Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The keynes versus robertson controversy in monetary economics — with a post-scriptum on the Dutch monetary controversy in the nineteen fifties

  • Published:
De Economist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This article sets out to make a comparison of the controversy between Keynes and Robertson in the nineteen thirties and the discussion between a Keynesian (Witteveen) and a monetarist (Holtrop) in the Netherlands during the nineteen fifties. It is shown that by developing a loanable funds theory and thus accepting the Keynesian relationship between money and securities Robertson undermined the monetarist conclusion of his former monetary analysis. In the Dutch debate the rate of the market for securities was hardly touched. The distinction between Keynesian and monetarist analysis was seen as an analysis of the real versus the monetary side of economic life. This falsely suggested that Keynesian theory and the monetary analysis of the Netherlands Bank are complementary theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bos, H. C.,A Discussion on Methods of Monetary Analysis and Normsfor Monetary Policy, Rev. Ed., Rotterdam, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davidson, P.,Money and the Real World, London, 1972.

  3. Eshag, E.,From Marshall to Keynes: An Essay on the Monetary Theory of the Cambridge School, Oxford, 1963.

  4. Fellner, W., ‘The Robertsonian Evolution,’American Economic Review, XLII (1952), pp. 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gillen, R.,Stock Exchange Securities. An Essay on the General Causes of Fluctuations in their Prices, London, 1877.

  6. Hansen, A. H.,Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles, New York, 1941.

  7. Hayek, F. A. von, ‘Reflections on the Pure Theory of Money of Mr. J. M. Keynes,’Economica, (1931), pp. 270–295, (1932), pp. 22–45.

  8. Hicks, J., ‘A Suggestion for Simplifying the Theory of Money,’Economica, 1935, reprinted in , Oxford, 1967.

  9. Holtrop, M. W.,Analyse en beleid, een en twintig jaarverslagen van de Nederlandsche Bank N.V. 1946-1966, Amsterdam, 1970,

  10. HoltroP, M. W.,Money in an Open Economy, en Economy, Selected Papers on Monetary Policy, Monetary Analysis and Central Banking with Introductions by G. A. Kessler and F. J. de Jong, Leiden,1972.

  11. Holtrop, M. W., ‘De relatieve verantwoordelijkheid van overheid en centrale bank voor de beheersing van inflatie’,De Economist, CV111 (1960), pp. 305–335.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Inflation, Proceedings of a Conference Held by the International Economic Association, London, 1962.

  13. Jong, F. J. de, ‘Monetair evenwicht en ink omen seven wicht,’De Economist, C111 (1955), pp. 421–446,505–535.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jong, F. J. de,Developments of Monetary Theory in the Netherlands, Rotterdam, 1973.

  15. Keynes, J. M.,A Treatise on Money, 1 The Pure Theory of Money, London, 1930; Volume V ofThe Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, The Royal Economic Society, 1971.

  16. Keynes, J. M.,A Treatise on Money, 2 The Applied Theory of Money, London, 1930; Volume VI ofThe Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, The Royal Economic Society, 1971.

  17. Koopmans, J. G., M. W. Holtrop, H. J. Witteveen and J. Tinbergen,Monetaire uiteenzettingen, (undated).

  18. Leyonhufvud, A.,On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes — A Study in Monetary Theory, New York, London, Toronto, 1968.

  19. MacMillan Committee,Minutes and Evidence II, 1930.

  20. [21]Machlup, F., ‘Period Analysis and Multiplier Theory,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, LIV (1939), pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marshall, A.,Money, Credit and Commerce, 1923.

  22. Moggridge, D. (ed.),The General Theory and After, Part j Preparation; Volume XIII ofThe Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, The Royal Economic Society, 1973.

  23. Moggridge, D. (ed.),The General Theory and After, Part II Defence and Development, Volume XIV ofThe Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, The Royal Economic Society, 1973.

  24. Nentjes, A.,Van Keynes tot Keynes-De ontwikkeling van het denken over geld en werkloosheid bij Keynes, Groningen, 1977.

  25. Pen, J., ‘MV versusC + J: een standpunt,’Tjdschrift voor Documentatie en Voorlichting, april 1961, reprinted in Bosman, H. W. J., e.a.,Monetaire theorie, Monetaire opstellen 1, Amsterdam, Brussel, 1965.

  26. Robertson, D. H.,Banking Policy and the Price Level, London, 1926.

  27. Robertson, D. H.,Essays in Monetary Theory, London, 1940.

  28. Robertson, D. H., ‘Mr. Keynes' Theory of Money,’Economic Journal, XLI (1931), pp. 395–412.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Robertson, D. H., ‘Effective Demand and the Multiplier,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, (1936), in [28].

  30. Robertson, D. H.; ‘Mr. Keynes and the Rate of Interest,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, (1936), in [28].

  31. Robertson, D. H.,Lectures on Economic Principles (1957–1959), The Fontana Library, London and Glasgow, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Robertson, D. H., ‘Some Notes on Mr. Keynes' General Theory of Employment,’Quarterly Journal of Economics, LI (1936), pp. 168–224.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Higher Education Friesland, Leeuwarden, State University, Groningen

    Andries Nentjes (Reader of Economics)

Authors
  1. Andries Nentjes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I wish to thank Simon Kuipers and Jan Pen for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper and Richard Gigengack for his help in correcting my English.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nentjes, A. The keynes versus robertson controversy in monetary economics — with a post-scriptum on the Dutch monetary controversy in the nineteen fifties. De Economist 127, 551–569 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371701

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371701

Keywords

Search

Navigation