Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access originally published online on March 22, 2006
Cambridge Journal of Economics 2006 30(3):473-477; doi:10.1093/cje/bel007
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes and Comments |
Comment: Lucas on involuntary unemployment
* Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Address for correspondence: 23 Coquet Terrace, Heaton, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE6 5LD, UK; email: mark.hayes{at}northumbria.ac.uk
Abstract
Keynes distinguishes three concepts: voluntary, frictional and (Keynesian) involuntary unemployment. Frictional unemployment is a Classical form of involuntary unemployment (not voluntary, as Lucas suggests), and reflects the Marshallian, rather than Walrasian, treatment of time and equilibrium. Lucas contradicts both Keynes and Pigou in asserting that there are always immediate vacancies for unskilled labour, and abstracts from the very problem that Keynes seeks to address. If voluntary unemployment is re-defined appropriately, as De Vroey helpfully suggests elsewhere, the prefix involuntary is dispensable, not because all unemployment is voluntary, as Lucas would have it, but because it is all involuntary.
Key Words: Keynes Lucas Involuntary unemployment
JEL classifications: B22, E12, E13
Manuscript received November 8, 2004; final version received August 8, 2005.