analyzed in this research in order to find out if the findings by Darrat (1988) are applicable to other countries that practice Islamic banking. This study finds that the velocity of money and its variance are lower for interest‐ free banking system than for interest‐bearing banking system. This result may support the hypothesis that interest‐free money is more stable than interest‐bearing money. The monetary policy implications of interest‐free banking are also analyzed.

A recent symposium in the Journal of Political Economy was devoted to two papers in which Professor Friedman had developed more explicitly than previously the theoretical framework underlying his monetary analysis. In the view of the present authors — and, to judge from his reply to his critics, in Friedman's view as well — the symposium was disappointing in its concentration on secondary and polemical questions to the neglect of the basic issues that Friedman had raised. The present paper therefore returns to a consideration of what we conceive to be the fundamental questions posed by Friedman's two papers. The most important of these is, we shall argue, an issue that was never raised in the symposium at all: namely, whether it is appropriate to construct a theory which seeks first to predict changes in nominal income and then to determine the price‐output breakdown, rather than to predict price and output changes separately and to obtain changes in nominal income by aggregating the two. But discussion of this question requires a brief survey of one of Friedman's models, and two related models specified at the same level of generality.