James Ahiakpor's critique of our 2002 work on the relationship between a certain 1932 Harvard memorandum on antidepression policies and the 1932 Harris Foundation manifesto dealing with the same issues misses the significance of these documents, and of the relationships between them, both for the literature of the time, and for later debates about the origins of 1930s Chicago ideas about monetary economics. He is correct to locate these documents in a more general quantity theoretic tradition, but his discussion here is marred by a serious misunderstanding of the so-called forced saving doctrine and its place in that tradition. Finally, Ahiakpor fails to appreciate that the absence of positive policy proposals from the 1934 Harvard studies of The Economics of the Recovery Program, a point that he himself notes, is a major contributing factor to that book's mediocrity.
Skip Nav Destination
Research Article| September 01 2010
Harvard, the Chicago Tradition, and the Quantity Theory: A Reply to James Ahiakpor
History of Political Economy (2010) 42 (3): 573–592.
David Laidler, Roger Sandilands; Harvard, the Chicago Tradition, and the Quantity Theory: A Reply to James Ahiakpor. History of Political Economy 1 September 2010; 42 (3): 573–592. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2010-026
Download citation file:
Don't already have an account? Register
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.
Sign in via your InstitutionSign In
Citing articles via
From the Treatise on Money to The General Theory : John Maynard Keynes's Departure from the Doctrine of Forced Saving
The Wider Context of Samuelson’s MIT Textbook—Depression-Era Discussions about the Value of Economics Education for American Engineers