| Abstract: | This essay analyses early reactions put forward by Cambridgeeconomists David Champernowne and Joan Robinson to J. M. Keynes'streatment of the labour market in The General Theory. Champernowne'sand Robinson's critical reactions represented attempts to fillthe gap of the determinants of changes in money-wages, whichthey both identified as a weak spot in the argument of the book.They rejected, albeit for different reasons, Keynes's notionof the point of full employment as an upper limit defined bythe equality between the real wage rate and the marginal disutilityof employment. Instead of Keynes's taxonomy of types of unemployment,Champernowne and Robinson introduced, respectively, the conceptsof ‘monetary employment’ and ‘monetary unemployment’,and of ‘critical levels’ of employment. |
