The Italian economist Carlo Casarosa published a study in 2002 claiming that there existed two contributions—one by Roy Harrod (1948, Lecture Two) and one by James Duesenberry (1949, Chapter III, Sect. 9)—that could be considered forerunners of Modigliani and Brumberg’s pioneering works about the Life Cycle Hypothesis (LCH). Those contributions, according to the Italian scholar, had been, until that moment, scarcely known by the scientific community. Particularly, he pointed out that, while Modigliani in 1970 eventually recognized Harrod’s contribution to the LCH, he never mentioned Duesenberry’s work. After presenting and commenting on the content of Casarosa’s investigation, in this paper we present the results of an extended historiographical analysis that we have carried out on the early literature about the LCH. Rather interestingly, our analysis shows that several economists, especially from Cambridge (UK), had acknowledged the role of Harrod (together with the one of Frank Ramsey) since early 1950s, while Duesenberry’s contribution to the LCH was completely ignored.
The contribution of Carlo Casarosa on the forerunners of the life cycle hypothesis by Franco Modigliani and Richard Brumberg
Martini Alice;Spataro Luca
2022-01-01
Abstract
The Italian economist Carlo Casarosa published a study in 2002 claiming that there existed two contributions—one by Roy Harrod (1948, Lecture Two) and one by James Duesenberry (1949, Chapter III, Sect. 9)—that could be considered forerunners of Modigliani and Brumberg’s pioneering works about the Life Cycle Hypothesis (LCH). Those contributions, according to the Italian scholar, had been, until that moment, scarcely known by the scientific community. Particularly, he pointed out that, while Modigliani in 1970 eventually recognized Harrod’s contribution to the LCH, he never mentioned Duesenberry’s work. After presenting and commenting on the content of Casarosa’s investigation, in this paper we present the results of an extended historiographical analysis that we have carried out on the early literature about the LCH. Rather interestingly, our analysis shows that several economists, especially from Cambridge (UK), had acknowledged the role of Harrod (together with the one of Frank Ramsey) since early 1950s, while Duesenberry’s contribution to the LCH was completely ignored.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
