Introduction

Premise This collections brings together 15 essays published in the last 15 years or so (the earliest in 1994, the latest in 2008), which looked into the contribution of that remarkable group of economists renowned as the ‘Cambridge school’ or the ‘Cambridge Keynesians’. I take issue with these labels as misleading. The set of people involved are better defined as a ‘group’ rather than a ‘school’, denoting not adhesion to a common body of doctrine, but rather the idea of both cohesion and sharing. I argue that the Cambridge tradition of economics is a heritage to draw upon as an alternative to neoclassical economics – more of a legacy than a fully fledged system of thought. Moreover, I also question the label ‘Keynesians’ as being somewhat misleading: while the centrality of Keynes’ ideas is beyond dispute, there is the parallel line of thought provided by Sraffa’s revival of classical political economy, which J. Robinson was greatly influenced by in the later part of her life, and which some would consider as relevant to identification of the ‘Cambridge tradition of economics’ as the line stemming from Keynes. This collection focuses on Keynes, Kahn, J. Robinson and Sraffa, who shared in the physical space and lifestyle of Cambridge to an exceptional degree. The bond between them was intellectual partnership, a recognized common ground, dialogue and acceptance of criticism, although Sraffa, while exerting strong influence himself, was far less subject to the influence of the others. Keynes gave form and finish to his ideas by submitting them to the others; his own contribution to the work of the others was far more modest. For him, dialogue yielded the desired results only if it ran along the lines he traced out and, apart from the occasional comments and consultation, it was hard to draw him out on other grounds, like the theory of value or imperfect competition. Indeed, the fascination of his proselytizing art and flair for creating consensus made him the central figure of Cambridge economics. The relationship between J. Robinson and Kahn epitomizes the kind of intellectual collaboration that was typical of Cambridge. In the first place it was a sharing of times and spaces, which also entailed a sharing of knowledge and the habit of exchanging ideas and mingling together. From the post-war period until

the end of the 1970s, both had fundamental roles in shaping the Cambridge that attracted students and scholars in great numbers from all over the world. Sraffa was involved in all the intellectually important happenings at Cambridge, but found no company along his solitary path in quest of an alternative economic theory. Although it was Keynes who drew him to Cambridge and both Kahn and Robinson attended his lectures, the impact of his criticism of Marshallian theory and his efforts to gain acceptance for an alternative approach were surprisingly ineffectual. Some of his suggestions – such as imperfect competition – developed in directions departing far from the approach which had inspired them. Some of the essays in this collection address the content, as well as the method and ‘style’, of the type of economics associated with the Cambridge tradition at the very core of which stand Keynes, Kahn, J. Robinson and Sraffa. First, there is the framework of analysis provided by Marshall, the founderfather of Cambridge economics who was responsible for institutionalization of the subject at the university. Be it in the form of criticism, refinements or extension, the approach taken by Marshall to the multifarious aspects of economic life was adopted by this group as a point of reference. While Marshall praised market mechanisms, albeit with many qualifications and footnotes expressing reservations to the contrary, the path opened in their own ways by Keynes and Sraffa was to expose the shortcomings of both the trust in markets and the faith in market theory inherited from Marshall. Second, there was the challenge to provide alternative explanations of and remedies to these shortcomings. While Sraffa pursued the goal of exposing Marshall’s inconsistencies arising from his method of representing the equilibrating forces of the market with a pricing mechanism of goods and factors of production based on marginal magnitudes, Keynes was more concerned with the inconsistency of expecting full employment of resources in the aggregate from individuals maximizing either utility or profit. Kahn followed Keynes in accepting the basic Marshallian postulate of individual behaviour and questioning the implication that there was always a level of effective demand sufficient to sustain full employment and, like Keynes, he also looked for institutions and schemes to intervene in the market in the public interest. While remaining a fierce Keynesian fighting against the ‘bastard’ (as she called them) progeny throughout her life, Joan Robinson was won over by Sraffa’s arguments favouring the classical (and Marx’s) political economy as better equipped to explain capitalism, and took a more radical stance than the others in politics as well in academic debate.