Knowledge that Transforms

( N THE OCCASION of Lloyd Metzler's sixtieth birthday in 1973, the economic profession received two presents, one a collection of Metzler's papers [23, 1973], the other a volume of essays in his honor [24, 1974]. It is impossible to write a meaningful review of two volumes like these, and it would be presumptuous for me to try. I shall thus limit myself to a brief characterization of each volume and then concentrate on what is probably Metzler's most influential paper, Wealth, Saving, and the Rate of Interest [21, (1951) 1973], trying to evaluate its contribution after another quarter-century of macroeconomic theory. The Collected Papers, 24 in number, are said to include nearly all of Metzler's scientific articles. Of those listed in the Index of Economic Articles only one, a note on the effects of income redistribution published in the Review of Economics and Statistics, is missing. Three papers, all apparently written around 1962-63, were not previously published. One considers the transfer problem for the case of imported raw materials, another one discusses the significance of the tax system for the wealth effect, and the third explores the implications of partial adjustment for the stability of inventory cycles. A fourth paper, also described as previously unpublished, has, in fact, appeared before. Flexible Exchange Rates, the Transfer Problem, and the Balanced-Budget Theorem can be found in the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, April 1966, and it is also listed as a contribution to the festschrift for Marco Fanno. Among the papers that remain unpublished seems to be the third chapter of Metzler's dissertation. The original texts are said to be lightly edited for consistency, which at least one reader regrets. The foreword, signed by Alice Bourneuf, Evsey Domar, Paul Samuelson, and Richard Caves, offers a concise characterization of each paper and its place both in Metzler's work and in the history of its subject matter. In earlier periods, the landmarks of scientific progress were Great Books like the Wealth of Nations, Ricardo's Principles, Marx's Capital, and Keynes's General Theory. However, as the progress of science manifests itself increasingly in journal articles, a selective library of important contributions will consist more and more of collected essays. Such a library will be deficient without Metzler's collected papers. The profession is indebted to the editors for their publication. The 22 essays in honor of Lloyd Metzler, edited by George Horwich and Paul A. Samuelson [24, 1974], range over all four fields of Metzler's own contributions, namely international trade (Ronald W. Jones, John S. Chipman, Harry G. Johnson, M. June Flanders, Joanne Salop, and Akira Takayama), mathematical economics (Kenneth J. Arrow; James P. Quirk; Murray C. Kemp and Henry Y. Wan, 84

2 Of the many frustrations of any editor, surely, avoidable delay is the greatest. And this frustration is almost infinitely compounded when in the interim an unexpected death occurs. Professor Ferguson sent this manuscript as a draft; certain questions which he raised in the accompanying letter would normally have been resolved in the exchange of two or three letters or 'phone calls. I placed one call to learn he was ill; rather than press the query, I delayed. When next I 'phoned, I was shocked to learn of his completely unexpected and therefore all the more untimely death. Because the draft he sent contains so much of his own style and vigor, I have elected to print it in this incomplete form. The points he raised in his letter remain unclarified. In the face of this series of events, I have asked Professor Nell to undertake the task initially given to Ferguson. The two rarely saw things in the same way. Thus, the choice of Nell was not intended to finish Ferguson's incomplete assessment. I mention the foregoing simply to explain the unique treatment in these review essays. Of Charles Ferguson's death so little can be said-he was an ebullient souil, and a man of significant originality. -M. P.

AXEL LEIJONHUFVUD has recently provided us with an insightful and refreshing reappraisal of the so-called revolution in his On Economics and the Economics of Keynes [8, 1968]. In light of the significance and importance of this book, it is disappointing that, although the reviewers have been very complimentary, the published discussion seems to have offered little in the way of critical evaluation of Leijonhufvud's arguments. This paper attempts to remedy this situation. Leijonhufvud argues convincingly that popular Keynesianism, as well as its offspring, the so-called neoclassical synthesis, does not have an adequate choice-theoretic, i.e., microeconomic, basis. This view seems to be finding wide and warranted acceptance. In addition, Leijonhufvud argues that, although this defect pervades popular Keynesianism, it does not characterize Keynes' own writings. Leijonhufvud suggests that Keynes himself would have been unsympathetic with the development of popular Keynesian macroeconomic theory. This paper argues, to the contrary, that this latter contention is not consistent with a complete and careful reading of the General theory. My analysis will suggest that Keynes' thinking was both substantially in accord with that of his popularizers and similarly deficient. Leijonhufvud's argument emphasizes the interpretation of the consumption function developed by R. W. Clower in his The Counter-Revolution: A Theoretical Appraisal [3, 1965]. I certainly accept Leiionhufvud's contention that Clower's conception, which is discussed more fully below, provides the choice-theoretic basis for macroeconomic theory, which popular Keynesianism lacks.' However, Leijonhufvud also suggests that Clower's conception may be attributed to Keynes himself.2 This latter is the hypothesis at issue. Leijonhufvud can point to no specific content in Keynes' writing which explicitly supports this attribution. His argument (pp. 91-102) seems to amount to the following: Keynes' discussion is dreadfully confusing, but Clower's interpretation offers the only conceivable way to make sense of it.3 Therefore, Keynes must have had Clower's idea in mind. My analysis will focus upon Keynes' treatment of the demand for labor services, a part

FOR THE past 45 years, the Institute of Finance of the Graduate School of Business Administration of York University has been releasing Bulletins (at the rate of four to eight numbers a year) on financial and economic developments in foreign countries and in the United States. Some 208 reports were released between 1926 (when a staff was originally assembled-under the late Marcus Nadler's distinguished editorship-to work exclusively on the credit situation in foreign countries on behalf of the Investment Bankers Association) and 1959 when the Institute was reorganized and a New Series was introduced.' Until 1938 about 90 percent of the Bulletins were related to the creditworthiness of foreign countries; but international problems of a broader interest, and then domestic financial topics gradually replaced the country studies (see Table 1). The most drastic change in the contents of these Bulletins occurred around 1964 when, under a new editor (Arnold W. Sametz), the unsigned products of the Institute's research staff were replaced by original papers prepared by identified scholars, increasingly from outside the York University community. This review is primarily concerned with the output over the past six years, a period when the quality has improved and the frequency and size of issues have increased.