Book Reviews
Book Reviews
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/095382500106849
复制
发表时间：
2000-01
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Debra Hawhee;S. McKinnon;A. Carlson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Debra Hawhee;S. McKinnon;A. Carlson
琼·罗宾逊的《S》一书的特点是变化中的连续性：她对传统理论的批判态度的连续性，以及她对经济学几个领域的思想的多样性。这本书的六个部分提供了对她工作的广泛概述。第一部分论述了琼·罗宾逊的《S》在马歇尔派传统中的创作，特别是她的《不完全竞争经济学》。其中包括玛丽亚·克里斯蒂娜·马库佐、马尔科·达尔迪和尼科洛·阿德·韦奇的贡献。马库佐将卡恩的S研究员论文《短期经济学》与鲁滨逊的《S的不完全竞争经济学》进行了比较。这两部著作在短期分析方面有着共同的观点。鲁滨逊生长在马歇尔式的传统中，他认为有必要将凯恩斯的S的短期分析扩展到长期。然而，对她来说，以充分利用生产能力和不存在不确定性为特征的长期均衡分析，不适合于短期问题。这可能解释了为什么她离开了马歇尔，马歇尔在一个理论中涵盖了这两种观点。随后，鲁滨逊S观的演变使她陷于短期视角和长期视角之间。根据马尔科·达尔迪的观点，无论是凯恩斯的S，还是马歇尔的S关于短期和长期关系的观点，都无法与教科书中通常提供的观点相一致。事实上，它们可能会为建立一个动态理论提供重要的见解，在这个理论中，短期和长期是复杂的经济过程连续体的两个极端。鲁滨逊对S的态度可以很好地解释为她对建构这一理论的可能性缺乏信心。熊彼特的S关于不完全竞争经济学的评论，正如德韦奇指出的那样，总体上是有利的。然而，熊彼特认为，鲁滨逊的《S》一书虽然分析了马歇尔·S的思想，但并没有抓住马歇尔思想的全部复杂性。罗宾逊本人后来承认了她的表述的简单性和静止性。第二部分讨论了鲁滨逊的S经济学可能产生的一些政策含义。它包括Jan Kregel，Pierangelo Garegnani，Massimo Pivetti，Gigiacomo Nardozzi和Annamaria Simonazzi的贡献。克莱格尔讨论了鲁滨逊的S关于后凯恩斯主义和后新古典经济学发展的观点。加雷格纳尼研究了罗宾逊在1936年写的一篇文章，在这篇文章中，她试图发展一种关于总产出和就业的长期理论。加雷格纳尼将这篇文章放在当代辩论的角度，同时指出她的论点中的̄aws。皮维蒂和纳尔多齐都对鲁滨逊的S利益观提出了重要的见解，并得出结论：当前的经济政策是可以理解的
Joan Robinson’ s work is characterized by continuity within variety: continuity in what concerns her critical attitude towards traditional theory, and variety in addressing her thought to several areas in economics. The six parts of this book provide an extensive overview of her work. Part I is concerned with Joan Robinson ’ s work in the Marshallian traditionÐ in particular her Economics of Imperfect Competition. It includes contributions by Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, Marco Dardi and NicoloÁ De Vecchi. Marcuzzo compares Kahn’ s fellowship dissertation on The Economics of the Short Period with Robinson ’ s Economics of Imperfect Competition. Both works share a common view about short-period analysis. Raised in the Marshallian tradition, Robinson considered it necessary to extend Keynes’ s short-period analysis to the long run. For her, however, the analysis of long-period equilibria, characterized by the full employment of productive capacity and the absence of uncertainty, was inappropriate for short-period problems. This may explain why she departed from Marshall, who encompassed both perspectives in a single theory. The subsequent evolution of Robinson’ s view has left her trapped between the shortand the long-period perspectives. According to Marco Dardi, neither Keynes’ s nor Marshall’ s visions of the relationship between the shortand long-period can be reconciled with the one usually provided in textbooks. Indeed they may provide important insights for the building of a dynamic theory in which the shortand the long-period are the two extremes of a complex continuum of economic processes. Robinson’ s attitude may be well explained by her lack of con® dence in the possibility of constructing such a theory. Schumpeter’ s review of The Economics of Imperfect Competition, as De Vecchi points out, was, in general, favorable. Nevertheless, according to Schumpeter, Robinson ’ s book, though analytically re® ned, fails to grasp the full complexity of Marshall’ s thought. Robinson herself later admitted the reductive and static character of her formulation. Part II deals with some policy implications that may be derived from Robinson ’ s economics. It includes contributions by Jan Kregel, Pierangelo Garegnani, Massimo Pivetti, Giangiacomo Nardozzi and Annamaria Simonazzi. Kregel discusses Robinson ’ s views concerning the development of PostKeynesian and post-neoclassical economics. Garegnani examines an article written by Robinson in 1936, in which she attempts to develop a long-period theory of aggregate output and employment. Garegnani places the article in the light of contemporary debates while pointing out ̄ aws in her argument. Both Pivetti and Nardozzi provide us with important re ̄ ections on Robinson ’ s concept of interest, and conclude that current economic policies can be identi® ed