Hicks, John. 1980–1981. “‘IS-LM’: An Explanation,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 3.2: 139–154.The paper also inspired a minor symposium in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics Spring edition in 1982, with commentary on Hicks’ paper by a number of Post Keynesians:
Shackle, G. L. S. 1982. “Sir John Hicks’ ‘IS-LM: An Explanation’: A Comment,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 4.3: 435–438.All welcomed Hicks’ paper, although Shackle (1982: 438) argued that Hicks still appeared to cling to a notion of equilibrium in his paper that was questionable.
Chick, Victoria. 1982. “A Comment on ‘IS-LM: An Explanation,’” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 4.3: 439–444.
Weintraub, Sidney. 1982. “Hicks on ‘IS-LM: More Explanation’?,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 4.3: 445–453.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chick, Victoria. 1982. “A Comment on ‘IS-LM: An Explanation,’” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 4.3: 439–444.
Hicks, John. 1980–1981. “‘IS-LM’: An Explanation,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 3.2: 139–154.
King, J. E. 2002. A History of Post Keynesian Economics since 1936. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA.
Shackle, G. L. S. 1982. “Sir John Hicks’ ‘IS-LM: An Explanation’: A Comment,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 4.3: 435–438.
Weintraub, Sidney. 1982. “Hicks on ‘IS-LM: More Explanation’?,” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 4.3: 445–453.
Here is Don Patinkin's opinion on when Hicks recanted IS-LM:
ReplyDelete"Post-Keynesians have also attempted to support their rejection of IS-LM with the claim that Hicks himself has since then—to quote Joan Robinson (1978: xiv) —‘repented’... Robinson’s claim was based on Hicks’ statement in a 1976 article that the IS-LM diagram ‘is now much less popular with me than I think it still is with many other people’ (pp. 289–90).
On this I have two observations: First, neither this article, nor Hicks’ later article on ‘IS-LM—An Explanation’ (1981)—which Post-Keynesians also cite in this connection—say that IS-LM is not a proper interpretation of the General Theory: on the contrary, it seems to me that in both articles Hicks is actually very careful not to say this. Indeed, in the sentence immediately preceding the one from the 1976 article that Robinson quoted, Hicks referred to Keynes’ March 1937 letter to him and said: ‘I think I am justified in concluding from that letter that Keynes did not wholly disapprove of what I had made of him’. Similarly, in his 1974 Crisis in Keynesian Economics, Hicks referred to his IS-LM interpretation and said:
To many students I fear it is the Keynes theory. But it was never intended as more than a representation of what appeared to be a central part of the Keynes theory. As such I think it is still defensible. It would appear that Keynes himself accepted it as such. See his letter of March 1937…in JMK XIV, pp. 79–81. (Hicks 1974:6, original italics and footnote)
(See also part 1 of Hicks’ 1981 article, as well as Hicks 1973:10.)
My second, and far more important point, however, is that whatever Hicks might have said or thought forty years after his 1937 article does not change the fact that at that time he presented IS-LM as an interpretation of the General Theory, and that Keynes accepted it as such. And let me immediately add that this last statement is not inconsistent with my emphasis on the importance of the author’s intent in interpreting a text: for there is a fundamental difference between intent at the time of writing and ‘retroactive intent’ many years later."
(Patinkin 1990: 224-245)
Anonymous,
Delete(1) I have already cited in my last post some Post Keynesians who think that IS-LM is a reasonable interpretation of the model in Chapter 18 of the General Theory, e.g., (1) Matias Vernengo in this comment and (2) Harcourt, Geoffrey Colin and Sean Turnell. 2012a [2005]. “On Skidelsky’s Keynes,” in Geoffrey Colin Harcourt, On Skidelsky’s Keynes and Other Essays: Selected Essays of G.C. Harcourt. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. 13–58, at p. 35.
So if you are claiming that all Post Keynesians reject the idea that Hick's IS-LM captures at least the model in Chapter 18, you are wrong and setting up a straw man.
You are also wrong if you are asserting that all all Post Keynesians deny Keynes seemed to praise the early IS-LM models: this is also a straw man.
E.g., John King says plainly and explicitly in A History of Post Keynesian Economics since 1936 (2002), p. 31, that Keynes “never once repudiated the IS-LM interpretation of the General Theory” but “endorsed it warmly” (King 2002: 31), and on p. 174 that "Keynes had seemed quite comfortable with IS-LM", and on p. 6 that "Keynes was favourably disposed to IS-LM".
(2) but in Chapter 18 of the GT Keynes played down the role of uncertainty (which he had stressed in Chapter 12) and, if he had really maintained the crucial role of uncertainty, as he did later in his fundamental article “The General Theory of Employment” (1937), this would have “ruled out any stable functional relationship between investment and the interest rate” (King 2002: 14).
(3) you are clearly missing point (2): the IS-LM is inconsistent with other important aspects of Keynes' thinking and the analysis in Chapter 18 of the GT is inconsistent with other parts of the GT.
(4) I have yet to read Keynes' actual letter to John Hicks in 31 March, 1937 commenting on the draft of “Mr. Keynes and the ‘Classics’; A Suggested Interpretation” in full context, to see if Keynes had any reservations about Hicks' model.
But even if Keynes really did strongly approve of it, that does not refute point (2) above.