RICHARD T. ELY LECTURE pheral theoretical issues, and so offer tremely difficult to apply skillfully in a themselves as easy marks for criticism broader analytical and social context. The and dismissal by their younger and hun- new methodological challenge was coming grier colleagues. At the same time the from the explicitly mathematical new theory had to appear both difficult equilibrium approach of Hicks and Allen enough to challenge the intellectual inter- an approach whose empirically and histor- est of younger colleagues and students, ically almost empty generality was of lit- but actually easy enough for them to mas- tle general appeal. The General Theory ter adequately with a sufficient investment found a middle ground in an aggregated of intellectual endeavour. These objec- general-equilibrium system which was not tives Keynes's General Theory managed too difficult or complicated to work with to achieve: it neatly shelved the old and though it demanded a substantial step for- established scholars, like Pigou and Rob- ward in mathematical competence--and ertson, enabled the more enterprising mid- which offered a high degree of apparent dIe-and lower-middle-aged like Hansen, empirical relevance to those who took the Hicks, and Joan robinson to jump on and trouble to understand it drive the bandwagon, and permitted a Finally, the General Theory offered an whole generation of students(as Samuel- important empirical relationship for the son has recorded )to escape from the slow emerging tribe of econometricians to mea- and soul-destroying process of acquiring sure--the consumption function, a far wisdom by osmosis from their elders and more challenging relationship than the de- the literature into an intellectual realm in mand for sugar, a relationship for which which youthful iconoclasm could quickly the development of national income statis earn its just reward (in its own eyes at tics provided the raw material needed for least) by the demolition of the intellectual estimation, and which could be estimated pretensions of its academic seniors and with surprising success given the limita- predecessors. Economics, delightfully, tion of the available data to approxi could be reconstructed from scratch on mately a single business cycle the basis of a little Keynesian understand- In my judgment, these factors ac ing and a lofty contempt for the existing counted for the success of the Keynesian literature--and so it was revolution on the one hand the existence Fourth, the new theory had to offer to of an important social and economic prob- the more gifted and less opportunistic lem with which the prevailing orthodoxy scholars a new methodology more appeal- was unable to cope on the other hand, ing than those currently available. In this a variety of characteristics that appealed respect, Keynes was lucky both in having to the younger generation of that period a receptive audience available, and to hit -notably the claim of the new theory to somewhere conveniently between the old superior social relevance and intellectual and the newly emerging styles of eco- distinction, its incorporation in a novel nomic theorizing. The prevailing method- and confusing fashion of the valid ele- ological orthodoxy was that of Marshall- ments of traditional theory, the opportun a partial-equilibrium approach set within ity it offered to bypass the system of aca a clear appreciation of the two complex demic seniority by challenging senior col problems of general equilibrium and of leagues with a new and self-announ historical change, and hence both unsatis- superior scientific approach, the presenta actory at the simple level of partial-equi tion of a new methodology that made gen alysis taken by itself, and ex- eral-equilibrium theory both manageable