Some perspective on the way in which Keynesianism was shaped in Australia and the way in which this process may have changed over time is pertinent to the overall argument for at least two reasons. First, there is a need to keep in mind the various types of Keynesianism made possible, if only to demonstrate the enormous political dimension to a Keynesianism which was disposed towards challenging the structures of capitalist society. A radical form of Keynesianism put to this end, for example, might be termed ‘Keynesian—Kaleckian social democracy’, as it was the work of Kalecki that highlighted the political implications of a full employment society. It is the view of post-Keynesian analysis, together with some other intellectual traditions of political economy, that it is precisely the lack of full appreciation of the political implications of Keynesian—Kaleckian social democracy which is responsible for the eventual demise of a watered-down Keynesianism in the 1970s. To put it another way, it is precisely the ad hoc nature of Keynesian policy in the post-war boom which goes a long way to explain why it fell out of favour. It will be argued here that this view is helpful as far as it goes but it does not, of itself, explain why, when the collapse of the Keynesian consensus came in the mid-1970s, the shift came in the forms it did, and not in some other variation.
KeywordsDepression Income Assimilation Burial Omic
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 6.G. Whitwell, The Treasury Line, p. 94. M.J. Artis and R.H. Wallace, ‘A Historical Survey of Australian Fiscal Policy 1945–66’, in Neil Runcie (ed.), Australian Monetary and Fiscal Policy, Selected Readings, vol 1 (London University Press, 1971), pp. 410–11.Google Scholar
- 10.Paul Smyth, Australian Social Policy: The Keynesian Chapter (Kensington: UNSW Press, 1994).Google Scholar
- 11.Selwyn Cornish, ‘The Keynesian Revolution in Australia: Fact or Fiction?’ Australian Economic History Review, vol. 33, no. 2, 1993, pp. 42–68.Google Scholar
- 20.See Peter Groenewegen and Bruce McFarlane, A History of Australian Economic Thought (London: Routledge, 1990), chs 8 and 10.Google Scholar
- Paul Smyth’s excellent account of the way social science had an influence on Australian intellectual debate in the post-war boom period: Australian Social Policy: The Keynesian Chapter (Kensington: UNSW Press, 1994), esp. pp. 200–21.Google Scholar
- 22.Keynes, The General Theory (London: Macmillan, 1936), pp. 378–9.Google Scholar
- 31.R. Kuttner, The Economic Illusion: False Choices Between Prosperity and Social Justice (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), p. 37.Google Scholar
- 34.M.C. Sawyer, The Economics of Michal Kalecki (London: Macmillan, 1985), p. 134.Google Scholar
- 39.Cf. G.C. Harcourt, ‘The Theoretical and Social Significance of the Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital. An Evaluation’, in Prue Kerr (ed.), The Social Science Imperialists (Melbourne: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), p. 294.Google Scholar
- 47.B.J. McFarlane, Economic Policy in Australia: The Case for Reform (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1968).Google Scholar