Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article has two major objectives. Firstly to argue that the British government's commitment to ‘full employment’ in 1944 is both a historic landmark in economic policy and one not adequately accounted for in existing literature. It is argued that this commitment can only be understood in relation to three major sets of ideas and the institutions they were embedded in —Keynesian economic theory, technocracy and total war. Secondly, and more generally, it is argued that the main currents of economic thought—Keynesian, neo-classica and Marxist—have failed to provide commitments. THe Keynesian account, became the most commonly used,is more specifically criticised, but it is also argued that neither neo-classical nor Marxist economics give a superior account and often, despite their theoretical principles, effectively give a Keynesian account of this event.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jim Tomlinson (1983) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: