nep-pke New Economics Papers
on Post Keynesian Economics
Issue of 2007‒12‒01
seven papers chosen by
Karl Petrick
University of the West Indies

  1. Keynesian uncertainty in modern macroeconomics By Angel Asensio
  2. Inflation targeting drawbacks in the absence of a 'natural' anchor By Angel Asensio
  3. Consensus vs. freedom of consensus upon freedom? From Washington disorder to the rediscovery of Keynes By Cedrini Mario
  4. Pro-Poor Growth: Though a Contested Marriage, Still a Premature Divorce By Terry McKinley
  5. Generalized Darwinism in Evolutionary Economics: The Devil is in the Details By Jack Vromen
  6. Human Rights and Human Development By Sakiko Fukuda-Parr
  7. Labor as a source of value and capital formation:Ibn Khaldun, Ricardo and Marx – A Comparison By Hasan, Zubair

  1. By: Angel Asensio (CEPN - Centre d'économie de l'Université de Paris Nord - CNRS : UMR7115 - Université Paris-Nord - Paris XIII)
    Abstract: Recent developments in econometrics and economic theory attest more and more that the mainstream restricted definitions of uncertainty and rational expectations discard the powerful concepts Keynes put forward, therefore weakening dramatically the ‘new consensus’ theory. The paper emphasizes, in a formal way, how economic decisions in uncertain contexts transforms the standard four competitive macro-markets system into a shifting demand-driven system which may be in equilibrium at different levels of employment, depending on the views about the future and on the level where wages stabilize. Keynes’s theory therefore proves to be more general and realistic owing to its approach to uncertainty.
    Keywords: General equilibrium, Uncertainty, Post-Keynesian
    Date: 2007–11–20
  2. By: Angel Asensio (CEPN - Centre d'économie de l'Université de Paris Nord - CNRS : UMR7115 - Université Paris-Nord - Paris XIII)
    Abstract: The economic performances of the Eurozone look weaker than those of the United States over<br />the period 1999-2006, in spite of the fact that the former applies more thoroughly the 'new<br />macroeconomics' governance rules concerning public deficits and inflation control. The<br />literature emphasizes Alan Greenspan's pragmatism when discussing the relative success of<br />the Fed, but the reasons why pragmatism ought to do better than a thorough application of the<br />'new macroeconomics' theoretical recommendations remain unexplored. The paper focuses on<br />the advantage of monetary policy pragmatism in the face of Keynesian uncertainty. More<br />specifically, it points out the trials of the 'new macroeconomics' principles of monetary policy<br />when they are implemented in a Keynesian context, that is, within a system which does not<br />have any 'natural' anchor.
    Keywords: Monetary policy; Post Keynesian; Uncertainty
    Date: 2007–11–20
  3. By: Cedrini Mario
    Abstract: The paper retraces the history of the debate on the Washington Consensus according to the four-stage partition Consensus, Confusion, Contention, Conclusion, with particular attention to the criticisms evoked by the use of it as a tool for the “integrationist agenda” of the Nineties. We argue that the excessive shrinking in policy space available to developing countries is among the key factors explaining why the saga has rapidly come to a Conclusion, leaving room to the rediscovery of the “embedded liberalism” of Bretton Woods. It is our aim to show, however, that Keynes’s plan for a new international order inspired by a consensus on freedom rather than discipline, is still the most relevant model for a new system of national capitalisms enhancing member countries’ freedom to choose.
    Date: 2007–08
  4. By: Terry McKinley (International Poverty Centre)
    Keywords: Pro-Poor Growth; Poverty, Equivalent, Growth
    Date: 2007–11
  5. By: Jack Vromen
    Abstract: Hodgson and Knudsen want their version of Generalized Darwinism to meet two /desiderata. /First, their formulation of Darwinism should be sufficiently general and abstract, so that it only refers to general, domain-unspecific features that processes of biological and of socio-cultural evolution have in common with each other. Their formulation should leave out features of Darwinism that are specific to the biological domain only. Second, their version should be able to guide the development of theories that can causally explain processes of economic evolution. Hodgson and Knudsen argue that the latter – going from their abstract and general formulation of Darwinism to such full-fledged economic theories – is a matter of adding details that are specific to the economic domain. Both desiderata seem reasonable. Yet they pull in opposite directions. It is argued that in order to meet the first desideratum the formulation of Darwinism should be so general and abstract that it is bereft of any substance and content and, as such, of little use in guiding further theory development. If going from such a formulation to a full-fledged economic theory is called a matter of adding details, the devil surely is in the details.
    Keywords: Length 26 pages
    Date: 2007–11
  6. By: Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (The New School)
    Abstract: .
    Date: 2007–11
  7. By: Hasan, Zubair
    Abstract: Exclusive writings on the contribution of Ibn Khaldun to economics in the English language have not been many, the references to his work also remain scanty and far between. Even in what little is available mostly authors talk about his views on professions, markets and the cloud he castes on merchants. The present paper avoids treading the familiar tracks. It sees close similarities between the views of Ibn Khaldun (1332 – 1406), David Ricardo (1772 – 1823) and Karl Marx (1818 -I823) in regarding labour as the measure of value and source of capital formation in the course of economics maturing to an academic discipline. The three intellectuals agree, directly or indirectly, that labour creates economic surplus which it does not receive. Even so, the policy implications each derives from this conclusion are interestingly much different. Ibn Khaldun did not -- indeed imbued with Islamic faith he could not – think of workers’ predicament becoming a source of social turmoil. Ricardo implicitly saw labour exploitation in a free enterprise system of organizing production but himself being a great capitalist he could not swallow the pill and once tended to regard cost of production – wages plus profit – as the measure of value. Marx regarded exploitation of labour as the intrinsic vice of capitalism that revolution alone could obliterate.
    Keywords: Labor; Capital formation; Value;Ibn Khaldun;Ricardo; Narx
    JEL: D46
    Date: 2007

This nep-pke issue is ©2007 by Karl Petrick. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.