James K. Galbraith's Veblen-Commons award

Ritual and prestige among the Institutionalists

Jamie got the Veblen-Commons award, something his father received back in 1976. I introduced him, and as expected discussed a bit his contributions to economics, and the understanding of institutions. His most important contributions are on the field of inequality, and the work he has done with the University of Texas Inequality Project (UTIP).

There are many contributions that Jamie and UTIP have made. His use of the UNIDO payroll data, that he noted in his Godley-Tobin Lecture, has significant advantages over tax records and household survey data, and provides a different picture of global inequality. His use of the Theil decomposition is also original and provides new insights on inequality. And there is the more important contribution, his preoccupation with the macro-foundations of distribution theory.

I suggested, however, that perhaps his most provocative contribution to the understanding of economics and the evolution of institutions is in his notion of the Predator State, that in which private interest has taken over the commanding heights to promote the looting of what is left of the New Deal and Great Society project. This notion harks back to his father's famous trilogy -- American Capitalism, The Affluent Society and The New Industrial State (NIS), in particular the latter.

The evolution of of the bureaucratic state that was disappearing as his father wrote about it -- NIS was published in 1967 -- and its transformation into a predatory machine of the elites is central to understand inequality.

The New School for Social Research at 100: A view from the Econ. Dept.

From a late 1990s catalogue; Lance Taylor (center), and also in no particular order

and from what I can remember (Ellen Houston, Adalmir Marquetti, myself (with goaty

on the left side), Margaret Duncan, Josh Bivens and Carlos Bastos (Orozco Room)

The New School for Social Research was founded 100 years ago by a group of academics dissatisfied with the direction of American higher education. Economics was central to the early history of the New School, and my brief, very incomplete, and certainly idiosyncratic historical account emphasizes the Economics Department of what used to be called the Graduate Faculty.

Thorstein Veblen, one of the founders, had written his famous Higher Learning in America, which in a sense is the original critique of the corporate university. The idea was to put learning at the center, and avoid the conventional trappings of universities, with no degrees provided to students. The foundations of the critical perspectives provided at the New School came from institutionalists (like Veblen), pragmatists, represented by another prominent founder, namely John Dewey, and revisionism in history, with Charles Beard as its main voice at the new institution. Many came from Columbia University and were dissatisfied with both institutions of higher education and the direction the country had taken, in particular with World War I. These were mostly anti-war, progressive social scientists.

Perhaps the key person at the inception of the New School was Alvin Johnson, a somewhat difficult to classify economist (Gonçalo Fonseca at the HET website suggests that he might be seen as Austrian), that has been almost completely forgotten. Johnson was the editor of the massive Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, later substituted by the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (last edition under Sandy Darity, and I have two entries on Export Promotion and James Mill), which put him in contact with several economists around the world, many in Germany.

A group of scholars that he met as the editor of the encyclopedia was the basis for the so-called University in Exile, which eventually was the basis for the Graduate Faculty, the division that now still is called the New School for Social Research (while the whole is just The New School, if I do understand the naming changes at my alma mater). The most important and cohesive group of economists that arrived at the New School in 1933, and the following years, escaping persecution in Nazi Germany, were the ones related to the Kiel School, including Gerhard Colm (on Colm I co-authored this paper with Luca Fiorito), Adolph Lowe, Jacob Marschak, and Hans Neisser. In that group, Lowe, the mentor to Robert Heilbroner, was to be the more consequential for the New School.

The New School was not orthodox in its economic teaching, but the 1930s were a period of flux in the profession. The Keynesian Revolution was in course, and Keynes was acquainted with Johnson and the New School, as it can be seen in the letter he gave to H. G. Bab (see below; click to amplify). In that sense, while it is true that the place was somewhat unorthodox, given its origins and the historical period in question, that should not be exaggerated. Note that Marschak went on to be the head of the Cowles Commission, and a leading mainstream economist. While at the New School he supervised Franco Modigliani's doctoral thesis, which was the basis for his famous neoclassical synthesis paper of an ISLM model with rigid wages and for his Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

The New School, more enjoyable and compatible people than at Columbia, for sure (click to enlarge)

I say this because there is a tendency to think of the New School as being always heterodox, and taking that term to have more or less a contemporary meaning (for what I mean about that go here; for a great and more in depth discussion see this post by Ingrid Kvangraven and Carolina Alves). Many others taught at the New School in this period, perhaps, worth mentioning is the case of Abba Lerner, the main author of the functional finance school (something that is at the core of Modern Money Theory, but is more restrictive and specific than MMT).

The Kiel School was what one could term eclectic. They certainly had roots on elements of the German Historical School, and readings of marginalist and non-marginalist authors, including Marxists. Gonçalo puts Tugan-Baranovsky as one of the influences on the Kiel School. Tugan, a "semi-critic of Marx" according to Schumpeter, argued that a disproportion between the investment and consumption goods sectors would lead to recurrent industrial crises, and that notion of structural imbalances was central for Kiel authors. Leontief was also connected to the Kiel School.

While many in the Kiel School were open to and used marginalist concepts, as in the case of institutionalists, not all were neoclassical, and Lowe's views arguably were the most clearly connected to the works of the old classical political economists. Ed Nell, in the appendix to Lowe's book The Path of Economic Growth compares it with Leontief, Von Neumann, and Sraffa, as being classically inspired. One can think of Ed's Transformational Growth research program as building on that tradition.

But it would be a stretch to suggest that Bob Heilbroner, Lowe's main disciple at the New School, and the next key person in the history of the Economics Department at the Graduate Faculty, was a follower of classical political economy. A cursory reading of his classic, The Worldly Philosophers, shows that his reading of Smith is perfectly compatible modern mainstream readings, which imply that Smith was a precursor of supply and demand theories. The chapter on Smith discusses the law of markets, but the labor theory of value only makes an appearance in the chapter on Marx, and to suggest that it was a deviation from Smith and Ricardo. The degree to which Heilbroner conflates classical and marginalist or neoclassical theory is clear in that he argues that the Walrasian circular-flow in Schumpeter's theory resembles Ricardo's stationary state. And in the discussion of Schumpeter's notion of profit he suggests, regarding the labor theory of value, that "everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with."*

Further, his views on economic growth, as evidenced in his book on the economics history of the Unites States, were essentially that growth was supply-side constrained and dependent on technological innovation, in ways that seem to be closer to his Harvard undergraduate teacher, Joseph Schumpeter, than classical political economy authors (Smith had, arguably, a demand driven view of growth, at least for some, while Ricardo most certainly didn't, and Marx is open to many different views; I'll keep that to another post). I emphasize this to show that even if he was unorthodox in many ways, Bob was not necessarily what we would term heterodox in the modern sense of the word (even if taken loosely as not being neoclassical).** In my view, no clear heterodox bias existed up to the 1960s, in a department that had basically been under the shadow of three economists, Johnson, Lowe and Heilbroner. Note that this somewhat eclectic persistence of different approaches was more or less common in many departments at that time.

But the Johnson-Lowe-Heilbroner nexus provided the basis for the changes that shaped the department with the arrival of Ed Nell in the late 1960s. Ed had worked with Hicks at Oxford, and he was from early on critical of methodological individualism, something that is clear from his critique of the concept of the rational economic man. More importantly he was concerned with growth, and that led to a discussion of the theories of value and distribution (perhaps influenced by Hicks' Capital and Growth, which remains an important book), and was influenced by Sraffa's revival of classical political economy. It was after Ed arrived that a series of new hires, among them Stephen Hymer, Anwar Shaikh, and David Gordon, changed the department. Note that the late 1960s and early 1970s too is the period in which the economics profession segregates the heterodox groups, makes it harder for radicals to get tenure in conventional and prestigious departments (e.g. Sam Bowles at Harvard), and publishing requires the foundation of new journals (e.g Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, and the Cambridge Journal of Economics).

In my view, it is no coincidence that this is also when the change in the notion of equilibrium, as discussed by Garegnani, takes place (some discussion of that here). The point is that the capital debates had shown the limits of marginalist (neoclassical) economics, and the profession embraced what I have referred to as vulgar economics after that. The hiring of heterodox economists, critical of the mainstream in this period, and the sociology of academia, locked in heterodox hegemony at the Econ. Dept. of the Graduate Faculty.

Many other heterodox economists taught at the New School's Econ. Dept. from that point onwards. I might note Paul Sweezy, which if I'm not wrong was instrumental in making Bob Pollin choose the New School for his PhD, was among the teachers in the 1970s. And also many Sraffians like Piero Garegnani, John Eatwell, taught on a recurring basis, while many were visitors for shorter periods. Again, somewhat idiosyncratically, in my view it is the arrival of Lance Taylor in 1993 and a few years later of Duncan Foley that consolidated the persistence of the heterodoxy, and the type of heterodox department (with a mix of structural Keynesianism and Marxism), that the New School has today.

Perhaps, it is important to emphasize how limited this story is. There is a missing story about the role of David Gordon, who was also a key player in the department for many decades, and of Anwar Shaikh, that I always saw as somewhat of an influential outsider (maybe I'm wrong), even by the New School standards. And also the many other wonderful and creative heterodox economists that passed through the New School over the years. There is a question about the gender imbalances at the New School, and within heterodoxy itself, that I do not address. I'll explicitly avoid saying any additional names, since in this way I cannot be accused of forgetting someone (I'm leaving out a ton, including the many alumni that went on to remarkable careers). Hopefully this provides a window on how the New School became heterodox and why it remains so.

* It should be noted that Bob's book was published in 1953, a few years before the labor theory of value was rehabilitated by Sraffa's Production of Commodities.

** On a personal note, I remember talking to Bob on an interval of a conference organized by Ed Nell on functional finance, in 1997, I think, in which he argued that the Maastricht limits (3 per cent for deficits, and 60 per cent for debt) were reasonable measures to constrain the size of government. He was a liberal in an older sense of the word, perhaps.

Mitchell and Clark on the business cycles

Starting my seminar on business cycles this week. Mainly theories and then a discussion of both Great Depression and Recession. In the US the original authority, and the intellectual driving force of the analysis of the cycle which started at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), was undoubtedly Wesley Clair Mitchell. The figure above comes from an early analysis of global cycles published in the New York Times back in 1926 (subscription required). The Times quotes him saying that there was: "a trend in the direction of a world economy in which all nations will prosper or suffer together." In other words, a tendency to a global cycle.

In fact, Mitchell is often remembered more as a founder of the NBER and of the quantification of business cycles than his role as a disciple of Veblen and a founder of American Institutionalism.* His institutionalism, however, is often reduced to empiricism. In other words, Mitchell generally is not considered as a theorist. Howard Sherman suggests (subscription required), however, that: "embedded in his theory, but not made explicit in those terms, is a theory of the multiplier and the accelerator." In other words, a Keynesian approach to the cycle.**

This is consistent with the work we published with Luca Fiorito on another institutionalist from Columbia, namely: John Maurice Clark. As we noted then, the fact that the less mechanical, and also non-neoclassical version of Keynesian ideas, basically in contrast to the so-called Neoclassical Synthesis, was relegated to secondary status in the US in part explains how Keynesianism was reduced to a simple case of rigidities and imperfections. Not surprisingly the multiplier-accelerator interaction as the basis of the cycle, even though the empirical evidence for both components is strong, is not part of the mainstream macroeconomic textbooks.

* He was also one of the founders of the New School for Social Research in 1919.

** Mind you he did write with Arthur Burns, who eventually became a Monetarist associated with Milton Friedman and the chairman of the Fed, a famous NBER book on the cycle.

Classic Paper by Arestis & Eichner: "The Post-Keynesian and Institutionalist Theory of Money and Credit"

Recently, (see here) Matias posted a link to Fred Lee's collection of a classic set of by papers by the late Alfred S. Eichner. He mentioned that this not a complete set of Eichner's remarkable work, and that there are plenty of other exceptional pieces; in particular is Eichner's paper with Philip Arestis: "The Post-Keynesian and Institutionalist Theory of Money and Credit." This work has influenced my research tremendously (especially concerning the authors adherence to the tradition of Veblenian Institutionalism, and their emphasis of an 'open-systems' approach to political economy).

From the Introduction (which is worth quoting at length):

The purpose of this article is two-fold: first, to identify the main elements of what constitutes post-Keynesian and institutionalist monetary theory and, second, to put forward a model general enough to encapsulate most, if not all, of the constituent elements of the post-Keynesian and institutionalist theory of money and credit. One further novel aspect of this article is that we account for the possibility of the openness of economic systems. This is an aspect that has been ignored by the literature on both post-Keynesian and institutionalist economics. 

The emphasis in post-Keynesian and institutionalist monetary theory is on the proposition that "Monetary economics cannot help being institutional economics" [Minsky 1982, p. 280] and that "Capitalism is a monetary economy" [Dilland 1987, p. 1641]. In this view money capital is an institution that is inseparable from the other institutions that comprise economic systems. Money is not merely a medium of exchange. It is tightly linked to the behavior of the enterprise sector and the economy as a whole. Therefore, the basic theme in this approach is inevitably, "The Monetary Theory of Production" [Keynes 1973; Veblen 1964]. It is in fact this Veblenian/Keynesian premise that constitutes the core of what we have labelled in this study "the post- Keynesian and institutionalist theory of money and credit." 

In this monetary theory of production, it is not surprising to find that credit rather than money is the mechanism that enables spending units to bridge any gap between their desired level of spending and the current rate of cash inflow. Money is viewed as essentially endogenous in a credit-based economy, responding to changes in the behavior of economic entities, rather than being subject to the control of the monetary
authorities. Money, in this view, is an output of the system, with the endogenous response by the financial sector governed by the borrowing needs of firms, households, and the government. Once it is recognized that money is credit-driven and therefore endogenously determined, any money creation emanating from fiscal or debt management operations initiated by the authorities or from a favorable balance of payments, can be neutralized through an equivalent reduction in commercial bank credit brought about by the actions of private economic agents.' It clearly follows that government may not be able to create money directly (see, however, Chick [1986]). 

What it can do, instead, is redistribute money among different groups of economic agents. This can happen when governments, in their attempt to increase/reduce the stock of money, set in motion the process whereby bank credit is created/destroyed by groups of economic agents. To the extent that the latter groups are different from those initially receiving/destroying money following the government's initiatives, redistribution of money between those groups takes place. 

The endogenous nature of money and credit is further elaborated upon in the next section with the constituent elements of the model under discussion being brought together in the section that follows. It is precisely here that the openness of economic systems is emphasized and its implications for the post-Keynesian and institutionalist theory of money and credit are compared with the neoclassical view. A final section summarizes the argument.

Read rest here (subscription required).

Kirsten Ford, a young Old Institutionalist

Kirsten Ford (1976-2014)

I first met Kirsten in the mathematics leveling class for the incoming PhD students. I think it was in 2007, but it might have been the year before. She felt she needed to take more math courses, and did so at Westminster College, where she had obtained her Bachelor's degree. She had come to economics out of a concern with social justice, and her early views were shaped in Dick Chapman's classes on Keynes' General Theory and Chace Stiehl's discussion of classical political economy authors, both PhDs from Utah's graduate program, which influenced her choice for her graduate studies.

At that time I taught two regular courses in the graduate program, the second required macro class, which basically reviewed heterodox approaches and growth theory (both conventional and heterodox views), and the second history of economic thought course, which went from the Marginalist Revolution to the post-capital debates developments (the change in the notion of equilibrium, and what I referred to as the return of vulgar economics; the first part of the course on classical political economy and Marx was taught by E.K. Hunt). She and her classmates, which were among the best cohorts of students in the PhD program I can remember, took also two other elective courses with me. A seminar on Sraffian topics, and a course in international economic history.

That course was not chronologically organized. The topics covered emphasized unresolved controversial issues in international economic history, e.g. whether there was an Industrial Revolution, the critique of Eurocentric interpretations of History, and the revival of cultural and geographical explanations for relative backwarderness. One of the most fun courses I ever taught, not just because I basically taught what I wanted, but more importantly because I never learnt as much from my students as I did in that opportunity.

Kirsten's interests were broad, but she had a particular concern with the institutional aspects of economic development, approached from a historical perspective, and that would include the history of ideas. That was very much in line with the institutional/Marxist traditions that already existed in Utah's economics department, and fit with my own work in what might be called the Classical-Keynesian tradition (classical meaning the old classical political economists, including Marx, as interpreted by Sraffa, while Keynesian puts an emphasis on the radical followers of Keynes and Kalecki).

She published early on a paper (in a Brazilian journal called Versus, which I suggested as a venue; accessible version here) that was based on a previous one done in a development course with Nilüfer Çağatay. It was a critique of the New Institutionalism of Douglas North, and a discussion of the Veblenian, or Old Institutionalist roots in the radical development economics of Ha-Joon Chang. She also published, with Bill McColloch, one of her colleagues in the graduate program, a paper on the Journal of Economic Issues on the methodological compatibility between Marx and Veblen (working paper version available here), influenced by Hunt's views on the topic, to some extent.

Kirsten also collaborated with me, and Nathaniel Cline, another graduate student at the U, on a paper on the persistence of mainstream policy advice, even after the crisis of the marginalist paradigm in the 1970s, in which we hinted that a real world economic crisis, like the Global Recession of 2008, was an unlikely cause for significant changes in the direction of research, which was published in the Journal of Philosophical Economics (see here). Kirsten was particularly interested in the role of the IMF as a the institutional instrument by which conservative policies were maintained in developing countries. Further research on the lack of change in the IMF policy positions that she conducted will be published later this year in Development and Change.

She was also interested in the role of institutionalist authors during the New Deal, and helped me to do research on Marriner Eccles papers at Marriott Library. We had a project of publishing some of Eccles speeches as the chairperson of the Fed.

Kirsten was extremely generous in her intellectual exchanges, unwilling to take her contributions as exclusively her own, and sharing them as part of the knowledge of the group. Surprisingly that's not common among the heterodox tribe, in which pride and the desire for prominence often lead to fratricidal disputes. She was also generous with her time, dedicating immense amounts of it to organize the Heterodox Economics Student Association (HESA), and making the economics department better for other graduate students, and to her classes and her students. Economics as a profession is a little bit better because of her work.

You get what you pay for; but not when it comes to business degrees

Veblen famously doubted whether Law Schools had a place in Universities, and as I noted not too long ago he was not altogether happy with what we would now call Business or Management Schools. He said in The Higher Learning in America:

"A college of commerce is designed to serve an emulative purpose only -- individual gain regardless of, or at the cost of, the community at large -- and it is, therefore, peculiarly incompatible with the collective cultural purpose of the university. It belongs in the corporation of learning no more than a department of athletics. Both alike give training that is of no use to the community,except, perhaps, as a sentimental excitement. Neither business proficiency nor proficiency in athletic contests need be decried, of course. They have their value, to the businessmen and to the athletes, respectively, chiefly as a means of livelihood at the cost of the rest of the community, and it is to be presumed that they are worth while to those who go in for that sort of thing. Both alike are related to the legitimate ends of the university as a drain on its resources and an impairment of its scholarly animus. As related to the ostensible purposes of a university, therefore, the support and conduct of such schools at the expense of the universities is to be construed as a breach of trust."

You would imagine then that at least for those that paid for a business degree it would have a compensation in the form of higher pay after graduation. It is not the case, as the PayScale last college salary report shows. Economics majors make considerably more than accounting, finance and business majors. Funny that enticement of pay opportunities is one of the ways in which business and management schools attract students and try to encroach economic departments in many universities.

Noam Chomsky on The Death of American Universities

 

By Noam Chomsky

When universities become corporatized, as has been happening quite systematically over the last generation as part of the general neoliberal assault on the population, their business model means that what matters is the bottom line.

The effective owners are the trustees (or the legislature, in the case of state universities), and they want to keep costs down and make sure that labor is docile and obedient. The way to do that is, essentially, temps. Just as the hiring of temps has gone way up in the neoliberal period, you’re getting the same phenomenon in the universities.

In the past thirty or forty years, there’s been a very sharp increase in the proportion of administrators to faculty and students; faculty and students levels have stayed fairly level relative to one another, but the proportion of administrators have gone way up.

There’s a very good book on it by a well-known sociologist, Benjamin Ginsberg, called The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, which describes in detail the business style of massive administration and levels of administration — and of course, very highly-paid administrators. This includes professional administrators like deans, for example, who used to be faculty members who took off for a couple of years to serve in an administrative capacity and then go back to the faculty; now they’re mostly professionals, who then have to hire sub-deans, and secretaries, and so on and so forth, a whole proliferation of structure that goes along with administrators. All of that is another aspect of the business model.

But using cheap and vulnerable labor is a business practice that goes as far back as you can trace private enterprise, and unions emerged in response. In the universities, cheap, vulnerable labor means adjuncts and graduate students. Graduate students are even more vulnerable, for obvious reasons. The idea is to transfer instruction to precarious workers, which improves discipline and control but also enables the transfer of funds to other purposes apart from education.

The costs, of course, are borne by the students and by the people who are being drawn into these vulnerable occupations. But it’s a standard feature of a business-run society to transfer costs to the people. In fact, economists tacitly cooperate in this. So, for example, suppose you find a mistake in your checking account and you call the bank to try to fix it. Well, you know what happens. You call them up, and you get a recorded message saying “We love you, here’s a menu.” Maybe the menu has what you’re looking for, maybe it doesn’t. If you happen to find the right option, you listen to some music, and every once and a while a voice comes in and says “Please stand by, we really appreciate your business,” and so on.

Read rest here.

A classic text concerning this erosion of higher education is Thorstein Veblen's (1918) The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on The Conduct of Universities by Business Men

On Marginalism Versus Neoclassical Economics

In a recent post by NK, (see here), it was mentioned that when teaching macroeconomics, especially from a heterodox perspective, "one and has to deal, as always, with the confusion generated by all manuals (to a great extent Keynes' fault for using the term classical for everybody that came before him) between the old classical political economy tradition and the marginalist (or neoclassical, other misnomer, this one Veblen's fault) school." Perhaps the paper by Tony Lawson, "What is this 'school' called neoclassical economics" (see here, subsciption required), and "Sraffa and his arguments against marginism," by Maria Christina Marcuzzo and Annalisa Roselli (see here, subscription required), can be of assistance... 

Say's Law of Markets: Classical and Neoclassical versions

Teaching macroeconomics, and having to deal, as always with the confusion generated by all manuals (to a great extent Keynes' fault for using the term classical for everybody that came before him) between the old classical political economy tradition and the marginalist (or neoclassical, other misnomer, this one Veblen's fault) school.

Not all classical authors accepted Say's Law, to which Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand (PED) was contrasted, but all neoclassical authors do accept it (last week the Societies for the History of Economics, aka SHOE, had a very confusing discussion on Say's Law, in which this simple fact got completely lost by a few debaters). Marx certainly was critical of Say's Law.

Ricardo in chapter XXI of his Principles famously says:

"M. Say has, however, most satisfactorily shewn, that there is no amount of capital which may not be employed in a country, because demand is only limited by production. No man produces, but with a view to consume or sell, and he never sells, but with an intention to purchase some other commodity, which may be immediately useful to him, or which may contribute to future production. By producing, then, he necessarily becomes either the consumer of his own goods, or the purchaser and consumer of the goods of some other person. It is not to be supposed that he should, for any length of time, be ill-informed of the commodities which he can most advantageously produce, to attain the object which he has in view, namely, the possession of other goods; and, therefore, it is not probable that he will continually produce a commodity for which there is no demand."

The Ricardian notion is relatively simple. It suggests that the objective of production is consumption (what Marx would call later the "simplest form of the circulation of commodities," or simple exchange, where commodities are produced for exchange for commodities, with money being just an intermediary, C-M-C'). Further, Ricardo suggests that nobody would continue to produce something for which there is no demand over the long run. Yes there might be mistakes and excess production, but over time producers learn from their mistakes. In this simple story if a capitalist saves, it is by definition because he intends to invest and be able to produce more in the future. Think of the corn model; the corn not consumed, for wages (for the reproduction of the system), goes by definition into expanded reproduction.

The Ricardian model has no adjusting mechanism between investment and savings, which are by definition one and the same. Also, there is no guarantee that the system fully utilizes labor resources, or that the system would be at full employment. The rate of interest was regulated by the rate of profit, and adjusted to its level in the long run, but it did not adjust savings and investment.

This is, in fact, the main difference between the old classical version of Say's Law when compared to the marginalist or neoclassical one. In the neoclassical version the rate of interest (the natural rate of interest indeed) becomes the adjusting mechanism in what is often referred to as the Loanable Funds Theory (LFT) of the Rate of Interest (for a simple discussion of Wicksell's version of the LFT go here). Now an excess supply of funds (savings) for investment would be eliminated by the tendency of the monetary rate of interest to equilibrate with the natural rate, guaranteeing that investment is at the level of full employment savings. Investment can deviate from the equilibrium level of savings only in the short run, and neoclassical theory (including Wicksell of course; a few in the SHOE discussion seemed confused about this) would accept Say's Law in this new version in the long run. Note that in order for a rate of interest to lead to increasing investment demand, it must be the case that labor is fully utilized, and firms decide to substitute labor for capital. In the marginalist version Say's Law implies full employment in the labor market.

Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand, by suggesting that savings were simply a residual (income not spent), famously argued that, instead of supply creating its own demand, it was autonomous spending decisions (which Keynes associated with investment) generated income and, hence, made the supply effective. It was the variations of the level of income that made the adjustment of savings to investment possible, and there was no guarantee that autonomous spending would provide for the full utilization of resources.

For a thorough analysis of Keynes' PED, this book remains in my view one of the best around.

Academic freedom watch: corporate donors to decide economic hires at Florida State

Academic freedom is in danger at Florida State. At least is what has been reported here. In short:

"A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting 'political economy and free enterprise.'"

This is bad in any field, but in economics where the incentives to be pro-business and 'free' markets are already huge it's even worse.

This reminds me of what Veblen said, almost a hundred years ago about what at the time where called schools of commerce, and which would fit our business schools now, and most likely this new program in the political economy of the free enterprise. Veblen said in The Higher Learning in America:

"A college of commerce is designed to serve an emulative purpose only -- individual gain regardless of, or at the cost of, the community at large -- and it is, therefore, peculiarly incompatible with the collective cultural purpose of the university. It belongs in the corporation of learning no more than a department of athletics. Both alike give training that is of no use to the community,except, perhaps, as a sentimental excitement. Neither business proficiency nor proficiency in athletic contests need be decried, of course. They have their value, to the businessmen and to the athletes, respectively, chiefly as a means of livelihood at the cost of the rest of the community, and it is to be presumed that they are worth while to those who go in for that sort of thing. Both alike are related to the legitimate ends of the university as a drain on its resources and an impairment of its scholarly animus. As related to the ostensible purposes of a university, therefore, the support and conduct of such schools at the expense of the universities is to be construed as a breach of trust."

It was true back then and is still true now. But at least one would expect that the university would have the freedom of choosing and evaluating its own faculty according to their own criteria. If corporate criteria is introduced, on top of the questionable character of the program, it is difficult to understand what is to be gained. Worse, in this case, it is a public institution.

What is really neoclassical economics?

So Noah Smith thinks that I, Lars Syll and Steve Keen, and other heterodox bloggers (in which he adds Austrians; you see why they should teach History of Thought?* For a discussion of the meaning of heterodox economics, including why Austrians are not so, go here) use the term neoclassical economics as a pejorative term. In fact, in the post he links to, in which I do criticize his views on Graber's work, I do say this on neoclassical economics: "mainstream (neoclassical) notions about debt are really problematic." So nothing derogatory or abusive is suggested. What is said there is that certain views of that particular school of thought are not necessarily free of problems. So no, neoclassical is not a slur.

But before I get back to what I think Noah is trying to get to, we need to address the actual meaning of neoclassical economics. For starters neoclassical is a bit of a misnomer. Veblen invented the term to suggest continuity between the old classical school and the new marginalist school of his time, fundamentally based on Laissez Faire providing an intellectual link between both groups. But the continuity between classical authors and marginalists is not defensible, once one goes beyond certain policy stances and concentrates on the main theoretical propositions of both schools [in this respect the book by Krishna Bharadwaj is still worth reading]. But we are to some extent stuck with the name. So be it.

The core propositions in neoclassical economics are associated to what Garegnani referred to as the data of the system, that is, the variables that are taken as exogenous and allow explaining the functioning of the system, namely: the endowments of factors of production, the preferences of the economic agents, and technology. On the basis of these variables the supply and demand functions of all goods, including the so-called factors of production (capital, labor and land), can be determined, and as a result the relative prices of all goods and the efficient allocation of resources is established. Central to the approach is that supply and demand for labor and capital determine the remuneration of these factors of production, and as a result, and in contrast to classical political economy and Marx, income distribution is endogenously determined [there are insurmountable problems with this theory, as Paul Samuelson accepted, subscription required; for more go here]. And there are differences between the old version of neoclassical models based on the notion of a long term equilibrium (which is what is still taught in undergrad courses) and the intertemporal version, but for our purposes we can just omit the differences.

Note that Noah says that neoclassical economics is: "Assumption of individual rationality, utility maximization, and supply/demand." But this is at best incomplete, and at worst simply incorrect. Yes they assume individual rationality, but that was also true of classical authors like Smith, Ricardo and Marx, who wouldn't assume that capitalists did not rationally pursue profits. And a more relevant discussion would be about types of rationality, substantive or bounded (like in Simon, but I'll leave that for another post). And also, social utility, not personal individual subjective utility, was essential for classical authors, since nothing that didn't have use value (utility) would be produced. Finally, market prices, but not long term natural or production prices, were determined by supply and demand, and disequilibrium played a role in gravitation towards normal prices. So the three characteristics are not enough to distinguish Ricardo and Marx from Marshall or Noah Smith. The essential thing is that supply and demand determine the long term normal prices of everything including factors of production (endogenous distribution).

Noah then points out that papers that deal with the issues in the core are almost not published. He says that publication of papers that deal with the theoretical core fell "from over half of top-journal econ papers in 1963 to less than 28% in 2011." As it should be, in particular with a core that has been revealed to be so full of problems since the capital debates. And yes, most developments like the Acemoglu et al. paper (discusses here in various places by Cesaratto and I, also here) are orthogonal to the core. But these are developments outside the core, but still within the so-called protective belt of the neoclassical paradigm or research program (for protective belts and paradigms go here and here). The problem is that they still presume that the neoclassical theory in the core holds. Note that they suggest that a minimal government that protects private property rights is enough for development, something that goes hand in hand with the neoclassical core. So a lot of the time what seems to be the use of neoclassical economics as an insult is just frustration about the inconsistencies that appear between the empirical research in the protective belt and the incoherence in the core.

Mind you, as students and newly minted PhDs like Noah have never heard or read on the capital debates, and have not been exposed to the authors of the surplus approach and Marx (besides reading less in other disciplines in the social sciences) it is not surprising that the term neoclassical is seen as an insult hurled at them by crazy and older heterodox economists. But it's not. Don't get me wrong, the core of neoclassical economics is not good or bad in itself, but it is logically flawed.

* By the way, it should be required at both the graduate and undergraduate level, since many graduate students come from other disciplines. A discipline that does not understand its own history is bound to move blindly rediscovering old truths, accepting already discarded myths, and forgetting useful ideas. And you might have, also, the paradoxical situation of a neoclassical economist that does not know what neoclassical economics is (like Dave Chappelle's black white supremacist).

PS: Note that Noah is not responsible for the definition of neoclassical economics he uses, which was lifted from Wikipedia. And yes Wikipedia is not the best source.

The Mysterious Death of Duesenberry

James Duesenberry
(1918-2009)

No this is not about a conspiracy theory. For all that I know James Duesenberry died of natural causes in 2009 [I had the opportunity to talk extensively with him at a conference organized by Ed Nell in 1998]. I'm referring to the fact that he is relatively unknown in the profession, as I noted Thursday when I asked my students if they ever heard about him, with only a few affirmative responses. He is also completely absent in textbooks (e.g. David Romer's Advanced Macroeconomics).

This is surprising since, as noted by Robert Frank, "his theory of consumer behavior clearly outperforms the alternative theories that displaced it in the 1950's - a striking reversal of the usual pattern in which theories are displaced by alternatives that better explain the evidence." The alternative that displaced it in the 1950s was Friedman's Permanent Income, for which he got the Sveriges Riksbank Prize (aka the Nobel).

Friedman's more popular theory of consumption was developed as a response to Keynes and Duesenberry, in particular, as a way to suggest that the economic system did have a tendency to full employment after all. Friedman (1957, p. 5) argued:

"The doubts about the adequacy of the Keynesian consumption function raised by the empirical evidence were reinforced by the theoretical controversy about Keynes's proposition that there is no automatic force in a monetary economy to assure the existence of a full-employment equilibrium position. A number of writers, particularly Haberler and Pigou, demonstrated that this analytical proposition is invalid if consumption expenditure is taken to be a function not only of income but also of wealth or, to put it differently, if the average propensity to consume is taken to depend in a particular way on the ratio of wealth to income. This dependence is required for the so-called 'Pigou effect'."

Friedman conveniently ignores Kalecki's response to Pigou, which actually shows that if deflation does have positive wealth effects for consumers, which tend to hold assets, then it is also true that for those holding the corresponding liabilities (the debtors, which could also be consumers) there will be negative wealth effects. The evidence on wealth effects does not suggest that the Pigou effect is strong enough to get an economy out of a recession automatically. Note, however, that there is increasing evidence that real assets have had an impact on household indebtedness and consumption, and have been a source of bubble-led growth (which is unsustainable and prone to crises; see for example this paper).

Duesenberry's Relative Income Hypothesis, developed in his 1949 book Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, is quite relevant now after the crisis. While Keynes theory of consumption was based on what he referred to as a psychological law, that people consume only a fraction of their income, Duesenberry suggested a sociological explanation. Duesenberry argued that the poor tend to consume a higher proportion of their income than the wealthy, and that, as income increased, the relatively poorer members of society continued to consume a higher share of their income, since their patterns of consumption changed to emulate their well to do peers. A notion that has elements in common with Veblen's notion of conspicuous consumption. Note that this suggests that re-distribution towards the less privileged would boost the economy, since they have a higher propensity to spend (see this paper).

PS: Tom Palley developed a bridge model he calls a Keynes-Duesenberry-Friedman Model (see here). See also Garegnani and Trezzini's paper on consumption and cycles.

Nick Rowe's misconceptions about Sraffians I

Nick Rowe continues his very welcome discussion of the issues related to the capital debates in a recent post (see also the reply by Unlearning Economics). However, there are several misconceptions in his post that are worth clarifying. I'm going to deal with his first four assumptions (1 and 2 in this post, and 3 and 4 in a subsequent one), which are the more substantial from a theoretical point of view, namely:

1. Some economists in Cambridge UK wanted to explain prices without talking about preferences. I don't know why they didn't want to talk about preferences;

2. They made some special assumptions that helped them explain prices from technology alone, without talking about preferences. Like: all labour is identical; all technology is linear; prices never change over time;

3. But they still couldn't explain the rate of interest. Because it's hard to explain the rate of interest if you don't want to talk about time preferences. And all the other prices depend on the rate of interest, as well as on technology. So they assumed the rate of interest was exogenous;

4. Some economists in Cambridge US made a very special assumption that let them explain the rate of interest without talking about time preferences. They assumed that there was only one good, and it could be converted back and forth between the consumption good and the capital good by waving a wand.

The Cambridge economists are, of course, Sraffa and his followers. First, one of the most frequent confusions about Sraffa was that he assumed that demand, and, as a result, preferences were irrelevant. Before I tackle the issue per se, it is worth quoting this phrase, brought to my attention in Robert Vienneau’s blog:

"I am sorry to have kept your MS so long - and with so little result. The fact is that your opening sentence is for me an obstacle which I am unable to get over. You write: 'It is a basic proposition of the Sraffa theory that prices are determined exclusively by the physical requirements of production and the social wage-profit division with consumers demand playing a purely passive role.' Never have I said this: certainly not in the two places to which you refer in your note 2. Nothing, in my view, could be more suicidal than to make such a statement. You are asking me to put my head on the block so that the first fool who comes along can cut it off neatly. Whatever you do, please do not represent me as saying such a thing." -- Piero Sraffa (1964). Letter to Arun Bose (italics added).

Clearly Sraffa says that demand plays a role. However, the role is not the same as in marginalist theory. One has to understand what role demand played in the surplus approach in the determination of relative prices to get what Sraffa is saying.

Classical authors, in particular Adam Smith and David Ricardo (and certainly not Marx), did not think in terms of individual utility. When they talk about utility they are referring to social utility. Hence, commodities to be produced must be socially useful, otherwise they would not be produced, since nobody would buy them, but their price, their exchange value, is not based or connected with their use value. For example, Smith in his discussion of the diamond/water paradox (Wealth of Nations, Book I, ch. IV) argues that things with a high use value often have little or no exchange value, since things that are not costly to produce will command no price, even if they are useful. It is only with Thomas De Quincey, after Ricardo and the demise of classical economics, that the notion that utility (and use value) had a functional relation to exchange value becomes entrenched in economics, an idea that was picked up by Stuart Mill, and through him by Marshall (marginalism or neoclassical economics), as it is well documented by Krishna Bharadwaj (subscription required).

As Bharadwaj says of the Quincey/Mill/Marshall notion:

"This was a different notion of use-value than that accepted by Smith and Ricardo, for whom use-value was a necessary condition for a commodity to possess in order to be an object of exchange, but referred to the physical properties socially known to belong to a commodity, and not dependent upon the individual's estimation of its capacity to gratify subjective inclinations, measured in quantitative terms. In fact, use-value and exchange-value were incomparable in so far as the former covered the qualitative aspect and the latter was a quantitative notion. In De Quincey and Mill, the two notions had become quantitatively comparable (one acting as an extreme limit upon another) and this was only a step towards the later resolution of the paradox in terms of 'total' and 'marginal' utility."

In other words, social utility not individual estimation is behind the classical notion of preferences. The point then is that social utility and, as a result, demand considerations are essential for the determination of long term prices. However, these preferences are not the subjective preferences of individuals, about which nothing scientific can be said, since there are no regularities and they can change for irrational and circumstantial reasons.

The utility that society attaches to a particular good, say a car, however, can be taken as given at a particular point in time. The reasons are not only directly connected to objective characteristics, like the fact that a car is a means of transportation or negatively that they worsen environmental conditions, but also that cars socially may be a source of status, as Veblen later suggested. In other words, preferences (and demand) are socially determined and taken as given for the determination of relative prices, but there is a role for historical and institutional analysis in understanding why and how demand and preferences change over time. The idea was, also, that social preferences are relatively slow to change, and for that reason one can take them as given.

Thus, in the surplus approach there is a role for historical/institutional analysis (not just social preferences, but income distribution too, e.g. the discussion of the determination of the exogenous real wage), and a different role for theoretical analysis (the determination of exchange value). Note that the assumption of given social preferences, as correctly noted by Unlearning Economics, can be seen as a ceteris paribus clause. So Nick is right that there is no reason not to talk about preferences. However, it is far from clear that knowledge has been advanced by the marginalist treatment of individual subjective preferences. As I noted in my comments to his post, the reasons for convex, homothetic preferences is not dictated by knowledge about a regularity about people’s behavior, but simply by the teleological need of finding a solution to the maximization problem. I would say rather that there is no reason to talk about individual preferences. Social utility is fine.

Point 2 is just a poorly built straw man of the Sraffian/surplus approach model. There is no assumption of a linear technology. In fact, that’s typical of the neoclassical aggregative models. The only situation in which a linear relation between wages and profits in the Sraffian model is in the case of the standard commodity [I still owe you all a post on that topic; didn't forget], if this is what Nick means by linearity, which would be the only relevant case (unless he is against input-output models). The input-output framework of any system in which production is done by using commodities to produce commodities (a feature of the real world, by the way), does not imply that there is no technical change either. Technical input-output coefficients can change.

Note that any theory has to say something about the determination of relative prices for a given technology anyway. By the way, in this case Sraffa assumes, like the classical authors, a given level of output (again is a ceteris paribus condition, and a different theory of the determination of output is needed; we know through Garegnani, Sraffa’s disciple, that effective demand is what Sraffa had in mind, and not some version of Say’s Law). That does not imply, hence, constant returns to scale, since that would require an increase in output proportional to the increase in inputs, something that cannot happen when output is given. Remember that output is given for the theory of long term prices only.

Finally, there is enough literature showing that one can reduce, theoretically speaking, labor of different qualities to a uniform type. It is ironic that a neoclassical author would complain about this, since the production function, which is beset with unfathomable problems, also assumes identical labor, and in fact it also assumes a unique capital good (not many means of production) and is fundamentally a world of only one commodity (on this and point 4 by Nick, more on the following post).

TO BE CONTINUED

Microfoundations and the capital debates

Steve has commented on the ongoing debates about microfoundations of macroeconomics, mainly between Paul Krugman and Simon Wren-Lewis (for my comments and Simon's reply on his blog go here, and scroll down to the last comments). I just want to further clarify what I think is, from the point of view of the history of ideas, a significant confusion in the debates about microfoundations, and one (oh yes, here he comes again) that is ultimately related to the capital debates (the Rosetta Stone of the history of economics ideas; if you prefer Sraffa's PCMC, as I tell my students, is the Rosetta Stone. To get an idea of what is the meaning of the capital debates go here).

Microfoundations are first and foremost about the determination of relative prices, the core of what we now call microeconomics, and used to be called before the theory of value. Individual behavior, rational or otherwise, is relevant to the extent that one thinks that behavior of individual agents is central for price determination, and that was at the core of the Marginalist Revolution.

The point is that if individual workers (using the figure of a representative rational utility maximizing worker), for example, in the labor market, confronts rational individual profit maximizing firms (again a representative firm), the free play of the market would produce an optimal outcome. Krugman is very clear why he thinks microfoundations are important. He says:

“if the assumption of perfect rationality breaks down even in the most standard of micro settings — if consumers behave in a way inconsistent with full maximization even when doing something as mundane as choosing which type of gas to put in their tank — how absurd is it to insist that, say, Keynesian stories about the economy can’t be right because we can’t fully derive them from intertemporal maximization?”

In other words, if workers say are not concerned with maximizing utility in terms of higher real wages, but in terms of relative wages, or if firms have limited knowledge about the workers willingness to work, and have an incentive to pay wages above the reservation wage (the one that compensates workers for the trouble with parting with leisure time), then the imperfection implies that the labor market will not clear and you might have unemployment. This is basically the efficiency wage story that New Keynesians use to justify unemployment (note that unemployment does result from real wages above the equilibrium level, and not from lack of demand as in Keynes).*

The capital debates show that even if you have workers trying to maximize utility in the normal fashion, and firms too have full information, that is, in the absence of any imperfection, there is no guarantee that lower real wages would imply more intensive use of the labor ‘factor.’ It is actually quite simple, if commodities are produced with commodities, then a reduction in wages also reduces the price of all goods, since they are produced with labor too, and there is a possibility that the fall in the price of commodities that do not use too much labor falls more than proportionally, so the increase in their demand does not lead to an increase in the hiring of new workers. Also, as wages are central for the consumer’s demand, the income effect of any reduction in wages would trump any (if it is positive) substitution effect. In other words, why would a firm hire more workers (even cheap ones) if nobody buys their products?

Further, PCMC does provide a sound way of determining relative prices. Long term normal prices are determined by the technical conditions of production, given one distributive variable (either real wages or interest, or if one prefers, for a given wage-profit frontier). It does take long term patterns of demand as given obviously, since producers would not supply, in the long term, goods and services for which there is no demand. The analysis of the determinants of effectual demand, the long term patterns of demand, are at a lower level of abstraction, and include all the institutional factors associated to fashion, conspicuous display of power, the effects of marketing, etc., that Veblen, Galbraith (father) and other institutionalist authors suggested were relevant.

Also, workers are rationally trying to obtain a fair wage, and to consume according to their tastes and the other social and institutional factors that determine their behavior. But those are taken as given for the determination of long run prices. And firms do maximize profits, and this implies that they add a mark up on their full costs. These models were developed by the authors of the Full Cost Pricing School, and the literature on barriers to entry, e.g. Sylos-Labini, Steindl and others, and the empirical evidence tends to be favorable.

In that sense, heterodox (classical-Keynesian, by which I mean Sraffa’s prices cum Keynes/Kalecki’s effective demand) does have a coherent determination of long run prices, based on rational behavior, as the foundation of the macroeconomic theory. Markets do not produce optimal outcomes and unemployment of productive resources is the normal, long run, position of the economy. In fact, the capital debates not only say that classical political economy (the surplus approach) provides sound microfoundations, but also that it is NOT possible to do so within the neoclassical/marginalist paradigm.***

* Interestingly enough Krugman’s argument for the current recession is not a rigidity in the labor market, but one in the money market, that is, a rate of interest that does not allow for investment at the level of full employment savings, the so-called Liquidity Trap.

** And yes there is empirical evidence in favor of this view, since there is no support for the effect of lower real wages and higher employment. Real wages tend to be pro-cyclical, go down in a recession, and up in the boom.

*** Arrow-Debreu also does not provide a way out of this conundrum.

PS: For the implications of Sraffa's contribution for Keynesian economics see this paper, and this post.