|
on Post Keynesian Economics |
| By: | Alexandros Koskinas (Department of Economics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece); Nikolaos Chatzarakis (Department of Economics, New School For Social Research, USA) |
| Abstract: | In the third volume of Capital (1894), Marx attempts to explain capitalist prices as a redistribution of an already created ‘wealth’ from the production process, along with profitability portraited as the ‘economic result’ of the exploitation of labor. To do so, he presented an algorithm for transforming the labor values into prices of production, which are defined in such a way as to follow the capitalist laws of exchange. Marx’s method was deemed inadequate, and attempts were made to ‘correct’ it, resulting to the well-known result of the impossibility of simultaneously satisfying the Marxian Equivalences (Bortkiewicz 1907). This shortcoming has led to a rich literature on the ‘transformation problem’, as well as to many different proposals for its solution; however, none of them has so far succeeded in being promoted as the undisputed solution to the ‘transformation problem’. In this paper, we argue that this limitation is not, as argued in the literature, a result of the futility of Labor Theory of Value to capture the exchange processes, but that of the identification of the (Sraffian) exchange prices with the (Marxian) prices of production. Moreover, we propose yet another solution to the ‘transformation problem’ by providing a new definition of prices of production, distinct from that of exchange prices, which consistently indicates a specific redistribution of the labor values in the process of circulation; under this definition, both equivalences posed by Marx are satisfied. Finally, we also present the main methods proposed to solve the (static) ‘transformation problem’ that are found in the literature, according to the interpretation they attribute to the transformation, and a numerical example, so as to distinguish them from the solution proposed in the paper. |
| Keywords: | Labor theory of value, transformation problem, prices of production |
| JEL: | B14 B24 B51 D46 |
| Date: | 2025–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:new:wpaper:2513 |
| By: | Cyril Benoît (CEE - Centre d'études européennes et de politique comparée (Sciences Po, CNRS) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Tim Vlandas (DSPI - Department of Social Policy and Intervention - University of Oxford) |
| Abstract: | What explains changes in the economic structures, institutions and policies of Advanced Capitalist Democracies (ACDs)? In this article, we suggest that the various answers to this question in the field of Comparative Political Economy (CPE) are essentially linked to two main approaches. The first approach emphasizes the role of electorates and political parties, their transformations, and their competition in shaping the evolution of ACDs. The second approach highlights the primacy of producer groups as the most powerful actors influencing the trajectory of ACDs. This review article introduces the debate between these two approaches and underscores its enduring relevance. It then discusses four recent important contributions that provide renewed perspectives on what remains a structuring cleavage in CPE, with implications for neighbouring fields in political science research. Through a systematic comparison of their analytical structure accross various dimensions, we show that their conception of the economy critically shapes their understanding of politics. |
| Keywords: | politics of growth, institutional change, electoral competition, producer groups, comparative political economy |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05218352 |
| By: | Leiashvily, Paata |
| Abstract: | The monograph is devoted to a theoretical rethinking of the processes of simple, expanded, and contracted reproduction in a market economy and to a critique of the methodological foundations of the System of National Accounts (SNA). It shows that the inclusion of depreciation in gross product, as established in the SNA, is a methodological error that distorts macroeconomic indicators. As an alternative, the study substantiates the necessity of calculating gross product on the basis of net capital formation. On the basis of Smith’s Dogma and a reconstruction of K. Marx’s schemes, the conditions of equivalent exchange are formulated with clarifications: rent is treated as an independent form of income, profit is divided into consumed and saved parts, and depreciation is interpreted as redistribution rather than newly created value. Special attention is given to the problem of unfinished capital goods production. The key result of the research is the application of the Symmetric Model, which extends the principle of interaction between the two departments in Marx’s schemes to the entire set of branches, including households. The model is built on the methodological foundations of second-order dialectics, second-order cybernetics, and social constructivism. It helps explain the nature of cycles and crises as immanent forms of the reproduction process under the conditions of spontaneous self-regulation of a competitive economy. A separate chapter is devoted to reproduction under monopolization and financialization. It shows that the concentration of profit and the redistribution of resources in favor of the financial sector undermine the circular organization of the economy, distort the equivalence of exchange, and reinforce structural imbalances. Monopolization, inequality, and financialization are considered as factors that drive the market economy into systemic crisis. The concluding part of the monograph discusses the possibilities of mathematical formalization of reproduction processes. The Symmetric Model provides a foundation for constructing dynamic systems that describe interactions between sectors and factors of production. This enables stability analysis, the identification of endogenous sources of cycles, and the design of regulatory methods based on simulation modeling. The Appendices include AI Commentaries, which demonstrate new possibilities for analyzing and interpreting complex economic problems with the assistance of AI. This format combines rigorous theoretical argumentation with elements of additional verification and methodological validation provided by AI. The work is intended for researchers and practitioners in economic theory, macroeconomics, and institutional analysis, as well as all those interested in reproduction, crises, and the reform of the SNA. |
| Keywords: | economic reproduction; Smith’s Dogma; schemes of simple, expanded, and contracted reproduction; depreciation and capital consumption; System of National Accounts (SNA) methodology; Symmetric Model of economic equilibrium; operational closure of economic systems; mechanisms of economic self-regulation; cyclical dynamics of reproduction; monopolization processes; dynamics of financialization. |
| JEL: | C62 D3 E32 |
| Date: | 2025–08–31 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:125995 |
| By: | Charlier, Niels; Tideman, Nicolaus |
| Abstract: | We begin this essay with an analysis of the criticism of orthodox economics from a philosophy of science and methodological point of view. Rather than idealized models, a careless definition of ”capital” appears to be the problem. We owe this careless definition to John Bates Clark (1847–1938). Clark introduced a new paradigm that proposed that land is not a separate factor of production, but only a form of capital. His theory was a reaction to the American economist and philosopher Henry George (1839–1879) who sold millions of books and was exceptionally popular. George advocated a substantial land value tax and influenced political debate for several decades in the Anglo-Saxon world and elsewhere. We sketch George’s ideas in their historical context and give an overview of his unappreciated impact on global scientific, political and cultural history. Finally, we also show George’s relevance in today’s world and provide a scientific and social critique of the Clark paradigm. |
| Date: | 2025–08–17 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:ep2a6_v1 |
| By: | Carina Altreiter (Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria); Theresa Hager (Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria; Socio-Ecological Transformation Lab, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria); Stephan Puehringer (Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria; Socio-Ecological Transformation Lab, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria) |
| Abstract: | Western societies face unprecedented interconnected crises—climate change, democratic instability, rising inequality, and growing science scepticism—that demand fundamental socio-ecological transformation within a compressed timeframe. However, current university systems, shaped by neoliberal restructuring and historically patriarchal logics, are structurally inadequate to support the critical research and societal engagement necessary for this transformation. This diminishes academia's relevance, exacerbating the post-truth crisis. We examine how competitive evaluation mechanisms, economic incentives and academic culture in contemporary academia hinder research conducive to socio-ecological transformations while perpetuating existing power structures and knowledge hierarchies. Through critical analysis of academic structures and knowledge production systems, drawing on existing literature across relevant fields, we build upon the concept of academic capitalism but extend it. We identify four interconnected pillars of what we term "capitalist academia": commodification of knowledge, publish-or-perish logic and competitization, social homogenization, and entrenched hierarchies. These structural features lead to a prioritization of individual competition over collaborative problem-solving, favor incremental research over transformative inquiry, and systematically exclude diverse perspectives essential for addressing complex socio-ecological challenges. Our analysis reveals how these structures of knowledge production not only fail to contribute meaningfully to societal transformation but actively contribute to reproducing the very systems that perpetuate ecological and social crises. We propose replacing these problematic pillars with four alternative principles—the "4Ds": Dialogue, Decommodification, Diversification, and Democratisation. This framework represents a pathway toward emancipatory academia that can meaningfully engage with socio-ecological transformation challenges while preserving scientific integrity. We also provide examples of existing initiatives and ideas where principles of the 4Ds are already in place, demonstrating practical pathways for reform and critically reflect on the adaptability of the current system of knowledge production. This research contributes to ongoing debates about academic reform while offering concrete directions for aligning higher education with sustainability imperatives and building the consensus needed for emancipatory socio-ecological transformation. |
| Date: | 2025–08 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ico:wpaper:164 |
| By: | Natasha Dawn Harris (Marymount University, USA); Darrell Norman Burrell (Marymount University, USA) |
| Abstract: | This narrative literature review interrogates the racialized dimensions of financial literacy in the United States, with a specific focus on the African American community. While conventional frameworks define financial literacy as a set of objective skills necessary for budgeting, saving, and investing, such approaches often overlook the socio-structural realities that constrain financial decision-making among marginalized populations. Drawing from a synthesis of empirical studies, policy reports, and theoretical literature, this review reconceptualizes financial literacy as a multidimensional construct shaped by systemic inequality, economic precarity, and adaptive expertise. Disparities in financial knowledge and capability are shown to be tightly linked to broader patterns of racial wealth stratification, income volatility, and discriminatory access to credit. Although African Americans demonstrate resourceful financial behavior, particularly in debt management, persistent gaps in areas such as insurance literacy and investment knowledge reflect both historical exclusion and contemporary neglect in financial education policy. The review critiques deficit-based models that ascribe financial fragility to individual failure, instead advocating for a more expansive approach of engagement, education, and strategy. This inquiry underscores the urgent need for equity-centered policies that go beyond instructional remedies to address the racialized architecture of economic opportunity. Ultimately, the findings call for a paradigmatic shift in how scholars, educators, and policymakers conceptualize, measure, and promote financial literacy in racially diverse contexts. |
| Keywords: | Financial Literacy, Racial Wealth Gap, African American Finance, Structural Inequality, Critical Financial Literacy, Financial Precarity, Financial Education Policy |
| Date: | 2025–06 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:smo:raiswp:0536 |
| By: | Oumayma El Rhrib (UIT - Université Ibn Tofaïl); Laila Bennis (UIT - Université Ibn Tofaïl) |
| Abstract: | Abstract: The term "geofinance" was first introduced by Charles Goldfinger in his book Geofinance: Understanding Financial Transformation in 1986, marking a turning point in the understanding of the interplay between finance and geopolitics. Geofinance, as a concept, has gradually taken shape in academic work, drawing particular attention for the way it links geopolitical forces with the behavior of global financial markets. In today's deeply interconnected economy, events such as armed conflicts, economic sanctions, or prolonged political instability can unsettle investors and shift market dynamics in ways that are both immediate and far-reaching. For this review, we worked within the PRISMA 2020 framework, narrowing the scope to 45 studies, journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings, after the final screening stage. These works were examined not only for the theories they propose, but also for the empirical methods they rely on. The analysis brings forward recurring patterns, the most notable advances, and the blind spots that remain in the literature, offering several directions that future studies could take to close those gaps. It particularly emphasizes the diversity of theoretical perspectives and empirical strategies applied to assess the financial repercussions of geopolitical tensions. By drawing on a broad range of interdisciplinary studies, this review contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which geopolitical shocks reverberate across financialsystems. The findings underscore the growing importance of geofinance as a theoretical framework and analytical tool for understanding the impact of geopolitical dynamics on financial markets and highlight the need for further research to better grasp this complex relationship. |
| Keywords: | Financial risk, Financial markets, Geopolitical events, Global finance, Geofinance |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05212199 |
| By: | Nikolaos Askitas |
| Abstract: | Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are moving into domains once seen as uniquely human—reasoning, synthesis, abstraction, and rhetoric. Addressed to labor economists and informed readers, this paper clarifies what is truly new about LLMs, what is not, and why it matters. Using an analogy to autoregressive models from economics, we explain their stochastic nature, whose fluency is often mistaken for agency. We situate LLMs in the longer history of human–machine outsourcing, from digestion to cognition, and examine disruptive effects on white-collar labor, institutions, and epistemic norms. Risks emerge when synthetic content becomes both product and input, creating feedback loops that erode originality and reliability. Grounding the discussion in conceptual clarity over hype, we argue that while GenAI may substitute for some labor, statistical limits will preserve a key role for human judgment. The question is not only how these tools are used, but which tasks we relinquish and how we reallocate expertise in a new division of cognitive labor. |
| Keywords: | generative artificial intelligence, large language models, autoregressive models, labor economics, technological change, automation and outsourcing, human–machine collaboration, knowledge work, epistemic norms, digital transformation |
| JEL: | J24 O33 O31 J22 D83 L86 J44 O38 |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12070 |