Reviewed by Joni J. Young University of New Mexico

Keynesian thinking (in its various interpretations) has pro-foundly affected the activities of the state relative to national economies. In this brief book (part of the Oxford University Press Masters Series), Skidelsky provides an accessible introduction to the life and work of Keynes. He succinctly outlines Keynes’ life and times in the opening chapter in an effort to suggest why Keynes had adopted the task of “reconstruct[ing] the capitalist social order on the basis of improved technical management” [p. 21]. In subsequent chapters, the author explores Keynes’ philosophy of practice and his various roles as monetary reformer, economic theorist and economic statesman. While each chapter provides an overview of Keynes’ work and thought, Skidelsky highlights not only these contributions to policy and/or theory development but also outlines the context and circumstances under which Keynes adopted each role and suggests his motivations in undertaking such work. For example, the post-World War I emphasis on monetary reform “was an antidote to social revolution” and Keynes’ arguments occurred in the context of the “new dominance of the U.S.” in world economic affairs [p. 55]. The development of his General Theory occurred amidst the world depression of the 1930s, offered a systematic way of thinking “about the pitfalls in the quest for greater wealth at all times” [p. 77] and perhaps, more importantly, stressed the importance of the role of uncertainty in the working of the economy.

In the final chapter, Skidelsky assesses the Keynesian legacy and suggests reasons for the fall from grace of Kcynesian-based policies. This legacy includes the invention of a new branch of economics—macroeconomics, the beginnings of a conceptual apparatus for the construction of national accounts, and the restoration of faith in the capitalist system [p. 109]. These remain despite the adjudged failures of Keynesian economics more generally. Although Milton Friedman had said in 1966, “We are all Keynesians now” [p. 108], the Keynesian policy revolution was in 1976 declared to be dead by Britain’s Labour Prime Minister. In the intervening years, unemployment, inflation and other economic difficulties had combined to diminish the influence of Keynesian economics. Skidelsky offers some interesting insights into this somewhat abrupt demise by exploring the “interaction of the realms of ideas, policies, and events” [p.lll] within which Keynesian economics was intertwined.

The book contains two useful insights for those interested in accounting. For accounting historians, it suggests the importance of understanding the contexts out of which theories, ideas, and specific arguments emerge. In other words, a recitation of particular arguments brought to bear during a specific accounting episode may provide us with limited insights unless these are carefully located within their socio-historical context and an effort is made to understand why these arguments were made and the motivations of the various participants. This careful attention to context was a strength of the Skidelsky book. In making this observation, I am suggesting that more work is needed which closely attends to such issues to enhance further the contributions of U.S. accounting historians to their discipline.

For both accountants and accounting researchers, the book also suggests a further insight. Skidelsky concludes that eco-nomics “has consistently oversold itself as a ‘guide to action’ as opposed to an organized method of thinking about states of affairs and about the design of institutions capable of sustaining well-being” [p. 128]. Accounting is being used increasingly more often in diverse arenas (e.g., schools, governments, nonprofit organizations, and the environment) as it offers the promise of rationalizing and controlling the activities of such entities. Further, auditors are providing increasingly more diverse attest services which offer the promise of assessing and evaluating a myriad of activities. For me, the book stimulated questions about whether the craft of accounting and the possibilities for attestation may be overreaching themselves in expanding into these new activities and arenas. While many critiques exist that question the propriety of the ways in which accounting and auditing are being used, perhaps still more historically and con-textually-informed critiques are needed as well as more modesty in the claims made lor accounting and auditing if accounting and its practitioners are to avoid judgments similar to those for Keynesian economics.