Although instantly dismissed by the theorists at Cambridge’s Economic Faculty, who regard him as a mere technician and ‘conjuncturist’, Godley starts a serious search for analytical foundations for his macroeconomic intuitions. He finds them in the ‘sector balance’ idea, a simple accounting identity for the whole economy, which shows that the government deficit (or surplus) plus the private-sector deficit (or surplus) must be exactly matched by the current-account deficit (or surplus). Kaldor had shelved his use of the concept, despite sensing its importance, due to lack of immediate linkage to causal theories. Godley sees a way to provide these, by identifying stable longer-run stock-flow ratios and the associated household and firm behaviour. Applying the identity, the CEPG finds a link between the current-account deficit and the fiscal deficit, due to an apparent stability in private-sector asset holding. This ‘New Cambridge’ approach causes a very public argument with other Cambridge Keynesians, who view it as incorrectly rejecting the use of fiscal policy.
- Cripps, F. (1974, May 29). Letter to Richard Kahn and others.Google Scholar
- Cripps, F., Fetherston, M., & Godley, W. (1974). Public Expenditure and the Management of the Economy, in Ninth Report of the Expenditure Committee, HC328. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
- Cripps, F., & Godley, W. (1976). A formal analysis of the Cambridge Economic Policy Group model. Economica, 43(172), 335–348.Google Scholar
- Godley, W. (1983). Keynes and the management of real national income and expenditure. In D. Worswick & J. Trevithick (Eds.), Keynes and the Modern World: Proceedings of the Keynes Centenary Conference, King’s College, Cambridge (pp. 135–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Godley, W. (1999). Seven unsustainable processes: Medium term prospects and policies for the US and the world (Special Report). Levy Economics Institute. Online at http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/sevenproc.pdf. Reprinted in M. Lavoie & G. Zezza (Eds.) (2012).
- Godley, W. (2008, May 16). Interview on the Life and Work of Wynne Godley [video file]. University of Cambridge. Online at https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/198374.
- Godley, W., & Cripps, F. (1973, January 8). £1,000m payments deficit this year if economy grows at 5 per cent. The Times, p. 17.Google Scholar
- Godley, W., & Cripps, F. (1974). The par model. In G. D. N. Worswick & F. Blackaby (Eds.), The Medium Term: Models of the British Economy. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Godley, W., & Shaikh, A. (2002). An important inconsistency at the heart of the standard macroeconomic model. Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, 24(3), 423–443. Reprinted in M. Lavoie & G. Zezza (Eds.) (2012).Google Scholar
- Kaldor, N. (1974a, May 20). Letter to Richard Kahn.Google Scholar
- Kaldor, N. (1974b, April 17). Letter to Joan Robinson.Google Scholar
- Kahn, R., & Posner, M. (1974, April 17). Challenging the ‘elegant and striking’ paradoxes of the New School. The Times, p. 19.Google Scholar
- Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Neild, R. (1973, July 20). Tax strategies needed to restore balance. The Times, p. 21.Google Scholar
- Posner, M. V. (1977). Problems of the British Economy. In K. Brunner & A. Meltzer (Eds.), Public Policies in Open Economies, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy (Vol. 9) (pp. 5–32). New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Ruggles, N., & Ruggles, R. (1992, June). Household and enterprise saving and capital formation in the United States: A market transactions view. Review of Income and Wealth, 38(2), 119–163.Google Scholar
- Samuelson, P. A., & Modigliani, F. (1966). The Pasinetti Paradox in neoclassical and more general models. Review of Economic Studies, 33(4), 269–301.Google Scholar
- Thirlwall, A. (1987). Nicholas Kaldor. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
- Wood, A. (1975). A Theory of Profits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar