vided reasons for a departure from Marshall's theories. In this context, Keynes (1936) wrote that Marshall,
on whose Principles of Economics the education of all contemporary English economists has been based, took particular pains to call special attention to the relationship of his thought to that of Ricardo. His work consisted for the most part in stuffing the law of limited use à and the law of substitution into the Ricardo tradition, and his theory of production and of consumption as a wholeùcontrary to his theory of producing and distributing a given productionùhas never been laid open. I am not certain whether he himself ever perceived the need for such a theory. But his immediate successors and disciples surely have abandoned it and evidently never perceived its absence. I was educated in this atmosphere. I have taught these doctrines myself and it was only in the course of the last decade that I became aware of their inadequacy. In my own thought and development, this book, therefore, presents a reaction, a transition and a disengagement from the classical English (or orthodox) tradition. How I have stressed this and the points in which I deviate from the recognized doctrine has been regarded by certain circles in England as extremely controversial (p. viii).
Milagate (1988) contended, however, that Keynes's "views on the state, on the problems of laissez-faire, on the role of individualism, private enterprise and freedom, the dangers and advantages of planning, resemble what Alfred Marshall had described as his 'tendency to socialism,' and largely amounted to the social (state) amelioration of the unregulated evils of the market combined with social endeavours in matters the market could not handle" (pp. 72-73). O'Donnell (1989) strongly contended that Marshall clearly was the major influence in the development by Keynes of his economic theories. Further, O'Donnell (1989) contended that Keynes's economic theories ...