|
on Post Keynesian Economics |
| By: | Davis, John B. (Department of Economics Marquette University); (Department of Economics Marquette University) |
| Abstract: | Behavioral Macroeconomics draws on cognitive psychology’s errors and biases approach to argue that psychological factors acting on individual choice affect how the economy functions. Keynes drew on psychology in his ‘beauty contest’ account of convention to explain individual investor expectations in terms of the average expectation of all investors. This assumes individual investors identify with the group of all investors, anticipating social psychology social identity analysis. Kaleckian Post-Keynesian Economics focuses on distributional conflict between capital and labor. This also assumes individual capitalists and laborers identify with groups of capitalists and laborers. Stratification Economics makes social group identity the basis on which economies operate as systems of intergroup inequalities. This raises two related questions: what role do economic agents’ perceptions of their social identities have in explaining economies, and what does this imply for the Keynesian understanding of the income determination process and economic policy recommendation? This chapter discusses how social identity is understood in Stratification Economics to answer these questions. |
| Keywords: | Behavioral macroeconomics, Keynes' 'beauty contest, ' social group identity, HANK models, Kaleckian Post-Keynesian economics, Stratification economics, Keynesian income determination |
| JEL: | B22 D01 D91 E11 E12 E71 Z13 |
| Date: | 2026–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mrq:wpaper:2026-02 |
| By: | Marián Suchánek (Masaryk University, Faculty of Economics and Administration); Ján Krchňavý (Masaryk University, Faculty of Economics and Administration) |
| Abstract: | The nature of money is within the discipline of economics typically analysed merely by way of listing its functions grounded in properties of money things. But the discourse has recently more explicitly turned to addressing this foundational question of “What is money?” from the perspective of social ontology that sees money as a social phenomenon. We argue that any such venture should be able to account for the hierarchical structure of money. This argument integrates three distinct aspects of money i.) that in any community there is usually not one but multiple kinds of money; ii.) that these monies are of different qualities and therefore are structured within a hierarchy, and iii.) that these qualitative differences that distinguish individual kinds of money ultimately pertain to the rights and obligations that define each form of money. Building on recent debates about the hierarchy of money in economics—particularly The Money View and Modern Money Theory—this paper seeks to extend these discussions into the domain of social ontology, using the framework of social positioning developed by the Cambridge Social Ontology Group. |
| Keywords: | money; institutions; hierarchy of money; social ontology; money view; social positioning theory |
| JEL: | E42 B41 Z13 E51 |
| Date: | 2026–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mub:wpaper:2026-03 |
| By: | Davis, John B. (Department of Economics Marquette University); (Department of Economics Marquette University) |
| Abstract: | W. E. B. Du Bois and Thorstein Veblen employed the concept of relative position. Du Bois' thinking reflects how for Stratification economics people's relative positions explain racial discrimination and segregation. Veblen reflects how for Institutionalist economics people's relative positions explain the role institutions have in the evolution of the economy. Racism in the US marginalized Du Bois' contributions, leaving a divide between his and Veblen's thinking and also between Stratification economics and Institutionalist economics. This has limited the perceived importance of the concept of relative position in economics, leaving it with the 'position-less' asocial individualism of Neoclassical-mainstream economics. This paper compares Du Bois and Veblen's conceptions of the concept of relative position and discusses the potential common ground it creates for Stratification economics and Institutionalist economics. |
| Keywords: | relative position, Du Bois, Veblen, racism, Stratification economics, Institutionalist economics |
| JEL: | B15 B31 B41 Z13 |
| Date: | 2026–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mrq:wpaper:2026-01 |
| By: | Obregon Diaz, Carlos Federico |
| Abstract: | This paper presents a theoretical framework integrating artificial intelligence (AI), institutional economics, and the concept of belonging. It argues that AI, while representing a major technological innovation, lacks autonomous agency because it is not grounded in biological evolution or emotional structures. As a result, its economic and social effects depend on institutional configurations and patterns of participation. The paper analyzes the implications of AI for labor markets, income distribution, and social cohesion, emphasizing the role of middle-class formation and effective participation in sustaining stable development paths. It proposes that AI can either reinforce exclusionary equilibria or support inclusive growth depending on institutional design. The framework contributes to development theory and political economy by incorporating belonging as a foundational determinant of economic outcomes. |
| Keywords: | Artificial Intelligence; Philosophy of Belonging; Emotions; Human Intelligence; Social Ontology; Institutional Economics; Economy of Belonging; Middle Class; Technological Change; Automation; Labor Markets; Inequality; Power and Domination; Evolutionary Psychology; Digital Capitalism; AI Ethics; Social Belonging; Development Economics; Political Economy; Affective Simulation |
| JEL: | D02 D91 I31 J24 J31 O33 O40 P16 |
| Date: | 2026–04–17 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:128759 |
| By: | Shekhtman, Boris M. |
| Abstract: | The aim of this article is to demonstrate the theoretical incoherence and practical futility of the longstanding public debate “Capitalism vs. Socialism”. The paper offers a conceptual and theoretical analysis of the term “socialism” within the framework of Marx’s philosophical–economic theory. It argues that contemporary discussions of capitalism and socialism are distorted by entrenched terminological errors that were consolidated and institutionalised within the Soviet ideological model, whose influence continues to shape political and intellectual discourse today. By drawing a systematic distinction between Marx’s scientific theory—comprising dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and political economy—and the ideological construct developed during the Soviet period and commonly known as Marxism, the author demonstrates that the concept of a “socialist social formation” is theoretically inconsistent and lacks any foundation within the framework of historical materialism. The analysis shows that, according to Marx’s theoretical system, the type of social formation is determined by the mode of production and, therefore, by the type of labour employed. From this standpoint, both private and state ownership are capitalist in character when the production process is based on wage labour. Hence, the so-called “socialist” states of the twentieth century should be regarded as systems of absolute state capitalism—a form of capitalism in which the state is the sole and monopolistic owner of all means of production. The article further argues that the modern use of the term “socialism” results from a semantic substitution: instead of denoting a theoretically invalid type of social formation, it now refers to a social function of the capitalist state—namely, redistributive policy within the capitalist economic system. Clarifying these distinctions enables a more accurate understanding of Marx’s theoretical legacy and shows that, unlike the ideological doctrine of Marxism, his philosophical–economic theory supports rather than rejects the principles of a free society: private property, free labour, and economic efficiency. |
| Keywords: | Capitalism, Socialism, Soviet Marxist ideology, terminological confusion, Marx’s philosophical–economic theory, Historical Materialism, wage labour, Absolute State Capitalism, Semantic Substitution, free society. |
| JEL: | B24 P12 P2 |
| Date: | 2026–04–23 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:128837 |
| By: | Luca Zamparelli (Department of Social Sciences and Economics, Sapienza University, Italy) |
| Abstract: | This paper develops a growth model that integrates automation, conceptualized as a distinct form of "automation capital", into a Classical–Marxian framework characterized by an institutionally given real wage and an endogenous labor supply. Automation capital and labor are perfect substitutes, while the two are perfect complements with traditional capital. Capitalists allocate savings between investment in traditional and automation capital. Below a critical investment share in automation, the economy converges to a balanced growth path, characterized by stable income distribution and a negative relationship between automation and the labor share. Beyond it, the economy tends toward full automation and a null wage share. Automation’s effect on growth is regime-dependent: it accelerates growth under high wages but retards it under low wages. Consequently, profit-maximizing capitalists with an infinite horizon choose full automation under high wages and none under low wages. With a finite horizon in a low-wage regime, they may adopt limited automation, trading immediate distributional gains against long-run growth. A strategic union, valuing both wages and employment growth, will set a low wage to preempt full automation, leading to an equilibrium with partial or no automation depending on the capitalists’ planning horizon. |
| Date: | 2026–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:new:wpaper:2604 |
| By: | Obregon Diaz, Carlos Federico |
| Abstract: | This paper develops the Economics of Belonging as a structural extension of the capability approach. It proposes that capabilities are not primary units of analysis but outcomes of institutional belonging, defined as effective participation within institutional structures. The analysis integrates institutional economics, social choice theory, mechanism design, and game theory to demonstrate that aggregation from individual states is structurally infeasible under incomplete information and multiple equilibria. A dynamic framework is developed in which belonging drives effective demand and sustained economic growth through middle-class expansion. The paper contributes to development theory by providing a unified institutional and relational framework linking participation, demand, and long-term growth. |
| Keywords: | Economics of Belonging; Institutions; Effective Demand; Economic Development; Social Choice; Game Theory; Middle Class |
| JEL: | B41 D02 O11 O43 |
| Date: | 2026–04–21 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:128817 |