ABSTRACT
Keynes and Hayek are usually perceived in the history of economic thought as intellectual rivals. Although it is true that in terms of policy recommendations, they have not always seen eye to eye, there are numerous theoretical elements that the two economists tend to share. This is especially true if one follows Axel Leijonhufvud (1976Leijonhufvud, A., (1976). On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes. 6th ed. London: Oxford University Press.) in considering that Keynes’s fundamental theoretical work is the Treatise and not the General Theory. In the early 1930s, following the works of Wicksell (1989Wicksell, K., (1989). Interest and Prices. New York: Sentry Press.), both explained business cycles as caused by a discrepancy between savings and investment. They considered that in the modern economy the interest rate cannot speedily adjust these two magnitudes. To a certain extent, Keynes and Hayek even agreed on the dynamic sequence of prices in a “normal” depression. By the time the General Theory came out, liquidity preference obscured most of the commonalities between the two economists. Although Hayek introduced liquidity preference as a short run friction in his 1941 Pure Theory of Capital, he could not accept it as a fundamental determinant of the interest rate. However, in the 1970s Hayek began to believe that “normal” Hayekian crises could further degenerate into Keynesian depressions. By focusing on Keynes’s theoretical development prior to the elaboration of the General Theory in parallel with Hayek’s evolution throughout his life, we argue that a selective reading of their works could lead to a theoretical model in which Keynesian and Hayekian scenarios are specific cases of a more general theory.
KEYWORDS:
J. M. Keynes; F. A. Hayek; the Wicksell connection; market interest rate; expectations; economic cycle theory; liquidity preference; disequilibrium theory