nep-pke New Economics Papers
on Post Keynesian Economics
Issue of 2018‒04‒30
nine papers chosen by
Karl Petrick
Western New England University

  1. Marx, the Predisposition to Reject Markets and Private Property, and Attractive Alternatives to Capitalism By Jon D. Wisman;
  2. A KALDOR-SCHUMPETER MODEL OF CUMULATIVE GROWTH: COMBINING INCREASING RETURNS AND NON-PRICE COMPETITIVENESS WITH TECHNOLOGICAL CATCH-UP AND RESEARCH INTENSITY By JOÃO PRATES ROMERO
  3. WAS COLD WAR A CONSTRAINT TO INCOME INEQUALITY? By ANNA; LEONARDO WELLER
  4. Enabling a sustainable Fourth Industrial Revolution: How G20 countries can create the conditions for emerging technologies to benefit people and the planet By Herweijer, Celine; Combes, Benjamin; Johnson, Leo; McCargow, Rob; Bhardwaj, Sahil; Jackson, Bridget; Ramchandani, Pia
  5. REVERSE INFLUENCES IN KEYNES?S MODE OF THOUGHT: A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE KEYNES-HAYEK DEBATE By DANIELLE GUIZZO; IARA VIGO DE LIMA
  6. Why Companies Fail? The Boiling Frog Syndrome By Ozcan, Rasim
  7. Race and the City By Ingrid Gould Ellen; Stephen L. Ross
  8. The Lack of Wage Growth and the Falling NAIRU By David N F Bell; David G Blanchflower
  9. On the evolution of comparative advantage: path-dependent versus path-defying changes By Nicola Coniglio; Davide Vurchio; Nicola Cantore; Michele Clara

  1. By: Jon D. Wisman;
    Abstract: Ever since capitalism came to be recognized as a new economic system, its principal institutions of private property and markets have had vociferous critics, of whom none was more wide-ranging and influential than Karl Marx. Marx claimed that not only were private property and markets critical to creating an ideological patina of freedom behind which, as in slavery and feudalism, a small class extracted from the mass of producers practically all output above that necessary for bare subsistence, they were also corrupting. Yet Marx recognized that capitalism, unlike earlier exploitative systems, was radically dynamic, producing unprecedented wealth, while transforming not only all it inherited from the past, but also its own nature so as to eventually empower even the producers, who he believed would abandon these capitalist institutions. This article claims Marx was correct in identifying the core problem of capitalism to be its extreme inequality in the ownership and control of the means of production, but that finding fault with private property and markets has been a mistake that has impeded the generation of an attractive and viable alternative to capitalism. It concludes with an outline of an alternative which would eliminate the core problem of exploitation due to unequal ownership and control of the means of production, while retaining roles for private property and markets. It would entail two components: Guaranteed employment at living wages and democratic worker control of firms.
    Keywords: Inequality, Exploitation, Markets, Private property, Marx
    JEL: B51 P11 P16
    Date: 2018
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:amu:wpaper:2018-04&r=pke
  2. By: JOÃO PRATES ROMERO
    Date: 2018
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:anp:en2016:75&r=pke
  3. By: ANNA; LEONARDO WELLER
    Date: 2018
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:anp:en2016:94&r=pke
  4. By: Herweijer, Celine; Combes, Benjamin; Johnson, Leo; McCargow, Rob; Bhardwaj, Sahil; Jackson, Bridget; Ramchandani, Pia
    Abstract: The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) offers huge potential to transform and realign our economies and societies. There is an increasing realization that the 4IR could also exacerbate problems for people and the planet. The G20 should champion a holistic approach to the 4IR that helps to address society's environmental and social challenges. This means both mitigating unintended adverse consequences of change and maximizing positive social and environmental benefits. The G20 should explore, and recommend, governance structures and policy mechanisms to ensure governments have the agility and ability to keep pace with the 4IR, and harness innovations that promise the greatest social and environmental returns.
    Keywords: technology,structural policy,innovation,disruption,Fourth Industrial Revolution,environment,climate change,sustainability,externalities,social change,policy,economic transformation,structural change,governance,G20
    JEL: H11
    Date: 2018
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:ifwedp:201832&r=pke
  5. By: DANIELLE GUIZZO; IARA VIGO DE LIMA
    Date: 2018
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:anp:en2016:10&r=pke
  6. By: Ozcan, Rasim
    Abstract: Why nations fail? An answer is given by Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) by pointing out the importance of institutions for an economy that leads to innovations for economic growth. Christensen (2012) asks a similar question for a firm and diagnoses why companies fail. In this study, I relate Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) with Christensen (2012) in order to better understand how to make companies more prosperous, more powerful, healthier, and live longer via innovations.
    Keywords: Why Nations Fail, Why Companies Fail, Capitalist's Dilemma, Innovations, Boiling Frog Syndrome
    JEL: D02 D20 O10
    Date: 2018
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:85413&r=pke
  7. By: Ingrid Gould Ellen (New York University); Stephen L. Ross (University of Connecticut)
    Abstract: This paper provides the introduction to the special issue on Race and the City in the Journal of Housing Economics in 2018. The paper surveys relevant topics on racial and ethnic discrimination and residential segregation, and provides a more detailed discussion of the specific papers in the special issue. The paper primarily focuses on the literatures on discrimination in housing, on-line markets and policing. In terms of racial segregation, the paper discusses work related to the pattern of residential segregation and the causes and consequences of segregation.
    Keywords: Race, Ethnicity, Discrimination, Segregation, City, Urban
    JEL: J15 R20 R30 R50
    Date: 2018–04
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:uct:uconnp:2018-03&r=pke
  8. By: David N F Bell; David G Blanchflower
    Abstract: There remains a puzzle around the world over why wage growth is so benign given the unemployment rate has returned to pre-recession levels. It is our contention that a considerable part of the explanation is the rise in underemployment which rose in the Great Recession but has not returned to pre-recession levels even though the unemployment rate has. Involuntary part- time employment rose in every advanced country and remains elevated in many in 2018. In the UK we construct the Bell/Blanchflower underemployment index based on reports of whether workers, including full-timers and those who want to be part-time, who say they want to increase or decrease their hours at the going wage rate. If they want to change their hours they report by how many. Prior to 2008 our underemployment rate was below the unemployment rate. Over the period 2001-2017 we find little change in the number of hours of workers who want fewer hours, but a big rise in the numbers wanting more hours. Underemployment reduces wage pressure. We also provide evidence that the UK Phillips Curve has flattened and conclude that the UK NAIRU has shifted down. The underemployment rate likely would need to fall below 3%, compared to its current rate of 4.9% before wage growth is likely to reach pre-recession levels. The UK is a long way from full-employment.
    Keywords: underemployment, wage growth, natural rate of unemployment, Phillips curves
    JEL: J3 E1 E5
    Date: 2018–04
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nsr:niesrd:492&r=pke
  9. By: Nicola Coniglio; Davide Vurchio; Nicola Cantore; Michele Clara
    Abstract: The diversification of production and trade is considered almost unanimously a fundamental policy goal, particularly for developing economies whose export baskets are heavily concentrated on a few products. In what direction trade diversification ought to take place is, however, subject to fierce debate. The Product Space (PS) framework (Hausmann and Klinger, 2007; Hidalgo et al. 2007) is a recent contribution in the economic literature that has proved very influential in policy circles. It argues that the endowment of production capabilities (technologies, production factors, institutions etc.) determines what countries produce today but it also constrains what they can produce in the future as it is uncommon that countries develop a comparative advantage in goods that do not draw from the same pool of capabilities (unrelated products). Contributions along such line argue that defying the initial comparative advantage can be a risky policy decision with high probability of failure. The main objective of this contribution is to use a novel methodology to investigate whether the patterns of diversification of a sample of 177 countries over the period 1995-2015 conform or not to the prediction of the PS framework. We find evidence of a high degree of path-dependence but our analysis suggests also that a significant number of new products that entered countries' export baskets were unrelated to the initial productive specialization (path-defying changes). We shed light on the determinants of these 'radical' patterns of diversification and show they are associated with higher economic growth. The results of this study have important policy implications in particular for the design of industrial policies aimed at actively shaping countries' structural transformation.
    Keywords: path-dependence, product space, trade diversification, industrial policy
    JEL: F1 O1 O3
    Date: 2018–04
    URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:1818&r=pke

This nep-pke issue is ©2018 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 http://nep.repec.org. For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <director@nep.repec.org>. 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.