Some Cambridge reactions to The General Theory: David Champernowne and Joan Robinson on full employment

Mauro Boianovsky

Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2005, vol. 29, issue 1, 73-98

Abstract: This essay analyses early reactions put forward by Cambridge economists David Champernowne and Joan Robinson to J. M. Keynes's treatment of the labour market in The General Theory. Champernowne's and Robinson's critical reactions represented attempts to fill the gap of the determinants of changes in money-wages, which they both identified as a weak spot in the argument of the book. They rejected, albeit for different reasons, Keynes's notion of the point of full employment as an upper limit defined by the equality between the real wage rate and the marginal disutility of employment. Instead of Keynes's taxonomy of types of unemployment, Champernowne and Robinson introduced, respectively, the concepts of 'monetary employment' and 'monetary unemployment', and of 'critical levels' of employment. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bei004 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Some Cambridge reactions to The General Theory: David Champernowne and Joan Robinson on full employment (2000)
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:oup:cambje:v:29:y:2005:i:1:p:73-98

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue

More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Cambridge Political Economy Society Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().