CitationDarity, William A., Jr. & Young, Warren (2000). Reply to Ahiakpor. History of Political Economy, 32(4), 915-918.
AbstractJames Ahiakpor has made a number of important contributions to the revisionist view of John Maynard Keynes and his economics. And, although some may agree with his interpretations, on the following we must disagree with him entirely. First, with regard to the relationship between Richard Kahn’s employment multiplier and Keynes’s expenditure multiplier: here Ahiakpor has restored the blurring of the distinction we have made between the two (see Darity andYoung 1995, 2–3). In our 1995 paper, we suggested that Keynes was more influenced by Ralph Hawtrey than by Kahn in his development of the multiplier. However,
Ahiakpor simply ignores this point altogether in his continued attempt— in paper after paper—to preserve what he sees as the validity of classical economics and its superiority over Keynes’s economics (Ahiakpor 1990, 1995, 1997).
Reference TypeJournal Article
Journal TitleHistory of Political Economy
Author(s)Darity, William A., Jr.