A Revolution In Economic Theory

This book draws on the work of one of the sharpest minds of the 20th century, Piero Sraffa. Ludwig Wittgenstein credited him for 'the most consequential ideas' of the Philosophical Investigations (1953) and put him high on his short list of geniuses. Sraffa's revolutionary contribution to economics was, however, lost to the world because economists did not pay attention to the philosophical underpinnings of his economics. Based on exhaustive archival research, Sinha presents an exciting new thesis that shows how Sraffa challenged the usual mode of theorizing in terms of essential and mechanical causation and, instead, argued for a descriptive or geometrical theory based on simultaneous relations. A consequence of this approach was a complete removal of 'agent's subjectivity' and 'marginal method' or counterfactual reasoning from economic analysis – the two fundamental pillars of orthodox economic theory.

Economic theory reached its zenith of analytical power and depth of understanding in the middle of the nineteenth century among John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries. This book explains what took place in the ensuing Marginal Revolution and Keynesian Revolution that left economists less able to understand how economies operate. It explores the false mythology that has obscured the arguments of classical economists, providing a pathway into the theory they developed.

This book presents a substantial collection of essays from a wide range of well respected scholars addressing several aspects of Piero Sraffa’s economics in light of continuing controversies over the interpretation that should be placed on his work. It moves beyond extant scholarship with an added emphasis on the philosophical dimension of Sraffa’s seminal work, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Contributors probe new ways of thinking about the political economy of Sraffa and in doing so, alongside the comments to each contribution by other scholars, provide a cutting edge debate and discussion on non-mainstream economic theory. This book will be of interest to academics and advanced graduate students in economics, with additional interest from scholars in philosophy and the methodology of science.

This book was originally published by Macmillan in 1936. It was voted the top Academic Book that Shaped Modern Britain by Academic Book Week (UK) in 2017, and in 2011 was placed on Time Magazine's top 100 non-fiction books written in English since 1923. Reissued with a fresh Introduction by the Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman and a new Afterword by Keynes’ biographer Robert Skidelsky, this important work is made available to a new generation. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money transformed economics and changed the face of modern macroeconomics. Keynes’ argument is based on the idea that the level of employment is not determined by the price of labour, but by the spending of money. It gave way to an entirely new approach where employment, inflation and the market economy are concerned. Highly provocative at its time of publication, this book and Keynes’ theories continue to remain the subject of much support and praise, criticism and debate. Economists at any stage in their career will enjoy revisiting this treatise and observing the relevance of Keynes’ work in today’s contemporary climate.

This book presents the huge variety of current contributions of game theory to economics. The reader is taken through a concise history of game theory and exposed to original pieces of work that are significant to game theory as a whole.

The 1960s witnessed a revolutionary change in economic history, to such an extent that in less than ten years time, the discipline was hardly recognizable thereafter. The essentially literary-descriptive method that had characterized economic history since its very beginnings in the second half of the 19th century, gave way to rigorous quantitative testing of mathematically formulated hypotheses, and as a result a host of formerly generally accepted ideas suddenly and quite unexpectedly lost their credibility in academic circles. Although the revisions that were the result of this so called cliometric revolution had a major impact on our ideas on economic development, this methodological revolution remained almost unnoticed outside the realms of academic economic history, the reason for this being the nature of the revolution itself. Suddenly, economic historical articles in professional journals became more or less unintelligible for the interested layman, as they were cast in a language that was directly derived from highly specialized fields of study, such as neoclassical economic theory and econometrics. The revolution that bit its own tail explains in terms understandable for non-specialist readers what was essential in the cliometric revolution and in what ways it changed our ideas on economic development. The book addresses itself in the first place to students in history and economics, but is also an indispensable guide for everyone who is engaged in what is one of today's most pressing problems: The increasing inequality in wealth between rich and poor countries, or, stated in more formal terms: the explanation of economic growth, stagnation and decline.

Various explanations have been put forward as to why the Keynesian Revolution in economics in the 1930s and 1940s took place. Some of these point to the temporal relevance of John Maynard Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), appearing, as it did, just a handful of years after the onset of the Great Depression, whilst others highlight the importance of more anecdotal evidence, such as Keynes’s close relations with the Cambridge ‘Circus’, a group of able, young Cambridge economists who dissected and assisted Keynes in developing crucial ideas in the years leading up to the General Theory. However, no systematic effort has been made to bring together these and other factors to examine them from a sociology of science perspective. This book fills this gap by taking its cue from a well-established tradition of work from history of science studies devoted to identifying the intellectual, technical, institutional, psychological and financial factors which help to explain why certain research schools are successful and why others fail. This approach, it turns out, provides a coherent account of why the revolution in macroeconomics was ‘Keynesian’ and why, on a related note, Keynes was able to see off contemporary competitor theorists, notably Friedrich von Hayek and Michal Kalecki.