Thread by @paulgp

Great Ely lecture that my dad (!) @JohnAGoldsmith forwarded to me, by Harry Johnson in 1971. jstor.org/stable/1816968

\thread

I'm sure @Undercoverhist has covered this paper before, but it's a fun lecture to read for this broad coverage of "what conditions make an intellectual revolution possible" in our profession, where "revolution" should always be in quotes.

Modern (as of 1971) econ, according to Johnson, is built on several sequential 'revolutions': Smith -> Ricardo -> Marginalists (Neo-classical).

This was then followed by four additional 'revolutions' (some of which he claims have fizzled, but have clearly reared their heads again in modern day!): 1) imperfect-monopolistic competition, 2) econometric measurement, 3) GE and 4) Keynesian revolution in monetary theory.

A key point or question one should have -- what's a 'revolution'? And what's just the plodding change of the academy? Most of what he outlined above as "revolutions" are indeed just slow and methodical responses to long-standing debates within the field.

The only 'revolutions' above that he views as being fast enough to be revolutions are Ricardian, Keynesian, and then the monetarist counter-revolution. He then concerns himself with why the Keynesian revolution was possible from a social and academic standpoint.

In the spirt of "modern day revolutions", if you're interested in trying to change the field today, perhaps Johnson's five necessary criteria are interesting:
1) attack the central flaw in traditional orthodoxy

2) repurpose most of the current orthodoxy under new terminology

3) make it hard enough that senior colleagues won't read it, but juniors will

4) throw some meat to the moderates

5) get the smaller and less successful revolutionaries in your camp by giving them something to do (the econometricians)

There's a lot more to the talk, but it's fun to conclude with Johnson's conclusion.