At 26, before having published any article (besides a few reviews) in learned journals, Roy Harrod was already seen " as one of the rising generation of economists likely to make real contributions to the subject".  A few years later, his Cambridge Economic Handbook, International Economics ( 1933:10 ), and his articles on imperfect competition made him known in wider economic circles in Britain and abroad. His book on The Trade Cycle ( 1936:8 ) was soon recognized as the first complete and explicit explanations of trade fluctuations based on the interaction of the multiplier and acceleration principle,  and the `fundamental equation' expounded in his "Essay in Dynamic Theory" (Harrod 1939:7 ) was understood as the first description of a warranted growth path on which a family (later named after Harrod and Domar) of growth models was based, and is recorded as such in the textbooks on economic growth written in the 1960s and 1970s.
By 1970, Harrod's bibliography--excluding reviews--took 16 pages in print; this was updated with Harrod's help in March 1971 by M. F. Scott, who added a 30-page mimeographed list of articles for daily and weekly papers.  Harrod, however, kept writing (his last book was published in 1973  ), and hundreds of earlier items are not yet listed. As should be expected, such a prolific author has left an indelible mark in the economic literature. His name is frequently cited especially with respect to the classification of technological progress, growth theory, imperfect competition : the Social Science Citation Index reports 742 quotations from Harrod's writings between 1951 and June 2000, of which 119 hits for Towards a Dynamic Economics (1948), 120 for the 1939 "Essay in Dynamic Theory" and 118 for the Life of John Maynard Keynes (1951); International Economics is cited 39 times, The Trade Cycle 28 times, the Economic Essays (1952) 26 times. Harrod is referred to in the title or abstract of 136 articles listed in the Journal of Economic Literature between 1969 and June 2000. History of economic thought textbooks in the 1940s and 1950s recorded in particular Harrod's contributions to imperfect competition theory and referred to the Life of Keynes , while from the 1960s onwards the emphasis shifted towards growth theory.  Textbooks and treatises in this specific subfield extensively discussed Harrod's `model', often in conjunction with Domar's; however, in more recent textbooks on endogenous growth theory the story of the theory of economic growth begins with Solow's neo-classical approach,  and Harrod's name rarely appears in indexes (when he is cited at all, only passing reference to the Harrod-Domar model are given). 
Harrod's name is also known in wider circles, as he wrote biographical essays (including the well-received Life of John Maynard Keynes , 1951), some philosophical papers (among which a treatise on induction: Foundations of Inductive Logic, 1956), articles on the European Common Market, and other topical comments.
Along with Harrod's writings intended for publication, parts of his private correspondence have been known for some time. His exchanges with Keynes on the proofs of the General Theory , on Harrod's Trade Cycle and "Essay in Dynamic Theory", and on Tinbergen 's League of Nation inquiry, are included in Keynes's Collected Writings .  Warren Young has whetted our appetite for more by quoting large excerpts of Harrod's correspondence with Robertson , Meade , Allen , Hawtrey , Kaldor , Haberler , Henderson and others, and of some of Harrod's own unpublished essays.  Some correspondence with Winston Churchill has been included in Gilbert's edition of Churchill's writings,  Albert Jolink has discovered and published an interesting letter to Tinbergen ,  and a collective letter drafted by Harrod and sent to President Roosevelt in 1933 is printed the Roosevelt and Frankfurter correspondence.  The draft of Harrod's "Essay in Dynamic Theory" was published in History of Political Economy , with a comment and apparatus criticus by the present editor. 
Yet among Harrod's own papers and in the archives where his correspondents' documents are preserved, much more was waiting to be discovered. Harrod was as prolific a letter writer as as an author of articles and books for publication, and had the habit of preserving almost every written piece of paper which passed through his hands; some of his correspondents have also been fairly meticulous hoarders. Together they bequeathed us the documentary evidence relating to Harrod's life, career, thought and activities, providing a portrait of the man, of his environment, and of his contemporaries. More than four thousand letters to and from Harrod, dated in the interwar years, were found in various archives. About three-quarters of these are personal and routine letters, and are not included in the present edition (a list with a brief description, however, is given in the chapter on the Personal and routine correspondence , at the end of the letters section; on the editorial policy and the selection criteria see the Editorial introduction ).
The present edition of Harrod's interwar papers and correspondence aims at providing an accurate rendition of his professional and intellectual correspondence, unpublished essays and a number of items already printed but difficult to retrieve, with the purposes of contributing to the understanding of Harrod's intellectual biography, of disclosing the experiments of thought taking place in his mental laboratory, and of providing additional details of his intellectual environment.
In view of the importance of Harrod's contributions to economic theory, the partial character of the existing accounts and the vivacity of the theoretical and analytical developments in those years, all these goals seem worth pursuing. A number of biographical essays, memoirs and sketches have been published (the largest part, of course, after Harrod's death).  Although most of them are fairly faithful, quite often they are nonetheless marred by factual inaccuracies, because rather than being based on contemporary documents (some collections were opened to researchers only in the late 1990s) they rely on recollections, either the authors' or Harrod's own, as expressed in a number of published and unpublished writings of an autobiographical character .  The extant evidence invites one to reconsider Harrod's multifarious interests (ranging from philosophy to politics and economics) and their interaction, which throw new light both on his consistent and insistent attempts to influence policy and on the weight of his other concerns on his economic ideas. While Harrod's politics and philosophy have been seen as quite independent of his economics, they have in fact shaped his approach to economic problems by molding certain underlying assumptions, by inducing him to tackle certain problems rather than others, and by defining the epistemic and methodological principles on which his theory was based.
As to the development and the exegesis of Harrod's economic ideas, a number of recent writings have began to challenge the standardized picture which reflects the outcome of decades of lively debates, therefore mirroring the views which prevailed at the time and the topical interests of economists rather than Harrod's own train of thought. This mainstream reading therefore provides a rather biased account of the premises and implications of his theoretical innovations. Moreover, having being recorded in textbooks and encyclopedic volumes which are rarely--if at all--revised, this interpretation of Harrod's thought is rather resilient. The case for making the full evidence available seems therefore strong enough, especially as some of Harrod's theories have been for years part of the bag and baggage of economics graduates.
Finally, Harrod's ideas were born out of a context of turmoil and rapid change in economic conditions and economic theory. Of these, of course, much is known through the published writings of the protagonists and of parts of their correspondence. This edition, by including both sides of the exchanges (most of which previously unpublished) between Harrod and his correspondents, also provides insights into these authors' thoughts on their own work, on Harrod's, or on other theoretical problems debated at that time.
The main steps of Harrod's life and career have been skillfully outlined in some of the biographical essays cited in note 14 . For the reader's convenience, however, it may be useful to relate the documents reproduced or cited in the present volumes to the context of the events characterizing Harrod's personal history.
- The keynote to my childhood was intense poverty. My mother (born Forbes-Robertson), a writer and painter, had been of beauty and brilliant promise in her youth, and was a great friend of Oscar Wilde, George Meredith and Henry James, and knew most of the literary figures of the nineties. My home was one of high literary and artistic culture. My father, the son of a very distinguished antiquary, had once been affluent, but went broke when I was an infant. There was no twist or turn of poverty that I did not learn about; what cost money just could not be had. They managed, however, to send me as a day boy scholar at Westminster School, which I dearly loved; two masters there, Sargeaunt and Smedley, had a permanent influence on my life, a greater one than did any don at Oxford.  I was intensely happy through all those days of stringent poverty.
But then a shadow fell. When I was eighteen, my father died (aged sixty), leaving my mother with thirty-eight years still to live. There was not a penny in the bank. Always inclining to melancholy, she had been largely cut off from her early friends, and she was unable to adapt her writing or her mind to the post-1914 world. She struggled courageously, but her life was sad. I was the only child.
Poverty and the relationship with his mother suffering from depression marked Harrod's studies at Oxford  and the early stages of his career, to the point of causing two nervous breakdowns in 1920 and 1928.  In spite of the difficult conditions at home and of the troublesome relationship with his Philosophy tutor H. B. W. Joseph (letter 8 R, in particular note 2 ), Harrod managed to gain first honors in "Greats"--that is, classics and philosophy--in 1921 and modern history in 1922 at New College in Oxford,  and was subsequently offered a tutorship or fellowship at Hertford (letter 23 R) and a lectureship in history and economics at Christ Church.  He did not accept the former,  and regretfully took on the latter, as he felt that economics was not a congenial subject to him:  in fact, he had planned to go to the Bar in order to enter politics as a Liberal Member of Parliament (letters 24 R and 25 ), but had to `keep the pot boiling' at home.  He was elected Student (i.e., fellow) at Christ Church on 7 May 1924.  At the first occasion (a lectureship becoming vacant at Christ Church), however, he tried to switch to philosophy, but Robert Dundas and Keith Feiling convinced him that he had no chances of success; Harrod managed nonetheless to be relieved of the burden of teaching history. So began his career as an economist (letters 77 R and 78 R); his first loves, however, were never forgotten, and he kept flirting with philosophy and politics throughout all stages of his life.
In order to learn the subject he was called to teach, Christ Church granted Harrod 2 terms of leave, which he spent in Cambridge and Berlin. The story of how he met Keynes, on the recommendation of Walter Runciman , and how he submitted to him weekly essays, is well known,  and it is not necessary to repeat it here. It is perhaps more interesting to emphasize that, according to the descriptions of his stay at King's College, Cambridge, to be found in his letters to his friends, he stressed more his friendship with Ramsey and Braithwaite , and his work on an essay on "[The Self]" )for the Moral Science Club than his progress in economics (in particular letter 39 R and 41 R). The extant correspondence from Berlin also indicates that Harrod spent more time in discussing philosophy and " in cultivating the higher intensity of spirit" than he did in learning German or economics (in particular letters 48 R and 56 R).  Beside attending Moritz Bonn's and Melchior Palyi 's lectures in Berlin,  he was in touch with Gerhard v. Schulze-Gävernitz , whom he seems to have met in Freiburg during summer 1922 and again a year later,  probably attracted by his Liberalism and strong philosophical bent. 
In spite of his poor training in the subject, Harrod began teaching economics in Michaelmas 1923, with a course on "Money",  followed by a course on "English Currency and Banking Problems (XIX Century)" in Hilary term 1924.  Meanwhile he attended Edgeworth 's lectures (which he later described with admiration in a letter to Keynes and an article on the teaching of economics in Oxford  ), and discussed with him of supply curves and international trade (letters 68 , 71 , 73 , and 76  ). It was Edgeworth who commissioned Harrod for his first review for the Economic Journal (letter 83 R).
Apart from his sojourn in Cambridge and Edgeworth's lectures, Harrod learned his subject under no guidance but his own (letter 105 R). His early readings include Smith's Wealth of Nations , Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy (on which Harrod lectured several times in the interwar years), Jevons's Theory of Political Economy , Marshall's Principles , Pigou 's Economics of Welfare , Böhm-Bawerk's Capital and Interest , Hawtrey 's Currency and Credit , Bagehot's Lombard Street, Robertson 's Money , Cassel's Nature and Necessity of Interest, Keynes 's Indian Currency and Finance .  Further information on Harrod's reading can be inferred from the list of his numerous reviews, for the Economic Journal and especially for the Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs .  These sources are rather precious, as Harrod rarely referred to the literature in his published writings and even less in correspondence.
In these early years he wrote a number of essays which are more in the nature of generic reflections on certain topics rather than specific contributions to the subject. In 1924 he read a paper on "Interest and Ideal Prices" before an unidentified society (essay 1 ), the following year he hesitantly read a paper on "The Trade Cycle" before section F of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (essay 2  ), in 1925 and 1926 he wrote, as the secretary of a Royal Institute of International Affairs research group, some memoranda on international cartels outlining the problems to be discussed and summarizing the various opinions.  In 1926 he wrote a paper on "Morals and Arithmetic" for the Oxford University Philosophical Society, which was stimulated by an exchange he had about a year earlier with his former philosophy tutor at New College, H. B. W. Joseph .  In 1927 he took part in a research on the causes and cures of unemployment, promoted by the General Federation of Trade Unions, for which he wrote three memoranda on the trade cycle, on foreign exchanges and on the effect of falling prices in relation to unemployment.  Meanwhile, Harrod subjected Robertson 's Banking Policy and the Price Level (1926) to "very searching criticism", which gave rise to an exchange of correspondence between the two men out of which a friendship was born which lasted until Robertson's death, and in turn originated Harrod's first article in a learned journal (Harrod 1927:8 ). 
In 1928 Harrod produced his first original contribution to economic theory, the marginal revenue curve (as was later renamed by Joan Robinson ), on which more will be said below ( [jump to page] ). Soon afterwards he was struck by the nervous breakdown mentioned on [jump to page] above, and it took him several months to recover his full strength. In this period he only wrote a few reviews, but remained nonetheless busy with teaching and administration. He was junior censor at Christ Church from 1927 to 1929 (see his own description of those years in note 1 to letter 127 R), then became senior Censor till Christmas day 1931. He took part in college intrigues concocted by Lindemann (see letters 200 R, 201 R and 204 R), but most of his time from March 1930 to March 1931 was taken up by the Bodleian Library Commission (letter 172 R and following  ).
The general election held in October 1931 represented an intellectual turning point in Harrod's thought and career. Up to that point, Harrod was a keen Liberal: he was the treasurer of the newly re-founded Oxford University Liberal Club, for which he also drafted a manifesto (note 1 to letter 7 R), he had canvassed for John Simon and Gilbert Murray at previous elections (letter 4 R, in particular note 1 , and note 1 to letter 161 R, respectively), he maneuvered, together with Lindemann , for the appointment of Asquith as Chancellor of Oxford University (letter 87 R, in particular note 1 for context), and attended Liberal Summer Schools (see note 1 to letter 805 , and Harrod's Life of Keynes , p. 349). In 1931, however, the Liberal Party was divided on the free trade vs. tariff issue, and Harrod was pretty much disgusted with the turn of events. This induced him to write a pamphlet in favor of free trade (here as essay 7 ; see also letters 216 R, 217 R and 218 R), to speak for Labour free trade candidates where no Liberals were contesting seats (see letters 219 R and 220 ), to resume his commitment to write a book on International Economics (on which more below, [jump to page] ), and to accept an invitation from James Meade to take part in some inquiries promoted by the New Fabian Research Bureau (letter 272 ).
The participation in the debates within the New Fabian Research Bureau (for which Harrod wrote memoranda in 1932 and 1933, reproduced here as essays 8 and 14 , and at various stages commented upon some of the papers prepared by Meade for the Bureau: see letters 357 and 447 ) inspired one of Harrod's better known ideas. At Oxford Harrod and Meade argued along Keynesian policy lines, advocating public works and reflationary measures, while at the London School Durbin and Gaitskell favored the Hayekian argument that injection of money would cause disproportions between the capital and consumption goods sectors. A common presupposition, however, characterized the arguments of both sides: that the equilibrium conditions should be examined not for a stationary but for a progressive society.  Harrod eventually laid out these condition in an article on "The Expansion of Credit in an Advancing Community", which was published in the August 1934 issue of Economica (Harrod 1934:8 ) and gave rise to prolonged exchanges with Robertson , Haberler and Kahn . 
Meanwhile Harrod publicly advocated his policy advice by means of articles for, and letters to, the daily or weekly press: between 1932 and 1934 he wrote nine pieces for The Economist , the Daily Telegraph and The Times , for two of which he and Meade managed to append the signatures of a number of economists (these are reproduced here as press items 1 to 9 ; references to the related correspondence are given in the editorial notes). He also promoted a collective letter to President Roosevelt on the subject, signed by all Oxford economists (letter 329 ), which eventually inspired Keynes to write his well-known open letter to the president (context and the relevant correspondence are referred to in the notes to letter 324 R). He also wrote to Walter Runciman , then President of the Board of Trade (letters 240 , 243 , 249 , and 292 ). Harrod sent another article to the press when he saw the first signs the 1937 recession (press item 15 ), and gave rise to a flood of letters to The Times and other papers on a proposal for monetary reflation he advanced in July and August 1938 (press items 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , and 27 ), which he was invited to discuss before the Parliamentary Monetary Committee (his speech is reproduced as essay 20 ); a copy of the article was also sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (letter 804 ). At the end of 1938 and in 1939 he wrote again on the financing of rearmament (press items 29 , 33 , and 36 ).
Besides policy topics Harrod was also concerned with the decline of population, which at the current rate he thought would bring the British stock and the white race towards extinction. On this subject, beginning from 1934 he frequently wrote to the press (items 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 32 , and 34 ), submitted articles for learned journals (Harrod 1934:12 , 1936:9 , 1938:7 , and 1939:6 ), spoke before various societies (the Primrose League Political School: letter 661 R, 682 R, 685 R; the Liverpool Economic and Statistical Society: letter 846 ; the Manchester Statistical Society: Harrod 1939:6 ; the 1938 Liberal Summer School: note 1 to letter 805 ; the Oxford University Political Economy Club: letter 602 R), considered writing a book (see note 1 to letter 587 R), exchanged correspondence with members of the Population Investigation Committee (letters 646 R and 731 R), frequently mentioned the topic to his friends (often raising sarcastic comments: letters 517 , 586 R, 690 R, 732 R, and 887 R), and took part as an outsider in the parliamentary debate on the revision of the Population Bill by means of further letters to the press (items 17 and 18 ), including a collective letter to The Times signed by a number of economists and social scientists (press item 19 ; see in particular note 2 for references to the related correspondence), and by advising the chairman of the Parliamentary Medical Committee (letters 726 R, 729 R, 732 R, and 756 R).
While being engaged in all this, Harrod produced some of his major contributions to economic theory. In the early 1930s he pursued his research on cost and revenue curves in imperfect competition (Harrod 1931:2 , 1932:6 , 1933:7 , 1933:8 , and 1934:5 ). The policy issues relating to development brought him to revive his early interest for the trade cycle (the first indications being found in essay 12 , where unemployment is understood as a problem relating to business fluctuations), and soon began reflecting on its connection with imperfect competition (Harrod 1934:3 and 1936:7 ). In the second half of the decade he wrote his book on The Trade Cycle and the "Essay in Dynamic Theory" where he expounded and refined the analytical instruments for his dynamic analysis (Harrod 1936:8 and 1939:7 ).
These developments interacted with his thoughts on philosophical topics, in particular his early reflections on induction and empirical generalizations. Harrod became acquainted with the logical positivist interpretation of empirical statements during his early days in Cambridge, in particular via conversations with Ramsey . When Alfred Ayer was appointed as a lecturer in philosophy at Christ Church in 1933, Harrod exchanged views with him on these topics (letters 332 and 336 ) and read parts of Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic (1936) in draft (see letter 420 R). He was therefore familiar with the view, which he accepted and expounded (see letter 496 ), that meaningful propositions are either purely deductive or empirical. Accordingly, Harrod interpreted economic statements either as tautologies or as being based on empirical generalizations, thereby vindicating an essential role for induction. These views were first hinted at in a number of articles published in 1934 ( 1934:3 , p. 443; 1934:11 , p. 477; and 1934:1 , p. 21), and in a memorandum which he drafted in October or November 1934 on behalf of the economics tutors on the desired developments of economic studies in Oxford (here as essay 15 ). 
Harrod's proposal to Hubert Henderson and James Meade , that an investigation should be organized on "specific problems susceptible of factual inquiry" (letters 358 , 371 , 433 , and 434 ) out of which the Oxford Economists' Research Group's inquiry on prices and interest emerged, should be seen in this context. Harrod was particularly active in this research between 1936 and 1939: he undertook himself the minuting of the first interviews with entrepreneurs, submitted to the group and to the economic section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science tentative explanations of the entrepreneurs's pricing policy when divergent from the predictions of economic theory (essays 18 and 17 , respectively), and later coordinated the research as chairman of the group. 
Harrod's reflections on induction were further developed in the presidential address before section F of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, delivered in August 1938 (Harrod 1938:15 ). At the same time, he explicitly interpreted the three basic axioms on which the deductive apparatus of the "Essay in Dynamic Theory" (the first draft of which is reproduced here as essay 19 ) is constructed, as being either basic empirical laws or tautologies. 
In the year before the war Harrod's interests were almost completely absorbed by politics. He felt depressed at the news of the Munich agreement, and reacted by canvassing the politicians he knew into forming an electoral pact against the Prime Minister 's appeasement policy. He wrote to Archibald Sinclair , the leader of the Liberal Party (letters 845 , 850 R, 851 , 852 R, 856 R, 857 R, 868 , and 870 R), to Winston Churchill (letters 847 , 855 , 863 , 866 , 874 , and 876 R) and to Hugh Dalton (letters 854 , 861 , 869 R, and 875 R), but failed to convince them. At first he acted locally, by inviting the Liberal and Labour candidates for the Oxford City by-election to withdraw in favor of the anti-government candidate, the master of Balliol College A. D. Lindsay (Harrod's article in the Oxford Mail is reproduced as press item 28 ). Lindsay failed to be elected, but together they organized popular fronts meetings in the neighboring constituencies, for which Harrod drafted a manifesto (reproduced as essay 21 ). Harrod also wrote an article for the Manchester Guardian inviting the forces of the opposition to unite under an electoral pact (press item 30 ; context and related correspondence are referred to in note 1 ), and later send it to a number of dissident Conservatives accompanied by a circular letter (letter 894 ). Meanwhile he wrote in support of Stafford Cripps , who was expelled from the Labour Party for having suggested that the opposition should unite (press item 31 ), and later wrote to a number of Members of Parliament on foreign policy issues (see note 1 to letter 895 R).
When it became clear that the war was about to break out, Harrod sent two memoranda to the Treasury suggesting to use the gold in the Exchange Equalisation Account to buy essential commodities (letters 913 , 923 , 924 and 925 ), and finally wrote to Hawtrey and Keynes offering himself for the brain front, in particular for the Treasury (letters 926 , in particular note 1 ). The position, however, never materialized, and Harrod was eventually employed by Lindemann in the S branch constituted by Churchill (then First Lord of the Admiralty) to informally gather factual information. He was not, however, satisfied with this position, and in May 1942 moved back to Oxford to work on postwar reconstruction. 
After the war, Harrod resumed his main interests: apart from economics, which will be briefly discussed in the next section, Harrod developed further his ideas on induction into The Foundations of Inductive Logic (1956),  which he judged to be the best of his writings  but was, however, not well received by philosophers.  He also actively sought for funds towards a translation of J. Nicod's Geometry in the Sensible World and The Logical Problem of Induction , on which he corresponded at length with Bertrand Russell in 1956  and which he edited and prefaced himself. 
He wrote further on population,  and in 1944 he submitted oral evidence and two long memoranda to the Royal Commission on Population;  he insisted on his proposals in the evidence submitted before the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.  He also persisted with politics: immediately after the war he wrote A Liberal Plan for Peace ,  unsuccessfully stood for Parliament at the 1945 general election, and in 1946-48 was a member of the Liberal Shadow Cabinet.  Later he turned Conservative, "rather to the right wing",  and--in spite of Churchill's support--sought in vain adoption as a parliamentary candidate. He made his views public by means of pamphlets,  but especially by means of press articles, of which he literally wrote hundreds.  But he does not seem to have been able to exert the influence on politicians he hoped for, with the exception of Harold Macmillan . 
He was knighted in 1959, received a number of honorary degrees, was president of the Royal Economic Society (1962-64), was the editor of the Economic Journal from 1945 to 1961, was Nuffield reader in international economics from 1952 to 1967, but failed to secure for himself a professorship at Oxford and near-missed the Nobel Prize. 
The present edition collects a large body of documentary evidence regarding the origin and early development of Harrod's economic thought, from his early papers and memoranda on the trade cycle and unemployment to his celebrated "Essay in Dynamic Theory".
The first of these--a paper on "The Trade Cycle & the Theory of Distribution" (1925), and memoranda written for the General Federation of Trade Unions in 1927 on "The Effect of Falling Prices on Unemployment" and "The Trade Cycle" (essays 2 , 4 , and 5 , respectively)--bear the mark of the author's young age. They are nevertheless interesting as they witness Harrod's attempts to deal with the trade cycle by means of the theoretical tools of marginalist analysis, and of the influence of Keynes 's Tract on Monetary Reform on his view of the effect of instability in the price level. This topic re-emerged in the policy advice on which Harrod insisted in the early 1930s, while his mature discussion of business fluctuations beginning in 1933-34 and culminating with The Trade Cycle in 1936 was initiated by a rejection of the possibility of providing an explanation of movement in economic variables by means of the static tools of traditional economics.
Meanwhile, however, Harrod's interest shifted towards international economics and the economics of imperfect competition. In January 1927 Keynes, on Hubert Henderson 's suggestion (probably inspired by Harrod's participation, described on [jump to page] above, in the Royal Institute of International Affairs' group on cartels), had invited Harrod to write a book on International Economics for the Cambridge Economic Handbook series (letter 131 ). At first Harrod did not feel up to the task, and after some attempts to get to grips with the subject  abandoned the project at the outbreak of his nervous breakdown (note 1 to letter 135 ). His interest in the topic seems to have been revived in October 1931 by the tariff issue, to which a chapter is eventually dedicated. Soon after the elections, in fact, Harrod read a paper before the Marshall Society in Cambridge on the "Theory of Balance of Foreign Payments" (see note 1 to letter 229 ), where the fundamentals of the foreign trade multiplier seem to have been first outlined. The progress of writing is witnessed by the correspondence with Kahn, Meade, Robertson and Keynes. In March 1932 Harrod discussed with Kahn a very preliminary version, probably still a little confused, of what was to become the foreign trade multiplier (letters 229 and 235 ). The topic was discussed again in November with Meade , who supplied an arithmetically more refined version which, however, did not make its way into the book (letters 269 and following). Several points were discussed with Robertson , the assistant editor of the Cambridge Economic Handbook series, beginning from April 1932 when a first draft of ten chapters was already finished (letters 231 and following). Keynes commented at a much later stage, unconditionally approving of Harrod's exposition and rehabilitation of the comparative costs doctrine but finding it difficult to understand, and eventually disagreeing with, the notion of the automatic balancing of the balance of payments (letters 273 and following). The volume was eventually published in 1933, and a revised edition appeared in 1939 (Harrod 1933:10 and 1939:3 ; see letter 826 and following, and letter 859 R).
As to imperfect competition, in July 1928 Harrod submitted to Keynes for publication in the Economic Journal a piece describing how to construct the marginal revenue curve ("Notes on Monopoly and Quasi-Competition", here as essay 6 ). Harrod himself told, and some of his biographers repeated, how he submitted the article to Keynes, who passed it on to Frank Ramsey for comments, how it was rejected at first and accepted in 1930, when Harrod spotted a mistake in Ramsey's argument and Ramsey withdrew his criticism (letters 149 and following, and letter 168 , respectively). The paper was then published in a radically revised form as "Notes on Supply" in 1930 (Harrod 1930:3 ). The story is well known, and only a correction in the emphasis is needed: while from Harrod's recollection one cannot understand the reasons of Ramsey's objection, the extant documents show that these were not based upon the marginal revenue part of the paper, which both Keynes and Ramsey found " very neat and nice" (letter 154 ); Keynes actually invited Harrod to salvage that part of the article ( letter 156 ). A number of other articles were printed in the following years, beginning from "The Law of Decreasing Costs" ( 1931:2 ), where Harrod expressed the marginal revenue in terms of the elasticity of demand and represented the long-period productive cost curve by means of the envelope of the corresponding short-period cost curves. The article was marred by a mistake in one of the diagrams, which was quickly spotted by Joan Robinson and Jacob Viner (letters 224 and 227 ) and acknowledged by Harrod (letter 225 to Robinson, and note 1 to p. 492 of "Decreasing Costs: An Addendum": Harrod 1932:6 ). Harrod's original name for the marginal revenue curve, `increment of aggregate demand' curve, was criticized by Viner and Haberler (letters 227 and 230 ), and Harrod eventually accepted the term proposed by Joan Robinson. In March 1933 Harrod became involved in an exchange with Joan Robinson concerning the recent literature on the subjects of decreasing costs and the notion of `normal profits' (letters 295 and following; see note 2 to this letter for references to the literature), the outcome of which was "A Further Note on Decreasing Costs" (Harrod 1933:7 ). Harrod also reviewed Chamberlin's Theory of Monopolistic Competition (1933; Harrod 1933:8 ), and wrote a piece on "The Equilibrium of Duopoly" ( 1934:5 ). Meanwhile he also submitted a "Note on Collective Bargaining" to the Economic Journal , but withdrew it because Robinson's Economics of Imperfect Competition made it redundant (the note is reproduced here as essay 10 ; see in particular note 1 for context). Finally, he was invited by Taussig to write a survey of the theoretical developments on the subject for the Quarterly Journal of Economics (letter 321 R); the resulting article "Doctrines of Imperfect Competition" ( 1934:3 ) was recognized to be authoritative and fair (letters 340 R from Taussig, 366 from Haberler and 716 from Knight), and was privately reprinted by Knight for the use of his students (letters 716 , 807 , and 815 R). Harrod's last contribution on this subject in the interwar years was "Imperfect Competition and the Trade Cycle" ( 1936:7 ). 
The latter two articles on imperfect competition contain important discussions of the trade cycle, and constitute a theoretical bridge between the two fields. A section of "Doctrines of Imperfect Competition" was dedicated to the condition for the possibility of a trade cycle theory, while in "Imperfect Competition and the Trade Cycle" Harrod discussed how trade cycle phenomena are compatible with the rational behavior of entrepreneurs.
These topics were the starting point, both in logical and chronological terms, of the reflections leading to The Trade Cycle (Harrod 1936:8 ). First Harrod formulated the idea--which was probably inspired by the reading of Hayek 's Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (1933) --that for movement to be possible at all, equilibrium must not be stable, so that a good explanation of the cycle must contain an endogenous de-stabilizing force ( 1934:3 , pp. 465-70, letters 378 and 394 to Haberler, 19 October and 5 November 1934). Secondly, Harrod accepted the idea that the acceleration principle can be applied to trade cycle theory, and began experimenting with it in March 1935 (exchanges 439 , 442 , 443 , 444 , and 446 with Kahn and Keynes ). During summer 1935 he read Keynes's General Theory (1936) in proof (letters 451 and following), and finally understood the multiplier and its implications (which, for reasons the extant correspondence does not enable one to ascertain, he failed to grasp in spite of having himself developed the international trade multiplier and being familiar with Keynes's Means to Prosperity (1933) : see letters 382 , 383 , 387 , 387 , 389 , 391 , and 392 to and from Kahn, letters 285 R and following to and from Keynes  ). He assembled the multiplier-accelerator mechanism by December 1935, an outline of which he presented in a paper read in Copenhagen on 10 January 1936 (here as essay 16 ). By 12 January the first two chapters of The Trade Cycle were ready and submitted to Meade for comments, the third chapter followed within a few days (letter 510 and following). There the relationship between statics (determining the level of output produced by individual entrepreneurs tending to equate marginal costs and marginal revenues) and dynamics (determining how the general level of output changes due to the joint action of the multiplier and the accelerator) was expounded: the destabilizing effect of the monetary `determinant' neutralizes the forces tending to bring output back to equilibrium, thereby establishing the conditions making movement possible, while the dynamic forces are equally unstable, thus providing the conditions for the cycle to be understood in terms of cumulative deviations from the moving equilibrium (consisting in proportionate growth at a rate satisfying entrepreneurs' expectations and thereby justifying their actions).
Harrod discussed with several colleagues specific aspects of his book in drafts and after publication, clarifying a number of issues which remained rather obscure even in the final version and leaving us with an implicit assessment of the relative importance of topics which have scarcely been noted in the literature. Preliminary versions were seen by Meade , who offered detailed comments on the acceleration principle (which Harrod called `the Relation'), the relationship between marginal and average costs, the foreign balance and subsidies (letters 510 and following, 553 and following), Henderson , who disagreed on the role of imperfect competition (letter 524 and following), Maurice Allen , who commented on the stabilizing effect of prime costs (letters 567 and 571 ), and Robertson , who was asked to comment on a passage summarizing the Robertsonian notion of saving (letter 561 and following). After publication, the book was extensively discussed with Hawtrey (letters 616 and following) and Keynes (letters 647 and following), while remarks were offered by a number of colleagues, including Robertson (letters 606 and following), Haberler (letter 612 ), Fay (letters 589 R, 649 R, and 660 R), Richter-Altschäffer (letters 622 , 640 , and 654 ), Tinbergen (letter 683 ) and Durbin (letters 670 , 679 , and 689 ). It was reviewed in the major journals,  but Harrod was quite dissatisfied with them as they failed to stress the role of the dynamic determinants (letter 702 to Robertson).
One of the outcomes of the discussions arising out of The Trade Cycle, which proved to be full of consequences in later years, was the classification of technological progress. Harrod's first documented systematic attempt to grapple with the character of inventions date from his first experimentations with the acceleration principle, as can be inferred from the surviving correspondence from Kahn and Keynes early in 1935 (letters 439 , 442 , 443 , 444 , and 446 ; some hints, however, are already found in letter 262 from Hicks , 4 November 1932). The matter is dealt with in an obscure note in The Trade Cycle (Harrod 1936:8 , p. 91), which could pass unnoticed were it not for a remark by Harrod in letter 617 to Hawtrey ( [jump to page] ). From these passages it is clear that the notion of `neutral' inventions is linked to Harrod's dynamics, more precisely to the acceleration coefficient not being affected by technological change, at a given rate of interest. The matter was further discussed with Hawtrey in the remainder of the exchange, taken up again with Keynes in February 1937 (letters 632 and following) and discussed in detail with Joan Robinson , who compared Harrod's new notion with Pigou 's and Hicks 's and determined the conditions under which they are equivalent (letters 666 and following), thereby anticipating the debates on the classification of technological progress which took place in the 1960s. The issue was also at the background of an exchange between Harrod and Kaldor in 1938 on interest, wages and roundaboutness (letters 765 and following).
The debates on The Trade Cycle also stimulated Harrod to think through his dynamic theory again, and to recast its essential features in an article to appear in the Economic Journal in 1939. One of the major problems Harrod faced was his readers' lack of understanding of the fact that the cycle was conceived as a departure from a basis of advance: he must have complained about this to Robertson (see letter 625 ), while a few weeks later Keynes wondered whether any reader who had not been specifically instructed by Harrod " could be aware that the whole of the last half of the book was intended to be in relation to a moving base of steady progress " (letter 656 ). This point was correspondingly emphasized in the draft of the "Essay in Dynamic Theory" (here as essay 19 ) and even more in the published version (Harrod 1939:7 ), where several sections on the trade cycle were sacrificed after prolonged discussion with Keynes (letters 801 and following; the draft was also discussed with Marschak , letters 800 and following). The `fundamental equation' representing the growth rate resulting from the interplay of the multiplier and the acceleration principle was supplied by Keynes in April 1937 (letter 656 ).
Another aspect which escaped the notice of The Trade Cycle 's readers was Harrod's very notion of `dynamics', in spite of a few polemical remarks on the `time-lag' theories of the cycle. The theme was taken up in the "Essay in Dynamic Theory", but Harrod also stressed this aspect in a number of reviews and other comments. In "Mr. Keynes and Traditional Theory", read before the Oxford University Political Economy Club in February 1936 (see letter 529 R) and the Oxford meeting of the Econometric Society in September 1936 (the piece, however, had been gestating in Harrod's mind since November 1935: see letters 494 and 496 ), Harrod stressed that Keynes's General Theory (1936) was still static while economics needed a truly revolutionary dynamic theory incorporating new terms among the unknowns such as "rate of growth, acceleration, de-celeration etc." (Harrod 1937:4 , pp. 85-86). In his reviews of Lundberg's Studies in the Theory of Economic Expansion and Hicks's Value and Capital , as well as in "Vers une théorie dynamique" Harrod complained that sequence analysis and similar theories failed to establish dynamic principles while trying to explain the cycle in terms of lags, errors and miscalculations (Harrod 1937:12 , 1939:12 and 1939:17 ). 
Harrod's work on dynamics was resumed after the war. In 1948 he published a series of lectures given at the London School of Economics in 1946, under the title Towards a Dynamic Economics , which elaborates upon the fundamental equation describing the moving equilibrium at one point in time and its instability; again, Harrod's remarks on the cycle--including the observations on changes in the multiplier and acceleration coefficients--were compressed into a few paragraphs, and the book was considered as proposing a theory of growth. In a number of subsequent commentaries Harrod tried to stress the originality of his notion of dynamics--of which he only laid the foundations, and accordingly refused to consider his theory a "model"  -- and to specify the role of instability in his construction, and to explain how parameters were not treated as constant.  His claims, however, were generally disregarded: Harrod's "model" was recast in terms of lagged variables, and the debate concentrated on whether or not the system was unstable and on the role in this of the supposed constancy of parameters . 
Besides the large number of contributions on dynamics (which, however, did not add fundamentally new elements to the picture which emerged in the 1930s), after the war Harrod did not write much in the field of pure theory and, when he did, he emphasized the policy aspects of the subject. He published a number of books and articles on currency problems,  gold,  and monetary policy,  added some pieces on imperfect competition theory,  wrote on international economic cooperation  and on the European Union,  on development  and other topical subjects.
These writings retain intrinsic interest and show the usual freshness, but do not reach the high standards of originality and the inventiveness of Harrod's interwar contributions to economic theory.  This is reflected in the scantness of the secondary literature: although books such as Money (1969), The Dollar (1953), Policy against Inflation (London: Macmillan, 1958), and Reforming the World's Money (1965)  were reviewed by the major journals, the Social Science Citation Index (1951-2000) only lists a handful of references to them. Among the Harrodian themes other than dynamics, only international trade,  technological progress  and imperfect competition  have been thoroughly discussed in the postwar years. An assessment of Harrod's thought is therefore still wanted on these topics, and his editorship of the Economic Journal , having probably exerted a considerable influence on the theoretical production in Britain in the first two postwar decades, surely deserves some attention as well. 
Harrod's correspondence is interesting not only for the reconstruction of his intellectual biography and for the understanding of his published writings, but also as a piece in the interchanges in the background of the exciting developments of economic theory in the 1930s. On the one hand, in commenting upon Harrod's essays, notes, articles, books and memoranda his correspondents implicitly elaborated their own ideas and provided hints concerning their viewpoints and general perspectives on the topics under discussion. On the other hand, when Harrod commented upon someone else's writings his correspondents were taken to task on specific points and had to expound their arguments from different angles, strengthen weak points in their constructions, or acknowledge errors and misunderstandings.
Harrod's interwar correspondence is likely to throw light on the thought of several of his correspondents; in particular, among those who had engaging (although in some cases rather occasional) exchanges with Harrod one should cite Haberler, Hawtrey, Henderson, Kaldor, Keynes, Ramsey, Robertson and Joan Robinson.
Dennis Robertson seems to be the colleague who most frequently relied on Harrod's opinion and criticism. His letters witness an enormous economic culture, and his detailed references to the literature give an exact picture of his sources of inspiration.
Their first exchange took place in May 1926 (letter 109 and following  ), when Harrod submitted to Robertson a criticism of Banking Policy and the Price Level (1926) , showing that the notion of `capitalistic variations' of output brought Robertson into a circular reasoning as to the determination of the most appropriate banking policy. Robertson admitted to have been " convicted [...] of a good deal of muddle" (letter 113 ), and invited Harrod to have his argument published. This originated Harrod's first article ( 1927:8 ). After this exchange, Harrod and Robertson entertained a friendly relationship, and often visited each other in Oxford or Cambridge. Moreover they had additional chances of exchanging views both being members of various committees: the Royal Institute of International Affairs' research group on International Monetary Problems (see letter 370 and note 1 to essay 13 ) and the League of Nations group discussing Tinbergen's work (see letter 687 and note 3 to letter 772 ).
The following set of letters ( 231 and following), exchanged between April 1932 and April 1933, saw Robertson commenting on Harrod's International Economics ( 1933:10 ), which he read at various stages of drafting and which rather impressed him. In the following years, in fact, Robertson asked again Harrod's opinion on some of the subjects dealt with in the book (letters 302 , 362 , 618 and following). Harrod's revision for the second edition, published as 1939:3 , was discussed in letters 826 and following.
In 1932, Robertson sent the draft of "A Note on the Supply Curve", on which Harrod extensively commented (letters 254 , 255 ); the paper remained unpublished. In 1934 Robertson discussed in print ("Mr. Harrod and the Expansion of Credit", 1934) and in correspondence (letter 370 and following) Harrod's "The Expansion of Credit in an Advancing Community" ( 1934:8 ), to which Harrod later rejoined ( 1934:11 ). In 1935 Robertson sent another paper which remained unpublished: "Money-flows", which initiated an intense and extremely interesting exchange on prices, saving and investment, bank credit, dynamics and lags, the significance of tautologies, also covering Harrod's review of Durbin's The Problem of Credit Policy (Harrod 1935:6 ; letter 476 and following).
In May 1936, Harrod asked for Robertson's comments upon a passage in The Trade Cycle (Harrod 1936:8 ) concerned with his definition of savings (letter 560 and following). Robertson, however, did not read the book until the end of the year; he then wrote a review for the Canadian Journal (1937) , which he later discussed with Harrod (letters 625 , 648 and 651 ). In July 1936, Robertson asked for Harrod's impressions of a note on Joan Robinson's "Disguised unemployment", which also remained unpublished (letters 576 and 577 ). A few months later, Robertson commented upon Harrod's "Mr. Keynes and Traditional Theory" ( 1937:4 ; letters 593 and 597 ), while in December 1936 Harrod sent his observations on Robertson's review ("Some Notes on Mr. Keynes' General Theory of Employment", 1936) of Keynes's General Theory (letter 603 and following), from which an interesting discussion ensued concerning again saving, investment, thrift, statics and dynamics and lags; the exchange was resumed in April and again in October 1937 (letters 651 and following, 701 and following). Finally, in July 1938 Harrod commented upon Robertson's "A Survey of Modern Monetary Controversy" (1938), raising the issues of statics, dynamics and a `normal' rate of growth (letter 789 and following) which he was soon to develop in the "Essay in Dynamic Theory" (Harrod 1939:7 ). Robertson does not seem to have been sent the paper.
While Robertson and Harrod relied on each other's advice and criticism on theoretical matters, Harrod's relationship with Keynes is characterized by a different attitude on both sides. They saw each other much less frequently, and Harrod often sought Keynes's guidance on personal or academic matters (in which Keynes took a keen interest), but not on his writings. Advice and suggestions, however, were freely administered in Keynes's capacity of editor of the Economic Journal and of the Cambridge Economic Handbook series. The publication in Keynes's Collected Writings (1971-89, vol. XIII) of Harrod's comments on a draft of Keynes's General Theory (1936) has induced commentators to speculate that Harrod had played a major role in the development of Keynes's thought. This, however, was the only documented occasion on which Keynes sent Harrod a preliminary version of one of his writings, and the surviving correspondence (letters 375 and following, to and from Kahn ) actually demonstrates that up to that point Harrod had not been informed of the events taking place in Cambridge.  Their numerous exchanges of correspondence (Keynes is the most represented author in the present selection) are nonetheless extremely interesting: Keynes had a special ability at identifying the hidden assumptions behind an argument, and this method of criticism enables the reader of this correspondence to better understand Harrod's logic (which, in his writings, is not always apparent) but also to appreciate Keynes's viewpoint on a number of issues.
Although Harrod's correspondence with Keynes began in 1922 (letter 28 R), the first exchange of theoretical relevance took place in 1928 and regarded Harrod's marginal revenue article (this is described on [jump to page] above). In 1932-33 Keynes commented on Harrod's International Economics (see [jump to page] ), approving of the restatement of the comparative costs doctrine but remaining unconvinced by Harrod's treatment of the foreign accounts balancing mechanism. In October 1933, Harrod submitted to the Economic Journal a review article on Pigou 's Theory of Unemployment . Besides discussing some practical issues, relating to the fact that Beveridge had already been entrusted with the review, and giving specific suggestions, Keynes anticipated that he himself intended to appraise Pigou's book and hinted at his own method of criticism (letter 320 and following). Beveridge eventually gave in, and the revised version of Harrod's review was published as 1934:1 .
The prolonged correspondence relating to The General Theory (beginning from letter 451 ) was published in Keynes's Collected Writings (1971-89) , and has been frequently referred to in the literature. The dominant themes were the saving/investment relationship and the internal consistency of the traditional theory of interest. Harrod took up the topic again in "Mr. Keynes and Traditional Theory" ( 1937:4 ), which was also discussed with Keynes prior to publication. The latter exchange (also partly reported in Keynes's Collected Writings and often cited) stimulated Keynes to expound the main stages of the evolution of his ideas from the Treatise on Money (1930) to the General Theory (1936) (letters 580 and following). Meanwhile Harrod also brought up with Keynes the problem of credit creation he was discussing with Robertson in October 1935 (letters 481 , 482 and 486 ; see [jump to page] above), and Keynes commented upon Harrod's objection to laissez-faire ( 1936:4 ; letters 488 and 490 ) and upon G. D. A. MacDougall 's article on "The Definition of Prime and Supplementary Costs", 1936 (which was sent on Harrod's recommendation), expressing his views on mathematical economics (letter 574 ).
In February 1937, Harrod attended Keynes's Galton lecture on "Some Economic Consequences of a Declining Population", which stimulated a discussion on inventions, absorption of savings and roundaboutness (letter 632 and following). A few weeks later, Keynes had read The Trade Cycle , and sent some notes and lecture notes (letter 647 and following). At first Keynes thought he had identified "a straight-forward slip in arithmetic", but Harrod convinced him that he had overlooked the fact that the cycle theory was based on cumulative deviations from a moving equilibrium. Keynes elaborated on the concept, and proposed a formula representing equilibrium growth which anticipated (and probably stimulated) the `fundamental equation' of Harrod's "Essay in Dynamic Theory".
The following exchange of theoretical relevance regarded Harrod's presidential address before the British Association in 1938 ("Scope and Method of Economics", 1938:15 ). It began with some practical matters, but soon gave rise to an interesting debate on methodological issues, in particular in connection with Tinbergen 's League of Nations inquiry (letters 749 R and following). This correspondence (as well as the preceding one on The Trade Cycle and the following one on the "Essay") is published in Keynes's Collected Writings , and is frequently cited in the literature. Meanwhile Harrod submitted to the Economic Journal a first draft of the "Essay" (essay 19 , eventually published as 1939:7 ), on which Keynes extensively commented (letter 801 and following). This exchange (also thoroughly examined in the literature) illustrates their different views on time and dynamics, and the difficulties they had in finding a common terrain for a profitable discussion.
Harrod regularly exchanged correspondence with two of his Oxford colleagues, although not as frequently as he did with Robertson and Keynes. To James Meade he submitted International Economics and The Trade Cycle for comments (letters 269 and following and 510 and following; see [jump to page] and [jump to page] ), while he sent a number of remarks on the drafts of some papers Meade wrote for the New Fabian Research Bureau and on a collective letter to the press (letters 357 , 447 and 669 , respectively). Other exchanges regarded further collective letters to the press and the foundation of the Oxford Economists' Research Group (see [jump to page] above). The latter theme was also discussed with Henderson , with whom Harrod also had prolonged exchanges concerning The Trade Cycle (in particular the treatment of imperfect competition: letter 524 and following) and Henderson's interpretation of Keynes (in particular on the liquidity preference theory, saving and investment, and the multiplier: letter 540 and following).
With other economists the exchanges of correspondence took place on an occasional basis. For instance, aspects of imperfect competition theory were discussed with Joan Robinson (letters 224 , 295 ), Viner ( 227 ), Ramsey ( 168 ) and Kaldor ( 445 ), the saving/investment relationship with Kahn ( 375 ), Haberler ( 378 ), Henderson ( 540 ), capital and technological change with Hawtrey ( 616 ), Kahn ( 439 ), Kaldor ( 765 ) and Joan Robinson ( 666 ), the determinants of investment with Haberler ( 378 ), Meade ( 510 ) and Durbin ( 679 ), banking policy and credit with Cannan ( 330 ), Kahn ( 375 ), Durbin ( 519 ) and Neisser ( 425 ), dynamics and lags with Marschak ( 822 ), Tinbergen ( 683 ), and Richter-Altschäffer ( 622 ). In spite of this occasionality, however, single themes were discussed thoroughly, normally as a consequence of either Harrod or his correspondents commenting upon each other's writings, with each author better expounding his or her own ideas on the subject.
The correspondence gathered in these pages does not, of course, exhaust all the possible sources of interaction between Harrod and his fellows. He also took part in the activities of clubs, societies, committees, and research groups. In his years as an undergraduate and young tutor, for instance, Harrod had a full society life: he was a member of the Jowett Society (note 1 to letter 3 R), where undergraduates discussed philosophical issues, and various other clubs (listed in note 2 to letter 29 R), and was the treasurer of the Oxford University Liberal Club (note 1 to letter 7 R). Later he took part in the activities of research groups at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (cited above, [jump to page] and [jump to page] ), in meetings of the New Fabian Research Bureau ( [jump to page] above) and in the League of Nations research group discussing of Tinbergen's work (mentioned in [jump to page] above). He was also attended meetings of the Oxford Philosophical Society (note 1 to essay 3 ) and was a member of the Oxford University Political Economy Club (note 4 to letter 82 R), the Athenæum (note 1 to letter 167 R), Solly Zuckerman's Tots and Quots (note 2 to letter 913 ) and David Garnett 's Cranium Club (letter 160 R). The evidence concerning these activities is obviously rather fragmentary, and it is therefore often difficult to ascertain with precision at each stage how each participant contributed to, and was affected by, the discussions taking place. Nevertheless, the extant documents support the view that some of these verbal exchanges have stimulated the framing of new ideas, or at least formed their background.
The preceding sections point out how Harrod and his interlocutors mutually influenced each other to some degree, suggesting that the correspondence collected in these volumes throws some light on the original and the final approaches of all these authors. Of course, the method of presentation of these documents, being based on the (presumed) chronological order in which Harrod received and sent letters, gives the debates in the 1920s and 1930s as they were viewed from Harrod's (evolving) standpoint.
A complementary aspect, however, should be stressed. By showing whether and to what extent these writers affected each other's thought, the correspondence collected in these volumes also raises the question of why prolonged discussions frequently ended with no apparent result, both authors remaining unconvinced by the each other's arguments or even incapable of understanding each other's cases. Some of the exchanges, in fact, are difficult to interpret, as the authors used different languages, mutually incompatible concepts or started from different viewpoints without making this explicit. This prevented a common basis being found for discussions and thereby hampered communication.
Harrod was aware of this problem, and indeed insisted that in order to be understood and to carry conviction new ideas must be expressed in a terminology with which one's colleagues (especially the older generation) are familiar (letters 392 and 405 to Kahn, letters 460 and 471 to Keynes), and accordingly insisted that controversies, rather than being helpful, diminished the effectiveness of one's ideas and put economics into disrepute (letters 381 to Haberler, 462 , 469 and 471 , to Keynes, and 542 to Henderson). Nevertheless, one of the hallmarks of Harrod's intellectual career is that he failed to convince his fellows of the validity of his pet ideas--dynamics in economics, and induction in philosophy (see [jump to page] and [jump to page] ).
The papers and correspondence assembled in these volumes therefore illustrate, alongside a number of specific successful episodes, the story of the origin of a lifetime failure. Yet the destiny of Harrod's theories does not make these documents any the less interesting to scholars working on problems similar to those he struggled to solve. To historically minded students of political economy, the failure of quite reasonable ideas to be recognized (let alone to win consent) is a problem which deserves to be discussed on the same footing as the success of Harrod's most revered theories and concepts, such as the marginal revenue curve, the foreign trade multiplier and the multiplier-acceleration trade cycle mechanism. To the analytically minded economist, Harrod's ideas on dynamics, with his emphasis on instability and non-linearity, should provide a stimulus to disentangle the core of their own conclusions, which point in the same direction but are couched in a mathematical jargon which prevents their common sense justification to be readily appreciated.
These materials are presented here in the belief that scholars will find it profitable to look back at those years of high theory --to which Harrod so much contributed--as if they were sitting alongside Harrod's desk.
3. M. F. Scott, "List of Articles and Letters by Sir Roy Harrod", March 1971, prepared with Harrod, mimeograph (deposited in the libraries of Nuffield College, Oxford, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania).
5. These remarks are based on the following sample of volumes: E. Whittaker, A History of Economic Ideas , London: Longmans, 1940; E. Heimann, History of Economic Doctrines. An Introduction to Economic Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1945; L. H. Haney, History of Economic Thought , New York: Macmillan, 1949 (4th edition); J. F. Bell, A History of Economic Thought, New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1953 and 1967; J. A. Schumpeter, A History of Economic Analysis , New York: Oxford University Press and London: Allen & Unwin, 1954; E. Roll, A History of Economic Thought , London: Faber and Faber, 1955 (2nd edition); R. Lekachman, A History of Economic Ideas , New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959; M. Blaug, Economic Theory in Retrospect , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961 (3rd edition); W. J. Barber, A History of Economic Thought , Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967; L. C. Robbins, The Theory of Economic Development in the History of Economic Thought , London: Macmillan, 1968; P. Deane, The Evolution of Economic Ideas , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978; E. K. Hunt, History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective , Belmont: Wadsworth, 1979; G. Routh, The Origin of Economic Ideas , London: Macmillan, 1989 (2nd edition); R. Backhouse, Economists and the Economy. The Evolution of Economic Ideas 1600 to the Present Day , Oxford: Blackwell, 1989; C. E. Staley, A History of Economic Thought from Aristotle to Arrow , Oxford: Blackwell, 1989; J. Niehans, A History of Economic Theory. Classic Contributions 1729-1980 , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990; R. B. Ekelund, Jr and R. F. Hébert, A History of Economic Theory and Method , New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990 (3rd edition); J. K. Galbraith, A History of Economics. The Past as the Present , Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991 (reprint of 1987 edition); E. Screpanti and S. Zamagni, An Outline of the History of Economic Thought , Oxford: Clarendon, 1993; T. Dome, History of Economic Theory. A Critical Introduction , Aldershot: Elgar, 1994; H. Landreth and D. C. Colander, History of Economic Thought , Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1994; I. H. Rima, Development of Economic Analysis , London: Routledge, 1996 (5th edition); S. C. R. Munday, Current Developments in Economics , London: Macmillan, 1996; L. C. Robbins, A History of Economic Thought. The LSE Lectures , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
7. See for specific references and a more detailed discussion D. Besomi, " Failing to Win Consent: Harrod's Dynamics in the Eyes of His Readers ", in G. Rampa, L. Stella and A. P. Thirlwall, Economic Dynamics, Trade and Growth. Essays on Harrodian Themes ( 1998), in particular pp. 64-67.
13. R. F. Harrod, "An Essay in Dynamic Theory (1938 Draft) ", edited by D. Besomi, History of Political Economy 28:2, Summer 1996, pp. 253-80.
14. R. Blake, "A Personal Memoir", in W. A. Eltis, M. Fg. Scott and J. N. Wolfe, Induction, Growth and Trade. Essays in Honour of Sir Roy Harrod (1970), pp. 1-19; R. Hinshaw, "Sir Roy Harrod", Journal of International Economics 8, 1978, pp. 363-72; E. H. P. Brown, "Sir Roy Harrod: A Biographical Memoir" (1980), pp. 1-33; "Harrod, Sir Roy (Forbes)", in J. Wakeman, World Authors 1970-1975 , New York: H. W. Wilson, 1980, pp. 617-18 (which includes an autobiographical note by Harrod, drafted in 1966); G. L. S. Shackle, "On Harrod", in H. W. Piegel and W. J. Samuels, Contemporary Economists in Perspective , Greenwich (Conn.) and London, 1984, pp. 85-92; I. C. Johnson, "Harrod, Roy F.", in D. Sills, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences , volume 18, London: Macmillan, 1979; D. Besomi, " Harrod, Sir Roy ", in T. Cate, Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics , Cheltenham: Elgar, 1997, pp. 230-33; "Sir Roy Harrod, February 13, 1900 - March 8, 1978", Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 1, Fall 1978, pp. 124-25; "Harrod Roy Forbes (1900-1978)", in M. Beaud and G. Dostaler, Economic Thought Since Keynes. A History and Dictionary of Major Economists , Cheltenham: Elgar, 1995, pp. 264-67. Obituaries were published in The Times on 10 March 1978 ("Sir Roy Harrod. A Pioneer of Modern Economic Theory"; with an addendum by N. K. and W. G. on 20 March) and in the New York Times ("Sir Roy Harrod, Adviser on Economics to I.M.F.") on 10 March 1978. Entries on Harrod can be found in the major biographical dictionaries, including the Dictionary of National Biography , the Who Was Who , M. Blaug's Who's Who in Economics ( Cheltenham: Elgar, 1999), Contemporary Authors , the Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia , the Chambers Biographical Dictionary , The Oxford Companion to XXth Century Literature . References to Harrod appear in a number of autobiographical writings of his friends and contemporaries: see in particular, for a description of Oxford during Harrod's undergraduate years, C. M. Bowra , Memories 1898-1939 (1966), and C. Hollis , Oxford in the Twenties. Recollections of Five Friends , London: Heinemann, 1976. A biography by W. Young is in preparation.
15. In particular, in his biographies of Keynes ( Life of John Maynard Keynes , 1951) and of Lindemann ( The Prof. , 1959) Harrod often referred to himself.
16. "Harrod, Sir Roy (Forbes)" (cited in note 14 ), p. 617. This passage summarizes rather well the facts as they emerge from the contemporary correspondence and documents which, being of a personal character, are not reproduced in this edition (see, however, letter 105 R).
18. Harrod could afford Oxford thanks to a grant awarded by the Board of Education, Whitehall, London, under the heading "Higher Education of Ex-Service Students", which included the tuition fee and a maintenance allowance for three years and two terms, beginning from 17 January 1919 (the decision, dated 4 July 1919, is in HPBL 72761/56).
19. See the description of his undergraduate years Harrod himself wrote down in an autobiographical note addressed to his therapist after the second breakdown occurred, cited in note 2 to letter 29 R; see also note 1 to letter 156 and note 1 to letter 157 R.
20. Harrod preserved most of the notes taken during lectures and his reading notes, which give a fairly accurate picture of his studies. The materials relating to "Greats" are in HP V-1 to V-21, those relating to modern history in HP V-22 to V-35 and HCN box 12; in the same box, Harrod's graded essays examinations are preserved.
26. See note 2 to letter 30 R. The relevant correspondence relating to the first meeting is reproduced here as letters 26 R and 28 R; reference to Harrod's recollection in the Life of John Maynard Keynes (1951) is given in note 1 to letter 26 R. On the weekly essays see note 1 to letter 39 R.
27. Five long letters survive from a German acquaintance, Gerhard Nebel, a student of Karl Jasper and Martin Heidegger, dating 1923 to 1924, mainly concerned with philosophy, are preserved in HKLM 188-92.
29. See letter 53 R, and Phelps Brown, "Sir Roy Harrod: A Memoir" (1980), p. 8.
32. Oxford University Gazette , 1923-24. In the interwar years the Gazette advertised the following lectures by Harrod (H stands for Hilary terms--renamed Lent term from 1938), T for Trinity and M for Michaelmas): 1924M: "Monetary Theory"; 1925H: "Monetary Theory (cont.)" and "English Currency and Banking Problems (XIX Century); 1925M: "Ricardo" (Topics included: "R.s Theory of value"; "Determination of value"; "Population"; "Taxation"; "Theory of value and theory of distribution"; various sets of lecture notes on Ricardo are extant in HP V-103); 1926H: "Monetary Theory"; 1926T: "Monetary Theory (cont.) and "Federal Reserve System (8 lectures)" (Lecture notes on the "FRS" and on [Monetary Theory], labelled by Harrod "1926", in HP V-106); 1926M: "Banking and Currency Problems in England (XIX Century)" and "Some Problems in Economic Theory"; 1927H: "Money"; 1927M: "Ricardo"; 1928T: "International Economics" and "Federal Reserve System (4 lectures)"; 1928M: "Money"; 1929H: "Money (cont.)"; 1929M: "Economic Theory I, Classical (Ricardo)"; 1930H: "Modern Economic Theory"; 1930T: "Federal Reserve System"; 1931H: "Money"; 1931T: "Federal Reserve System"; 1931M: "Ricardo"; 1932H: "Problems in Economic Theory"; 1932M: "Money"; 1933H: "Money (Cont.)"; 1933T: "Federal Reserve System"; 1933M: "Some questions of economic theory"; 1934H: "Some points of Trade Cycle Theory" ( in his Report to the Board of the Faculty of Social Sciences on his second period of tenure of a University Lectureship, Harrod stated that while most of his other courses were standard, the Michaelmas 1933 and Hilary 1934 lectures "embodied attempts at original contributions to economic thought resulting from my work during the period": Social Studies Reports , 1932-35, in OUA FA4/18/2/2) ; 1934T: "Introduction to Money"; 1935H: "Currency and Credit" (twice weekly); 1935T: "Federal Reserve System" (once weekly); 1935M: "Economic Theory" (twice weekly) on "Ricardo" (these lectures are not listed in Harrod's "Report as a University Lecturer, 1935-37": Social Studies Reports , 1935-37) ; 1936H: "Economic Theory (Cont.)" (Harrod had originally planned to lecture on Keynes; the lectures, however, were cancelled due to the belated appearance of Keynes's book: Social Studies Reports , 1935-37) ; 1936T: "Introduction to Money"; 1936M: "Introduction to Money (Cont.)"; 1937H: "Population" (once weekly); 1937T: "Federal Reserve System"; 1937M: "Economic Theory" and "Economic Organization in Britain"; 1938L: "Economic Theory (Cont.)"; 1938M: "Introduction to Money"; 1939L: "Federal reserve System" and "Cost and Profit"; 1939T: "Introduction to Money (8 lectures)".
36. See the bibliography of Harrod's interwar writings, here on [jump to page] . Harrod possibly reviewed also T. Wilson, A discourse upon usury by way of dialogue and orations: for the better variety and more delight of all those that shall read this treatise , London: Bell, 1925: Harrod's copy, in fact, is accompanied by a printed card from the publisher as review copy (in HCN Roybooks).
38. The relevant correspondence relating to this research is summarized here; see in particular note 1 to letter 89 R, note 1 to letter 108 R and note 1 to letter 124 R for context, summaries of the extant memoranda and references to the remainder of the correspondence.
40. Two of these are included in the present edition as essays 4 and 5 ; the third was published in W. A. Appleton, Unemployment. Its Cause and Cure (1928). Context and further references to the related correspondence are given in note 1 to essay 4 .
41. The correspondence is reproduced here in full beginning from letter 109 of 18 May 1926.
42. See D. Besomi, " Roy Harrod and the Committee of Inquiry into the Bodleian Question, 1930-1931 ", Bodleian Library Record , XVII, no. 1, April 2000, pp. 36-44.
44. The importance of this debate for the formation of Harrod's thought is discussed below, [jump to page] .
46. For a fuller discussion of Harrod's role in this group and references to the relevant exchanges of correspondence see D. Besomi, " Roy Harrod and the Oxford Economists' Research Group's Inquiry on Prices and Interest, 1936-39 ", Oxford Economic Papers 50, 1998, pp. 534-62.
49. In 1940-41, Harrod wrote several chapters of a book on The Known and the Unknown , which clearly constituted a stage in the elaboration of his ideas on induction and other philosophical matters from the discussion with Ayer on the other selves in 1933 (letters 332 and 336 ) and the 1938 presidential address before the British Association ( 1938:13 ) towards the 1956 book, via the 1942 essay on "Memory" for Mind . The manuscript was offered to Macmillan for publication on 11 November 1942: Harrod described it as "less than half done" and in need of "drastic revision" (in MaP). In 1951 Harrod announced that the book was "taking shape in [his] mind", but that it could hardly be ready before three or four years (letter to Macmillan, 26 March 1951, in MaP).
Only 14 chapters are extant among Harrod's papers (HP V-70 and HP V-71), three of which in both manuscript and typescript form, while of others more than one draft was preserved; some bear no title, some are not numbered. From a fragmentary index left by Harrod and from the chapters found, the index of the book may be partially reconstructed as follows:
Book I: chapter 2: The external world (TS); chapter 4: Materialism (TS); chapter 5: Knowledge (1st, 2nd and 3rd versions; including a loose leaf on mathematical knowledge); [chapter 6?]: Mathematical knowledge; chapter 8: Other selves (TS chapter 5); chapter 9: Political theory; (with a reference to a chapter on Memory).
51. See for instance K. R. Popper, "On Mr. Roy Harrod's New Argument for Induction", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9, 1959-60; R. B. Braithwaite, " Foundations of Inductive Logic . By R. F. Harrod", Economic Journal LXVIII, March 1958, pp. 146-49; A. J. Ayer, "Has Harrod Answered Hume?", in W. A. Eltis, M. Fg. Scott and J. N. Wolfe, Induction, Growth and Trade. Essays in Honour of Sir Roy Harrod (1970). Other reviews can be found in the Australian Journal of Philosophy (1958, by D. C. Stove), the Cambridge Review (1956-57, by J. O. Wisdom), and Mind (1959, by P. Alexander).
52. Harrod's letters are among the Russell Papers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, while Russell's letters are in HP IV/1115-1135; more correspondence and the manuscripts and typescripts of the new translation are in HP V/96-102.
53. The two books were included in J. Nicod, Geometry and Induction, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970, with prefaces by Harrod, Bertrand Russell and André Lalande. Harrod also wrote an "Annex" to Nicod's Logical Problem of Induction, pp. 243-45.
55. Papers of the Royal Commission on Population, volume V: Memoranda presented to the Royal Commission , London: HMST, 1950, pp. 77-120; reprinted as "The Population Problem" in Harrod, Economic Essays, London: Macmillan, 1952.
56. Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Equal Pay , London: HMSO, 1945; reprinted as "Equal Pay for Men and Women. Terms of Reference", in Harrod, Economic Essays, London: Macmillan, 1952.
60. Harrod, A Page of British Folly , London: Macmillan, 1946; A re These Hardships Necessary? , London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1947; and And so it goes on: Further Thought on Present Mismanagement , London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1951.
61. See the list assembled by Scott, cited in note 3 above. In the opinion of a commentator, this prodigious output of journalistic writings "probably diluted the impact he might have had. As a matter of fact, [they] do not show him off to best advantage, conveying as they do the air of one who feels himself to be in full possession of the whole truth (as laid down by Keynes)" (M. Blaug, Great Economists since Keynes. An Introduction to the Lives and Work of One Hundred Modern Economists, Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1985, p. 84).
64. In 1927 Harrod wrote a memorandum on "Foreign Exchanges in their Relation to Unemployment" ( 1928:2 ; see [jump to page] above), and lectured on "International Economics" during Trinity Term ( Oxford University Gazette ).
65. It should be noted, however, that the empirical inquiry led by the Oxford Economists' Research Group, 1936-39, sowed some doubts as to the assumption of entrepreneurs' rationality and the way of dealing with it (see essays 17 and 18 ), which contributed to Harrod's later change of mind, as expressed in "Theory of Imperfect Competition Revised", in Economic Essays, London: Macmillan, 1952.
66. F or a discussion see D. Besomi, " On the Spread of an Idea: The Strange Case of Mr. Harrod and the Multiplier ", History of Political Economy 32:2, Summer 2000, pp. 347-79.
67. H. T. N. Gaitskell, " The Trade Cycle ", Economica NS IV, November 1937, pp. 472-76; G. Haberler, " The Trade Cycle ", Journal of Political Economy 45(2), 1937, pp. 690-97; A. H. Hansen, "Harrod on the Trade Cycle", Quarterly Journal of Economics 51.2, May 1937, pp. 509-31; R. G. Hawtrey, Capital and Employment (1937); H. Neisser, "Investment Fluctuations as Cause of the Business Cycle", Social Research , 4, November 1937, pp. 440-60; D. H. Robertson, " The Trade Cycle " (1937); J. V. Robinson, " The Trade Cycle " (1936); A. Smithies, " The Trade Cycle ", Economic Record 13, June 1937, pp. 109-11; J. Stafford, " The Trade Cycle ", The Manchester School , VIII, 1, 69-84; J. Tinbergen, "Harrod, R. F., The Trade Cycle. An Essay", Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv Bd. XLV, 1937, pp. 89*-91*; W. H. Wynne, " The Trade Cycle: An Essay ", American Economic Review , XXVII, March 1937, pp. 143-45; H. S. Ellis, "Notes on Recent Business Cycles Literature", Review of Economic Statistics XX:3, August 1937, pp. 111-19; P. S. Lokanathan, "Mr. Harrod on the Trade Cycle", Indian Journal of Economics , XVIII, part III, January 1938, pp. 515-21; B. Nogaro, " The Trade Cycle ", Revue d'Économie Politique , 54, 1940, pp. 107-12.
68. While the main polemical target in The Trade Cycle was Robertson's sequence analysis, Harrod shifted the emphasis towards the econometricians' approach, in particular Tinbergen 's, with which he became acquainted by participating in meetings in Geneva in September 1937 (see letters 686 and 687 , and for Harrod's own report of the meeting to his future wife letters 694 R and following) and Cambridge in July 1938 (letter 772 ). Tinbergen's views were also discussed with Keynes: letters 787 and following.
70. "Notes on Trade Cycle Theory", Economic Journal LXI, June 1951; "Supplement on Dynamic Theory", in Economic Essays , London: Macmillan, 1952; Review of "Introduction to Keynesian Economics, by K. K. Kurihara", Annals of the American Academy , 313, September 1957; "Domar and Dynamic Economics", Economic Journal LXIX , September 1959; "Second Essay in Dynamic Theory", Economic Journal LXX , June 1960; "What is a Model?", in J. N. Wolfe, Value, Capital and Growth: Papers in Honour of Sir John Hicks , Edinburgh: University Press, 1968; "Themes in Dynamic Theory", Economic Journal LXXIII , September 1963; and Economic Dynamics , London: Macmillan, 1973, being a second edition of Towards a Dynamic Economic s (1948) which reflects a number of aspects which were taken out of the 1938 draft of the "Essay in Dynamic Theory" (essay 19 ).
71. For a survey see D. Besomi, " Failing to Win Consent: Harrod's Dynamics in the Eyes of His Readers ", in G. Rampa, L. Stella and A. P. Thirlwall, Economic Dynamics, Trade and Growth. Essays on Harrodian Themes ( 1998).
72. In particular The Pound Sterling , Princeton: Princeton University International Finance Section, Essays in International Finance, 13, February 1952; The Dollar , London: Macmillan, 1953; The Pound Sterling 1951-1958 , Princeton: Princeton University International Finance Section, Essays in International Finance, 30, 1958; Plan to Increase International Monetary Liquidity , Brussels and London: European League for Economic Co-Operation, 1964; Reforming the World's Money , London: Macmillan, and New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965; Money , London: Macmillan, and New York: St. Martin's Press, 1969. Articles on this topic are too numerous to cite in full (see the bibliography of his writings in W. A. Eltis, M. Fg. Scott and J. N. Wolfe, Induction, Growth and Trade. Essays in Honour of Sir Roy Harrod , 1970).
73. For references and an overview of Harrod's writings see H. G. Johnson, "Roy Harrod on the Price of Gold", in W. A. Eltis, M. Fg. Scott and J. N. Wolfe, Induction, Growth and Trade. Essays in Honour of Sir Roy Harrod (1970).
74. For example "Clearing the Air on Inflation", The Director , June 1951; "A Plan to Control Inflation", The Director , October 1951; "Measures against Inflation", Vie Économique et Sociale 27 , 1956; "Concluding Phase of the Credit Squeeze", Bankers' Magazine CLXXXII, November 1956; "Are Monetary and Fiscal Policies Enough?", Economic Journal LXXIV , December 1964, pp. 903-15.
75. "Theory of Imperfect Competition Revised", in Economic Essays , London: Macmillan, 1952; "Increasing Returns", in R. E. Kuenne, Monopolistic Competition Theory: Studies in Impact , New York: Wiley, 1967; and "Imperfect Competition, Aggregate Demand and Inflation", Economic Journal LXXXII, March 1972.
76. For instance "Problèmes économiques de la cooperation internationelle", Aussenwirtschaft 3, June 1948, pp. 81-95; "European Economic Co-operation: A British Viewpoint", Public Finance 5:4, 1950; "La coopération économique internationale", Économie Appliquée 3 , January-March 1950, pp. 5-30.
79. This judgement is shared by Phelps Brown: "in the postwar years Harrod did not put forth original work in economic theory to be compared with his outstanding achievements in the 1930s. His main interest now lay in currency policy" ("Sir Roy Harrod: A Biographical Memoir", 1980, p. 26).
80. Full bibliographical details for these books are given in note 72 above.
81. See the references given by A. P. Thirlwall ("The Balance of Payments and Growth: From Mercantilism to Keynes to Harrod and Beyond") and J. S. L. McCombie ("Harrod, Economic Growth and International Trade"), both in G. Rampa, L. Stella and A. P. Thirlwall, Economic Dynamics, Trade and Growth. Essays on Harrodian Themes ( 1998).
82. References to the literature are given in D. Besomi, " Harrod on the Classification of Technological Progress. The Origin of a Wild-Goose Chase ", Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review 208, March 1999.
83. R. Violi Pampaloni, "Concorrenza monopolistica ed eccesso di capacità produttiva: un riesame della controversia Chamberlin-Harrod", Economia Internazionale 33(2-3), May-August 1980; C. Sardoni, "The Debate on Excess Capacity in the 1930's", in Keynes, Post-Keynesianism and Political Economy: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt , vol. 3, edited by C. Sardoni and P. Kriesler, London: Routledge, 1999.
85. A few months earlier, however, Harrod had invited Robertson to Oxford; he was, however, otherwise committed ( Robertson to Harrod, 12 February 1926 , in KHLM 209).
86. Harrod's role in the development of Keynes's thought has often been unwarrantedly emphasized. W. Young, for instance, argued that Harrod belonged to a "General Theory group", a collection of young academics (the others being Meade, the Robinsons, and Kahn) who helped Keynes in a collective effort to develop his sytem. References to a "split" in this group occurred soon after the publication of Keynes's book suggests unity of intents before the event, of which, however, there is no trace in the extant correspondence (W. Young, Interpreting Mr. Keynes. The IS-LM Enigma, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987, pp. 9, 13-14, and 173-78). R. A. Black ("Cambridge Circus", in T. Cate, An Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics , Cheltenham: Elgar, 1997, p. 89), M. Blaug (Great Economists since Keynes. An Introduction to the Lives and Work of One Hundred Modern Economists, Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1985, p. 208), and W. Eltis ("Harrod, Roy Forbes", in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman, New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics , London: Macmillan, 1987, p. 595) anticipated to the early 1930s Harrod's critical contribution to the development of Keynes's thought, whilePhelps Brown even suggested that Harrod had worked on the proofs of the Treatise ("Sir Roy Harrod: A Biographical Memoir", 1980, p. 26; the statement on p. 13 that Harrod stayed a fortnight at Tilton in 1926 is also inaccurate: only a three days visit is documented, taking place in August 1927--letter 140 R).
top of page
Return to index of this section
Go to previous page
Go to next page