Discussions of independent multiple discoveries in science have paid inadequate attention to two essential points: precise definition of the discovery and the extent to which it was part of the scientist's central message. When account is taken of these points, some cases of alleged multiple discovery turn out to be singletons. This contention is illustrated by means of an examination of the alleged multiple discovery of the theory presented by J. M. Keynes in his General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. The analysis indicates that the familiar claims of the Stockholm school and of Michal Kalecki in this regard should be rejected. The paper ends with a discussion of the importance from the viewpoint of the sociology of science that a discovery be part of a scientist's central message.

Multiple Discoveries and the Central Message

The possible anticipation of the General Theory by the “Stockholm School” is a much-debated question in the history of modern macroeconomic theory. In order to deal with it, the distinctive analytical characteristic of the General Theory must first be defined. This is defined as the assignment of an equilibrating role to variations in output. The writings of Wicksell, Lindahl, Myrdal and Ohlin prior to 1934 are then examined, and it is shown that they do not contain such an analysis. Since Keynes developed the General Theory by the fall of 1933 at the latest, it is concluded that the “Stockholm School” did not anticipate him.

On the Relation between Keynesian Economics and the “Stockholm School”

Within the economic theory different notions of time imply alternative analytical structures. This article discusses and rejects the methodological dichotomy between ‘temporal’ and ‘a-temporal’ models (equilibrium and disequilibrium models) in economics. Different notions of time are identified –logical, mechanical and historical time- which enable to specify corresponding sequential methods and to address different questions within the economic theory. Some analytical implications are examined. In the light of the proposed methodological distinction different theories of the rate of interest are evaluated and new light is thrown on the important debate on finance which arose in the ‘30s among Keynes, Robertson and representatives of the Swedish School (Ohlin).

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1855349_code357485.pdf?abstractid=1855349&mirid=3

Logical, mechanical and historical time in economics

Professor Don Patinkin expresses the view that the real content of Keynes’ theory of effective demand in the General Theory was his development of a theory for underemployment equilibrium and its application to explain the relationship between fluctuations in investment and changes in employment The mechanism relating the two was the change in the total volume of output brought about by a variation in investment, which subsequently gave rise to a change in the volume of savings, whereby the latter came to equal the size of investment

Keynesian economics and the stockholm school. a comment on don patinkin's paper

Drawing on archival material and previously unexplored texts, this article attempts to revise our understanding of the emergence of a new macroeconomic discourse in the Swedish 1930s. Firstly, it is argued that the Stockholm School played a secondary role in shaping Sweden's counter-cyclical policies during the depression. The Minister of Finance, Ernst Wigforss, possessed all the theoretical tools he needed before the academic economists had made their views on the crisis publicly known. Secondly, it will be argued that Wigforss was the one closest to anticipate the General Theory, and that he had his theoretical system for a counter-cyclical fiscal policy worked out in 1931 already. He provides an important link in one of the most debated topics in the history of macroeconomic thought. In an allusion to Axel Leijonhufvud, this link is named the ‘Wigforss Connection’.

Otto Steiger

Papers

Bertil Ohlin and the Origins of the Keynesian Revolution

Prelude to the Theory of a Monetary Economy: Origins and Significance of Ohlin's 1933 Approach