Mr. Meade's Relation, Kahn's Multiplier and the Chronology of the General Theory: Reply

Don Patinkin

Economic Journal, 1994, vol. 104, issue 426, 1143-46

Abstract: Contrary to Dimand's contention, there is no significant difference between Meade's 1931 and 1933 expositions of the multiplier. In another respect, however, there is a significant difference between these two expositions and his 1993 exposition, and this is additional evidence that the role of the 1931 Cambridge Circus proper in the development of the 'General Theory' has been exaggerated. However, by their fruitful criticisms of subsequent drafts of the book, two members of the Circus, Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson, did subsequently play an important role in this development. Copyright 1994 by Royal Economic Society.

Date: 1994
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0133%2819940 ... 0.CO%3B2-3&origin=bc full text (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:104:y:1994:i:426:p:1143-46

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... al.asp?ref=0013-0133

Access Statistics for this article

Economic Journal is currently edited by Martin Cripps, Steve Machin, Woulter den Haan, Andrea Galeotti, Rachel Griffith and Frederic Vermeulen

More articles in Economic Journal from Royal Economic Society Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing () and Christopher F. Baum ().