nep-pke New Economics Papers
on Post Keynesian Economics
Issue of 2021‒07‒12
five papers chosen by
Karl Petrick
Western New England University

  1. From Capital to Property: History and Justice in the Work of Thomas Piketty By Nicolas Brisset; Benoît Walraevens
  2. The distributive cycle: Evidence and current debates By Jose Barrales-Ruiz, Ivan Mendieta-Muñoz, Codrina Rada, Daniele Tavani, Rudiger von Arnim
  3. Reconciling Normative and Behavioural Economics: The Problem that Cannot be Solved By Guilhem Lecouteux
  4. Gender equality and fragility By Seve Loudon; Charlotte Goemans; Diana Koester
  5. Public Policies And The Art Of Catching Up By Giovanni Dosi; Andrea Roventini; Emmanuele Russo

  1. By: Nicolas Brisset (Université Côte d'Azur, France; GREDEG, CNRS); Benoît Walraevens (Université de Caen-Normandie, France; CREM, CNRS)
    Abstract: This article reviews Thomas Piketty's latest book, Capital and Ideology (2020). We begin by placing the work in the context of the thesis developed by the author in his previous works, before pointing out a number of limitations. We first question Piketty's way of thinking about capitalism, before discussing his theory of ideology. Finally, we will try to define the scope and limits of Piketty's vision of overcoming capitalism, that is, his vision of a just society, a "participatory socialism", as it is presented in the last chapter of the book.
    Keywords: Thomas Piketty, Capitalism, Property, Ideology, Social Justice
    JEL: B4 B51 D63 N01
    Date: 2021–06
  2. By: Jose Barrales-Ruiz, Ivan Mendieta-Muñoz, Codrina Rada, Daniele Tavani, Rudiger von Arnim
    Abstract: This paper surveys current debates on the distributive cycle. The literature builds on R.M. Goodwin’s seminal 1967 chapter titled “A growth cycle.” We review theoretical motivations for the distributive cycle, which, despite signif-icant differences, all imply that macroeconomic activity leads the labor share in a counter-clockwise cycle in the activity-labor share plane. Subsequently, we summarize and update evidence on the existence of a distributive cycle, with a focus on the post-war US macroeconomy. We analyze activity and labor share series and their interaction in the frequency domain, and also employ stan-dard vector autoregressions. Results confirm the distributive cycle for the US post-war period. We contextualize results vis-`a-vis current debates: (1) we consider a financial cycle, to rebut the theoretical possibility of “pseudo-Goodwin” cycles, (2) demonstrate that a suppressed labor share and stagnation are com-patible with short run Goodwin cycles, and argue that this link presents the way forward for research on secular stagnation.
    Keywords: Distributive cycle; US labor share of income; neo-Goodwin. JEL Classification:E12; E24; E25; E32.
    Date: 2021
  3. By: Guilhem Lecouteux (Université Côte d'Azur; GREDEG CNRS)
    Abstract: Behavioural economics has challenged the normative consensus that agents ought to choose following their own preferences. I argue that normative economists implicitly defended a criterion of the sovereignty of the autonomous consumer, and that current debates in normative behavioural economics arise from disagreements about the nature of the threats to autonomy that are highlighted by behavioural economics. I argue that those disagreements result from diverging ontological conceptions of the ‘self’ in the literature. I distinguish between the unitary, psychodynamic, and socio-historical conceptions of the self, and show how different positive theories about preferences and the nature of the agent may determine normative positions in normative behavioural economics.
    Keywords: preference satisfaction, autonomy, welfare, reconciliation problem, sociohistorical self
    JEL: B40 D02 D60 D91
    Date: 2021–06
  4. By: Seve Loudon (OECD); Charlotte Goemans (OECD); Diana Koester
    Abstract: Gender equality and fragility are inextricably linked. Addressing issues of gender inequality in fragile contexts requires systematic approaches that work through the complexity of fragility. It requires contextual understanding of social norms, political sensitivities, environmental concerns, and other risks that continue to perpetuate fragility. As part of the 2020 States of Fragility series, this working paper unpacks the deep‑rooted linkages between gender inequalities and fragility; provides an analysis of gender within the current OECD Fragility Framework; and looks to areas of improvement for understanding and addressing these inequalities.
    JEL: D74 D63 F50 J16
    Date: 2021–07–06
  5. By: Giovanni Dosi (LEM - Laboratory of Economics and Management - SSSUP - Scuola Universitaria Superiore Sant'Anna [Pisa]); Andrea Roventini; Emmanuele Russo (SSSUP - Scuola Universitaria Superiore Sant'Anna [Pisa])
    Abstract: In this paper, we study the effects of industrial policies on international convergence using a multi-country agent-based model which builds upon Dosi et al. (2019b). The model features a group of microfounded economies, with evolving industries, populated by heterogeneous firms that compete in international markets. In each country, technological change is driven by firms' activities of search and innovation, while aggregate demand formation and distribution follows Keynesian dynamics. Interactions among countries take place via trade flows and international technological imitation. We employ the model to assess the different strategies that laggard countries can adopt to catch up with leaders: market-friendly policies;industrial policies targeting the development of firms' capabilities and R&D investments, as well as trade restrictions for infant industry protection; protectionist policies focusing on tariffs only. We find that markets cannot do the magic: in absence of government interventions, laggards will continue to fall behind. On the contrary, industrial policies can successfully drive international convergence among leaders and laggards, while protectionism alone is not necessary to support catching up and countries get stuck in a sort of middle-income trap. Finally, in a global trade war, where developed economies impose retaliatory tariffs, both laggards and leaders are worse off and world productivity growth slows down.
    Keywords: Endogenous growth,Catching up,Technology-gaps,Industrial policies,Agent-based models
    Date: 2020–05–06

This nep-pke issue is ©2021 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.