The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £14.50
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics: The Core Contributions of the Pioneers for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £14.50, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
Reviews of the hardback: 'Geoff Harcourt's The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics gives us a unique and irreplaceable perspective on the development and state of post-Keynesian thought. …This is a labor of scholarly love both for the ideas so scrupulously presented and for the fertile minds who contributed to them.' Duncan K. Foley, New School for Social Research
'The book is clearly written in the pleasant style to which Harcourt has accustomed us, and the theoretical discussions are enlivened by many personal recollections. I strongly recommend it to graduate students as well as to scholars who want to become familiar with this unduly neglected stream of thought.' Review of Political Economy
'The book is clearly written in the pleasant style to which Harcourt has accustomed us, and the theoretical discussions are enlivened by many personal recollections. I strongly recommend it to graduate students as well as to scholars who want to become familiar with this unduly neglected stream of thought.' Review of Political Economy
Review
Reviews of the hardback: 'Geoff Harcourt's The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics gives us a unique and irreplaceable perspective on the development and state of post-Keynesian thought. …This is a labor of scholarly love both for the ideas so scrupulously presented and for the fertile minds who contributed to them.' Duncan K. Foley, New School for Social Research
'The book is clearly written in the pleasant style to which Harcourt has accustomed us, and the theoretical discussions are enlivened by many personal recollections. I strongly recommend it to graduate students as well as to scholars who want to become familiar with this unduly neglected stream of thought.' Review of Political Economy --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
'The book is clearly written in the pleasant style to which Harcourt has accustomed us, and the theoretical discussions are enlivened by many personal recollections. I strongly recommend it to graduate students as well as to scholars who want to become familiar with this unduly neglected stream of thought.' Review of Political Economy --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
1 review
4 of 8 people found the following review helpful
There is no error in Keynes's MEC theory of Investment
25 Dec 2006
Format:Hardcover
The major problem with this book appears in chapter 4.Chapter 4 purports to analyze chapter 11 of J M Keynes's General Theory(1936).Keynes put forth a Marginal Efficiency of Capital theory(MEC)in this chapter of his book that dealt with the problem of maintaining an optimal stock of capital goods over time.The only formal mathematical technique that could deal with this intertemporal,dynamic problem at the time Keynes was writing was the calculus of variations .Keynes's theory has nothing to do with a MEI(Marginal Efficiency of Investment)approach to investment.Keynes used a two sector calculus of variations approach in his analytic approach to the mec of a particular stock of long lived fixed capital goods.Keynes wrote out his mathematical analysis in English.In 1983,the economics journal HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY published a paper by S F LeRoy which demonstrated that there was a one to one onto isomorphism between Keynes's English language description of his results and the necessary and sufficient optimality conditions of a calculus of variations approach.Nowhere in this book or in the references at the back of the book is this issue dealt with.Instead,the author simply asserts in chapter 4 that Keynes's analysis is wrong because it does not fit the MEI approach .The author provides no support for his claim.
The other parts of the book cover various economists whom the author views as being pioneers in the Post Keynesian movement.There is, however,no agreement between Post Keynesians,in general,about who was responsible for what development in a certain decade.The assertions of the author then have to be weighed against the assertions of other Post Keynesians,like Paul Davidson.The author admits this,while not recognizing that a reader of his book will not be able to follow the various claims that are made.
The other parts of the book cover various economists whom the author views as being pioneers in the Post Keynesian movement.There is, however,no agreement between Post Keynesians,in general,about who was responsible for what development in a certain decade.The assertions of the author then have to be weighed against the assertions of other Post Keynesians,like Paul Davidson.The author admits this,while not recognizing that a reader of his book will not be able to follow the various claims that are made.
Was this review helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
