English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Pre-print issued as discussion paper by University of Exeter. The article has been accepted for publication in Cambridge Journal of Economics Â© The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.With the release of Treasury papers from the 1970s under the 30-year rule we have a much more complete picture of the dispute in the 1970s between the Treasury and the Cambridge Economic Policy Group, especially given the role of three Cambridge economists -- Nicholas Kaldor, Wynne Godley and Francis Cripps â\u80\u93 as ministerial advisers at the time. The records show the Treasury and the CEPG eventually meeting near the middle regarding the latterâ\u80\u99s proposition of stable private-sector NAFA (Net Acquisition of Private Sector Assets) and its implications for demand management and the balance of payments. By contrast, the initial differences on counter-inflation policy and, above all, on import controls versus free trade were wider at the end of the decade than at the start of it

The Treasury and the New Cambridge School in the 1970s