Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:46:39 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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?
>
|
|
|