.png "euroeconomie (10)")
The Cambridge Circus (also known as Keynes's Circus) represented one of the most intellectually fertile and disruptive partnerships in the history of modern economic thought. This academic coterie, composed of a select circle of brilliant young economists at the University of Cambridge, remained active within a limited yet crucial timeframe between 1930 and 1931, serving as a genuine catalyst for the evolution of macroeconomic theory.
The original core of the group revolved around figures destined to redefine the boundaries of the discipline: Richard Kahn, James Meade, Joan Robinson, Austin Robinson, and the Italian economist Piero Sraffa. It was Sraffa himself, with his renowned and biting irony, who coined the moniker "Circus." The genesis of the group occurred immediately following the publication, on October 31, 1930, of John Maynard Keynes's monumental A Treatise on Money.
The primary objective of the Circus was not merely exegetical, but rather analytical and constructive. Its members convened regularly with the intent of dissecting the postulates of the Treatise, identifying its theoretical aporias, and providing Keynes with constant critical feedback. This process of continuous revision and conceptual refinement laid the methodological and epistemic foundations that would ultimately lead to the drafting of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936).
The logistical and organizational impetus was due to Sraffa, but the physical epicenter of these crucial initial discussions was Richard Kahn's rooms within the Gibbs Building at King's College. Subsequently, the debate expanded into a formal seminar, which included a selection of undergraduate students, held during the 1930–1931 academic year in the evocative setting of the Old Combination Room at Trinity College.
Within the internal dynamics of the Circus, Richard Kahn assumed the crucial role of spokesman and academic intermediary, meeting with Keynes on a weekly basis to present the stringent objections raised by the group. The most significant and macroeconomically consequential theoretical assault concerned the refutation of two specific Keynesian theses, ironically dubbed the fallacies of the "widow’s cruse" and the "Danaïds' jar."
In the Treatise, Keynes had formulated a dynamic hypothesis according to which entrepreneurial profits were circularly self-sustaining. If an entrepreneur chose to allocate profits to the purchase of consumer goods, this expenditure was instantaneously translated into an identical increase in the profits of another entrepreneur. This monetary surplus would continue to flow indefinitely through the economic circuit, in perfect analogy with the widow's cruse of oil described in the biblical text (1 Kings 17:16), which was never exhausted. Conversely, the propensity to save by entrepreneurs was likened to the myth of the Danaïds' jar—a vessel impossible to fill that drained liquidity from the system, thereby generating deflationary pressures.
The systemic logical flaw identified by the Circus challenged Keynes's implicit assumption that the aggregate supply of consumer goods was rigidly fixed and inelastic. By demonstrating that variations in aggregate demand would alter production volumes and employment levels, rather than merely relative prices or nominal profit margins, the Circus dismantled the original architecture of the Treatise. This pioneering intuition, nurtured within Kahn's quarters, formed the embryonic core from which Kahn himself drew to formulate his celebrated theory of the employment multiplier (1931), later formalized by Keynes as the investment multiplier.
Although the exact magnitude of the Circus's direct influence on the final drafting of the General Theory remains a subject of intense historiographical debate among economic historians, the value of their contribution is indisputable. The group operated in the total absence of official minutes or formal records; nevertheless, numerous firsthand accounts subsequently published by the protagonists concur on a fundamental point: the disbandment of the Cambridge Circus in the spring of 1931 did not mark the end of its influence. It was precisely that rigorous and at times sharp dialectical confrontation that compelled Keynes to abandon the orthodox approach and the theoretical constraints of the neoclassical school, thereby instigating that radical conceptual transition now universally recognized as the "Keynesian Revolution."
Short Bibliography
Aslanbeigui N., Oakes G. (2002) “The Theory Arsenal: The Cambridge Circus and the Origins of the Keynesian Revolution”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 24(1), Pp. 5-37.
Keynes, J. M. (1930) A Treatise on Money, Volumes I–II., Macmillan, London.
Marcuzzo M. C. - Paesani P. (2022) “The Cambridge ‘Circus’” in Marcuzzo- Paesani ed. Richard F. Kahn. Collected Economic Essays, Palgrave MacMillan, London
Marcuzzo M. C. (2023), "Cambridge ‘Circus’, in Elgar Encyclopedia of Post-Keynesian Economics, Edited By Rochoin L.P. - Rossi S., Pp.37-38, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Robinson, E. Austin G. R. (1994), "Richard Kahn in the 1930s", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 17, Pp. 7-10.
Antonio De Chiara @euroeconomie.it
