------------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
Published by EH.NET (June 2010)

Nahid Aslanbeigui and Guy Oakes, _The Provocative Joan Robinson: The
Making of a Cambridge Economist_.  Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
2009. x + 320 pp. $24 (paperback), ISBN: 978-0-8223-4538-1.

Reviewed for EH.NET by Michael V. Namorato, Department of History,
University of Mississippi.


Nahid Aslanbeigui and Guy Oakes have written a most interesting and
insightful book on the early career of Joan Robinson at Cambridge
University. Using a wide variety of primary source materials such as
correspondence, lectures, and personal papers, the authors have put
together a very detailed account of how Joan Robinson broke through
the “male” barrier at Cambridge to become not only a close advisor and
defender of John Maynard Keynes but also a controversial lecturer at
this most prestigious university. During the 1930s, Joan Robinson went
from a somewhat unknown economist to one of the most outspoken
proponents of the Keynesian revolution while simultaneously making her
own significant contributions to the theory of imperfect competition
and monetary theory in general.

The authors portray Joan Robinson as an arrogant, self-confident,
manipulative, and opportunistic individual who used every means at her
disposal to advance her career. She married Austin Robinson, a known
economist at the time, who provided her with the lifestyle she needed
to do research and writing.  Freed from the everyday responsibilities
of being a wife and mother, Joan Robinson was able to focus on what
she wanted to do in economics. More surprising too, in the authors’
presentation, was her lack of knowledge in basic economic literature
and, more importantly, her self-confessed inability to do mathematics
on any but the most elementary level.  In addition to Austin Robinson,
she had an affair with Richard Kahn, also a fairly well-known
economist in the 1930s. It was Kahn who would review her writings,
serve as a liaison to Keynes and other well-known Cambridge dons, and
inform her of any opportunities that might have arisen to ingratiate
herself with Keynes. There is no doubt, in the authors’ minds, that
Robinson not only wanted to become a lecturer at Cambridge, but she
wanted to be among the closest advisers and friends of Keynes. In
fact, she worked hard to become one of the most outspoken defenders
and proponents of the _General Theory of Employment, Interest, and
Money_. She not only read Keynes’ drafts, but she also went on to
write an introductory textbook designed to recruit new and young
economists who would be immersed in the new economics that Keynes had
devised. Despite her rubbing some of the Cambridge notables in the
wrong way -- such as Pigou, Sraffa, Fay, or Robertson -- Joan Robinson
was ruthless in pursuing her goals and imparting her views upon young
students who would be the new vanguard of the Keynesian revolution. In
the end, she was successful. She did win Keynes’ confidence, she did
get a lectureship at Cambridge, and she did establish herself among
the economics profession. The costs to herself and her family are
unknown. The authors mention that Joan Robinson would have nervous
breakdowns in 1938 and later 1952. Yet, somehow, that did not seem to
matter as much to her as what she had accomplished at Cambridge in the
1930s. In retrospect, the final irony in all of this is that Keynes’
perception of economics and publishing theory was quite different than
Joan Robinson’s. Where Keynes looked to his critics to help him find
theoretical problems with his thinking in order to correct them and
offer a more plausible analysis, Robinson, on the other hand, saw such
argumentation as senseless and a waste of time. Instead, she thought
that effort needed to be expended on acquiring new recruits for the
new world that Keynesian economics had created. She, of course, saw
herself as one of the primary leaders in that effort.

In assessing _The Provocative Joan Robinson_, it is clear that the
authors have done a substantial amount of research on Robinson’s early
career at Cambridge. Not only is their research exhaustive, but the
manner in which they present their case is very clear. Their writing
is lucid and very much to the point that they are trying to make. It
should also be pointed out that the authors show a side of Cambridge
that many today probably are not aware of. The in-fighting among the
Cambridge notables, their constant need for praise and advancement,
and their well-established “good ole boy” network stand out as most
informative in the book.

Nevertheless, just as there are strengths in this study, there are
weaknesses as well.  The book is somewhat tedious to read, especially
when the authors review the almost day-by-day developments between
Robinson and/or Kahn, Keynes, Robertson, and others. The limited scope
of the book is also troubling. In effect, the authors have spent a
considerable amount of time and effort on a period of only about 10 to
15 years in Robinson’s life.  They seem to just drop everything that
happened to her after her appointment as a lecturer at Cambridge.
Readers would like to know what else happened to the person they are
reading about.  Finally, the book is decidedly one-sided, always
showing Robinson’s point of view in every situation. While they do
make a sincere effort to discuss people like Sraffa in their
disagreements with Robinson, in the end, the focus is still the same.
This is most disconcerting when it is applied to Keynes. If one
accepts their arguments about Robinson’s opportunism and her ability
to manipulate others to do her bidding, then people like Keynes come
across as being somewhat naïve in allowing themselves to be so
manipulated. It is rather difficult to think that someone of Keynes’
standing and intellectual ability was so adeptly handled by Robinson
to do her bidding.  At least this reviewer thinks not.  If Robinson
was successful in entering Keynes’ inner circle and of becoming one of
his chief defenders, it was only because that is the way he wanted it.
Still, the authors have to be given credit for providing an argument
that can be dissected and analyzed.

In the end, the book’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses. And, for
that reason, it is a significant contribution to our understanding of
twentieth century Cambridge life and the inner workings of some of the
most important economic thinkers of our time.


Michael V. Namorato is a Professor of History at the University of
Mississippi.  He is the author of _Rexford Tugwell: A Biography_, and
editor of both _The Diary of Rexford G. Tugwell_ and _The New Deal and
the South_.

Copyright (c) 2010 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]). Published by EH.Net (June
2010). All EH.Net reviews are archived at
http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
-------------- FOOTER TO EH.NET BOOK REVIEW  --------------
EH.Net-Review mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.net-review