Joan Robinson always used the terms "short period" and "long period." I 
can't recall any time she used "short run" or "long run" as concepts for 
her own analysis. For example, in The Accumulation of Capital (Chapter 
19) she writes:

"Everything that happens in an economy happens in a short-period 
situation, and every decision that is taken is taken in a short-period 
situation, for an event occurs or a decision is taken at a particular 
time, and at any moment the physical stock of capital is what it is; but 
what happens has a long-period as well as a short-period aspect. 
Long-period changes are going on in short-period situations."

And in Economics Heresies she writes:

"We can make use of the distinction between the long- and short-period 
concepts without being committed to any faith in equilibrium being 
established in the long run. Indeed, it is absurd to talk of “being in 
the long period,” or “reaching the long period,” as though it were a 
date in history. (Marshall himself thought of the economy as tending 
toward long-run equilibrium but never actually being there.) It is 
better to use the expressions “short period” and “long period” as 
adjectives, not as substantives. The “short period” is not a length of 
time but a state of affairs. Every event that occurs, occurs in a 
short-period situation; it has short-period and long-period 
consequences. The short-period consequences consist of reactions on 
output, employment, and, perhaps, prices; the long-period consequences 
concern changes in productive capacity."

When the term "long run" is used here, Robinson is associating it with 
Marshall.

Michael Nuwer

On 7/19/2014 4:35 PM, Kevin Hoover wrote:
> I have seen the following quip attributed to both Abba Lerner and Joan 
> Robinson: /"In the long run, we are in another short run."
> /
> Can anyone provide a citation that would resolve the attribution?
>