For many economists, the Stockholm School came to an end around 1937 when Bertil Ohlin gave it a name and based it on earlier contributions by Swedish economists. The “battle” was then lost to John Maynard Keynes, whose method, while less genuinely dynamic, was easier to handle. A discussion of the macroeconomics of the Stockholm School up to 1937 still appears to be of interest and underlines the role of Bertil Ohlin, Erik Lindahl, and Erik Lundberg as prominent members of the School.

To restate the critique of the Stockholm School by Johan Åkerman implies focusing on a very special part of the work carried out within the School. To understand his critique, we cannot restrict ourselves to the years before 1937 and to merely the macroeconomics of those years. When Åkerman is critical toward the Stockholm School, he is critical toward a method and a microeconomic construction.

During the years following 1937 the Stockholm School came to be associated with a method within Sweden. The cornerstones of that method were plans, periods, and expectations. They were microeconomic concepts and were fully elaborated after 1937. Maybe it would be wise to talk about a “late Stockholm School” in this context (see Petersson, 1987). The idea of change within the Stockholm School is not a new one. Otto Steiger (1971) suggested such a division and Björn A.