|
on Post Keynesian Economics |
| By: | Gabriel Mathy |
| Abstract: | Scroogenomics (Waldfogel 2009) alleges that Christmas gift-giving is inefficient, due to the recipient of the gift being better able to spend money on themselves than someone else could, creating a deadweight loss. However, this ignores the seasonal nature of Christmas, which falls in a slack time in the depths of winter. The additional spending on presents has a stimulative effect, lifting incomes when additional income is valuable. The seasonal boost of Christmas is often lost in seasonal adjustment, but it is significant. I also show how declining family size also reduces gift-giving for Christmas, potentially biasing estimates of the income-elasticity of Christmas as in Waldfogel (2023). |
| Keywords: | Keynesian economics, Spending Multiplier, Christmas |
| JEL: | E12 E21 Z12 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:amu:wpaper:2024-01&r=pke |
| By: | Trezzini, Attilio; Salvati, Luigi |
| Abstract: | Kaleckian models can be considered as the most relevant set of theoretical works which study growth as a demand-led phenomenon. In these models, the pace of accumulation depends on demand expansion and on different measures of capital profitability. The relevance of the latter is generally assumed without any in-depth scrutiny of theoretical principles. This article identifies the theoretical underpinnings of this alleged dependence and reconsiders and develops the criticisms of them which can be found in the literature. This analysis leads to argue that this fundamental assumption of the Kaleckian models is not sufficiently argued as much as its cruciality would require. |
| Keywords: | Investment-profit relation; Kaleckian models; Demand-led growth |
| JEL: | E11 E22 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:120163&r=pke |
| By: | BRILLANT, Lucy |
| Abstract: | The purpose of the paper is to rescue Irving Fisher’s theorizing of the yield curve (1896, 1907, 1930) from relative obscurity and to contrast it with the better known and equally pioneering theory of John Maynard Keynes (1930, 1936). The paper also adduces evidence that Fed economists and the U.S. monetary experience in the 1920s greatly influenced these authors, both of whom were concerned with the management of the long-term interest rate. |
| Date: | 2024–01–26 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:9hf8z&r=pke |
| By: | Rylan Chinnock (Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts); Roberto Veneziani (School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary University of London); Naoki Yoshihara (Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts) |
| Abstract: | In this paper we review recent developments in axiomatic studies of Marxian exploitation theory. First, given the acute controversy over the formal definition of exploitation during the 1970-1990s, we review the study of the axiomatic framework, which identifies some fundamental properties – technically, domain conditions – that any definition of exploitation should satisfy. Moreover, we provide a survey on the axiomatic studies about the proper measures of exploitation which coherently preserve the basic Marxian perceptions represented by two axioms, Profit- Exploitation Correspondence Principle and Class-Exploitation Correspondence Principle. Finally, we examine the relevance of the labour theory of value in these axiomatic studies of the proper measures of exploitation. |
| Keywords: | Axiomatic analysis; Labour Exploitation; Profit-Exploitation Correspondence Principle; Class-Exploitation Correspondence Principle; Labour Theory of Value. |
| JEL: | D63 D51 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:qmw:qmwecw:972&r=pke |
| By: | Roberto Veneziani (School of Economics & Finance, Queen Mary University of London); Gilbert L. Skillman (Department of Economics, Wesleyan University) |
| Abstract: | Fabio Petri’s Microeconomics for the Critical Mind (2021) is an impressive tour de force in the field of microeconomic theory. It manifests the author’s command of cutting edge analytical tools, concepts, and theoretical approaches both in the mainstream and in the heterodox literature. The book aims to show that the neo-Ricardian approach, as augmented by the Keynesian/Kaleckian account of demand-constrained equilibrium, is a viable -- indeed, superior -- alternative to mainstream theory. While the book is effective in identifying current shortcomings of mainstream equilibrium and welfare analysis (many of which were first identified in the mainstream literature), it does not provide a rigorous demonstration that these or related difficulties are clearly avoided by the surplus approach, or that the latter is completely consistent with phenomena such as persistent unemployment. This is primarily a consequence of Petri’s central distinction between “core” and “out-of-core” analysis, which offers no unified or clearly articulated basis for deriving or characterizing general equilibrium outcomes. In lieu of such foundations, Petri discusses a portfolio of analytically unconnected formal and informal narratives, some of which rely on the very theoretical constructs that he criticizes the mainstream for employing. |
| Keywords: | economic theory, general equilibrium, stability, normative economics. |
| JEL: | D5 D6 B5 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:qmw:qmwecw:973&r=pke |
| By: | Julia M. Puaschunder (Columbia University, USA) |
| Abstract: | Heterodox science challenges orthodox science. Unorthodox science approaches are heterodox if they apply more unconventional, pluralistic views and methods than the leading orthodox tradition. Heterodox science has been practiced ever since science exists. Heterodox scientists have been fundamental drivers of change through pluralistic innovations in many different fields, such as astronomy, physics, economics as well as behavioral sciences, to name a few. Heterodox science can stem from methodological pluralism in acknowledging and applying different methods than conventional science. Heterodox science can also be a reality check in questioning the validity of prevailing results and state-of-the-art methods. The internal validity gets backtested by replication, which has led to scientific advancements in many fields, most recently notable in the widely discussed replication crisis in behavioral economics. he external validity gets evaluated in a reality check of stylized artificial models for applicability to real-world contexts. For instance, historically external validity tests opened the gates for groundbreaking advancements in physics, macroeconomics as well as behavioral insights. In all these accomplishments of heterodox science approaches though, it is also to note that not all heterodox scientists are successful and sometimes they are doomed to be left on the periphery of discussion and not become influential parts of vibrant communities. This paper addresses the question of why heterodox scientists are sometimes successful in breaking new trends and sometimes they are left in the periphery of scientific discourse and do not claim a leadership role. The paper argues that obstacles for heterodox scientists arise if they engage in the following behavior: (1) an obsessive focus on the critique, which can detach socially; (2) an obsessive focus on discrimination of excellence in trying to bring down those who are in power dominating fields and thereby being distracted from contributing to science in better ways of doing research or providing new results; as well as in (3) colleague amnesia and motivated forgetting of citing colleagues, which harms networking advantages and creates silos of knowledge and self-reinforcing echo-chambers in inefficiently one-dimensional school-thinking. The paper closes by providing recommendations for heterodox scientists, who aspire to become leaders-in-the-field, in pointing at positive critique mechanisms in only commenting on research if being able to show a way how to do it better. Science diplomacy can help educate upcoming researchers to offer critique constructively and in a tactful way. Embracing excellence in honest acknowledgment of colleagues’ accomplishments and whole-hearted efforts to see others’ points of view as well as collaboration attempts with leading scholars are additional strategies to break through with heterodox thoughts without discriminating against excellence. Science advancements to improve the gap between the orthodox and heterodox world include heterodox science ethics and science diplomacy solutions. Open discussions and democratization of knowledge creation can complement the few key journals per field through additional online outlets with international and pluralistic outlooks. Incentivizing collaborations that bridge the divide between orthodox and heterodox scientists is another institutionally-implementable strategy to foster scientific advancement through heterodox ideas. Raising awareness for the concept of colleague amnesia as the motivated forgetting of colleagues’ work appears as a favorable institutional move and proactive community standard that can make science a better, more inclusively innovative world. |
| Keywords: | Advancement of Science, Collaboration, Colleague Amnesia, Cooperation, Discrimination of Excellence, Economics, Ethics, Heterodox Leadership, Heterodox Science Ethics, Interdisciplinary Research, Motivated Forgetting, Leadership, Orthodox Science, Pluralism, Science, Science Diplomacy |
| Date: | 2023–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:smo:raiswp:0281&r=pke |
| By: | Nastasi, Federico; Spagano, Salvatore |
| Abstract: | The Brazilian economist Celso Furtado escapes from the traditional distinctions among different schools of thought. Indeed, he made large use of tools from various proveniences according to a pragmatic approach. Nonetheless, this paper shows that his work also contains several characteristic elements of the institutionalist tradition. In the early 1960s, Furtado placed institutions at the centre of his analysis of the evolution of the economic history. Moreover, he rejected the kind of determinism that follows a concept of choice entirely dependent on the utility-maximizing rationality. Coherently, he opposed the New Institutional Economics as an example of neoclassical retread of institutional issues. Finally, and especially, even without theorizing it, he adopted the institutionalised individual as an economic agent. This choice, rather than that of the homo oeconomicus, implied assuming an agent able to shape institutions that, in turn, influence human behaviours according to a downward cumulative causation. |
| Keywords: | Furtado, Structuralism, Institutionalism |
| JEL: | B2 |
| Date: | 2023–02–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:120242&r=pke |