582. Harrod to J. M. Keynes , 3 September 1936 [a]
[Replies to 581 , the exchange continues at 590 ]
Birr Castle, Kings C o , Ireland. #
3 September 1936
I am delighted that you approve of the form into which I have cast your theories.  By all means keep the copy. And by all means make use of anything you please in it for your paper in Stockholm. I wonder whether Myrdal and Lindahl, who seem to represent the younger generation there, will be listening to you in Stockholm or to me in Oxford.  Perhaps they will manage both.
I should be perfectly happy for it to appear in the Journal next March. In a free hand sketch of that sort I dont think it would be possible or desirable to give chapter and verse for every point. But I probably ought to recast the part about Liquidity Preference to bring it more into line with your definitions. 
The person whom I most want to see it quickly is Dennis.  But I fancy he is now on the high seas or in America. By the time he gets back I shall probably be able to send him one of my other copies. I cherish the hope that this alternative version might do something to overcome his difficulties or anyhow define his objections more precisely. I gather that he has already written them down for some journal. 
Hicks and Meade are also holding forth about your book to the econometricians.  Meade has done a rather elaborate exercise on a limited part of the field--wage rate, I think, while Hicks wrote not very long ago  that he had not decided what he would say but thought it would be mainly about expectations. Tinbergen is reading a paper in the same symposium on static and dynamic equations,  so we shall have a jolly day of it.
2. Eric Lindahl is listed among those who attended the Oxford meeting of the Econometric Society of September 25-29, 1936: see Econometrica 5, 1937, p. 198. Myrdal attended the Stockholm meeting: see letter 590 , [jump to page] . On the econometricians' meeting see H. Phelps Brown's "Report of the Oxford Meeting", Econometrica 5, October 1937, pp. 361-83, and W. Young, Interpreting Mr. Keynes. The IS-LM Enigma, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.
3. Harrod only altered a passage quite marginal with respect to Keynes's definitions: 1937:4 , p. 83, reported in note 1 to letter 580 .
4. Harrod had notified Robertson of his decision to write something on the relationship between Keynes and traditional theory in his letter of 18 May (letter 561 , [jump to page] ). Robertson commented on Harrod's paper, and reported Pigou's observations, in October and November: letters 593 and 597 .
5. Robertson, "Some Notes on Mr. Keynes' General Theory of Employment" (1936).
6. J. R. Hicks, "Mr. Keynes and the `Classics'; A Suggested Interpretation", Econometrica 5:2, April 1937, pp. 147-59. J. E. Meade, "A Simplified Model of Mr. Keynes' System", Review of Economic Studies 4, February 1937, pp. 98-107. Both Hicks and Meade were sent Harrod's paper in advance to the meeting: see Hicks to Meade, 6 September 1936 (cited in W. Young, Interpreting Mr. Keynes., p. 33) and letter 585 R.
7. Hicks' letter was not found.
8. J. Tinbergen, "Dynamic Equations Underlying Modern Trade Cycle Theories". His contribution is summarized in E. H. Phelps Brown's "Report of the Oxford Meeting, September 25-29, 1936", Econometrica 5:4, October 1937, pp. 364-65.
- a. ALS, three pages on two leaves, in JMK GTE/2/2/68-70. The letter is partly printed in Keynes, Collected Writings, vol. XIV, p. 86.
top of page
Return to index of this section
Go to previous page
Go to next page