Cambridge University Press, 1996  

Review Excerpts

Geoffrey Wood in Economic Affairs, volume 16, no. 4, Autumn 1996

This is a fascinating, scholarly, and readable book, with a misleading -- because it implies too narrow a focus -- subtitle. It clarifies some long-running disputes (perhaps a step to resolving them) and raises implicitly but forcefully a question of great importance." "Milton Friedman, both alone and in his work with Anna Schwartz, has had an enormous effect on how economists think the world works, and on both the objectives of economic policy and how policy makers go about achieving these objectives. Yet despite his extraordinary influence, the approach to economic analysis which he has used throughout his career is one used by only a minority of economists. A major puzzle, highlighted by this excellent book by Daniel Hammond, is why such a fruitful approach has been employed by only a minority of economists.

Robert W. Clower in Journal of Economic Literature, volume 35, no. 2, June 1997.

This book provides a carefully researched and eloquently argued recapitulation of leading controversies in economic theory over the past half century. Although its title suggests a focus on 'causality issues' in Friedman's debates with critics over monetary economics, the real antagonists are not Friedman and his critics, but substance versus form in post-World War II economic thought." "I believe Hammond's book might serve wonderfully as the 'text' for a lengthy article on the present state and future prospects of economics; be that as it may, I forbear saying more here except to assert my personal conviction that readers will discover, as did I, that they are in line for a treat seldom encountered in contemporary economic literature.

Frank G. Steindl in Journal of the History of Economic Thought, volume 19, no. 1, Spring 1997.

The subtitle of this first-rate, scholarly study indicates much about its purview. It is in large part a biography of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz's Monetary History, with the former as the center of attention. The depth of scholarship is impressive and reassuring. In addition to the substantial literature spawned by the Monetary History, the principal additional source is the Friedman Papers at the Hoover Institution. These contain extensive correspondence and lecture notes. Daniel Hammond's is a remarkable performance. He gives an objective, even-handed discussion, a difficult task in light of the very contentiousness of the debate.