Not just the Phelps/Friedman lens - the Samuelson/Solow lens also.

The sequence - 1950 Phillips Machine (Economica), 1953/1954 theoretical Phillips curve (PhD; Economic Journal), 1958 empirical illustration (Economica) - makes chronological sense.      

Because Samuelson/Solow say the story began at the end of this sequence (1958), the preceding theory dropped-out of the equation.

What does this reveal about authority structures in some scientific communities?

Leeson, R. 1998. The Origins of the Keynesian Discomfiture. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics Summer, 20.4: 597-619.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Hoover" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, 18 April, 2014 8:25:16 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Samuelson and Solow on the Phillips curve

James Forder's general point is correct.  A quick JSTOR search shows 59 
articles using "Phillips curve" before Phelps's 1967 article and 5,290 
afterwards.  Whether or not that counts as the "terminology is hardly 
used until Friedman and Phelps adopt it in 1966/7/8," it seems likely 
(on other grounds as well) that the importance of the Phillips curve to 
macroeconomic analysis and to policy in the 1960s is exaggerated by the 
post-Phelps/Friedman lens through which we have been taught to view it.

Kevin Hoover


On 4/16/2014 6:27 PM, James Forder wrote:
> Indeed, there was only one Bill Phillips. Samuelson and Solow did use 
> Phillips' name in connection with an inflation-unemployment relation 
> (and recognise the point about expectations). I think the question of 
> whether it is quite right to say they put the curve at the centre of 
> attention is more difficult. One little point is that no one seems to 
> have followed S & S in using the label 'Phillips curve' for an 
> inflation-unemployment relation. That terminology is hardly used until 
> Friedman and Phelps adopt it in 1966/7/8. A larger one is that despite 
> what is commonly said (not by Anthony Waterman below), they seem to 
> have had no influence at all in leading opinion in the direction of an 
> exploitable tradeoff. On this: 
> http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Department-of-Economics-Discussion-Paper-Series/economists-on-samuelson-and-solow-on-the-phillips-curve
>
> The extent to which the Phillips curve *was* central in the economics 
> of the 1960s is yet another matter, and a large one. Perhaps I might 
> just say I think it is easy to exaggerate!
>
> James Forder
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>