On its appearance in 1933, Pigou’s Theory of Unemployment was variously described as ‘one of the great books of recent years’. ‘a supreme intellectual achievement’ or ‘simply nonsense from beginning to end’. Other readers were perplexed or equivocal : in 1937 Hicks wrote that ‘to most people its doctrines seem quite as strange and novel as the doctrines of Mr. Keynes himself’ and even Robertson who was as familiar as anyone with Pigou’s ideas admitted sheepishly that ‘I have always fond the Prof’s wagegood method hard to get into, but I thought I was satisfied it worked out all right.’

The theory — the one that evoked these reactions and is the subject of this paper — is a short-period analysis of unemployment using such classical devices as a wages-fund framework and a dichotomy of goods into wage-goods and non-wage-goods. ‘Neo-Ricardian’ seems an apt label for work that is quite different from the macroeconomics produced by his Cambridge contemporaries, not to mention post-General Theory reconstructions of the ‘Classics’. To avoid possible misunderstanding it should be noted that in emphasising the ‘classical’ affiliations of Pigou’s analysis we are not necessarily endorsing Keynes’ view of Pigou as a ‘classical’ economist. Keynes was by no means consistent in his use of the term ‘classical’ but it is more than arguable that the Theory of Unemployment was as non-classical as the writings of D.H. Robertson.