New Intro to Macro with a classical-Keynesian approach

New textbook by Alex M. Thomas, from Azim Premji University, Bengaluru, India. From the back cover:

Macroeconomics: An Introduction provides a lucid and novel introduction to macroeconomic issues. It introduces the reader to an alternative approach of understanding macroeconomics, which is inspired by the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and Piero Sraffa. It also presents a critical account of mainstream marginalist macroeconomics. The book begins with a brief history of economic theories and then takes the reader through three different ways of conceptualizing the macroeconomy. Subsequently, the theories of money and interest rates, output and employment levels, and economic growth are discussed. It ends by providing a policy template for addressing the macroeconomic concerns of unemployment and inflation. The conceptual discussion in Macroeconomics is situated within the context of the Indian economy. Besides using publicly available data, the contextual description is instantiated using excerpts from works of fiction by Indian authors.

Buy it here. 

Review of Shaikh's Capitalism

woof, woof

I haven't posted in a while. As I noted before, it's harder to post new things after almost 7 years. Also, I've been both busy and not particularly fond of talking about economics (a certain degree of pessimism about the economy and the profession, I guess). But not yet ready to shut the blog down.

Anwar Shaikh was here at Bucknell and gave a lecture on his new book (Capitalism). Here a review by Susan K. Schroder, who was my micro TA back in graduate school a little more than 20 years ago.

"It has long been recognized that the state of economic theory, particularly modern macroeconomics, is in disarray. With the release of Capitalism: Competition, Conflict and Crises, Anwar Shaikh attempts to place the discipline on a more secure footing. Without doubt, this is a very large and complex book. This review essay hopes to assist readers in unlocking its insights.

Anwar Shaikh has been a Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York for approximately 40 years. As a graduate student at Columbia University , he was stimulated by political and social unrest of the 1960s and 1970s, and began his exploration of alternative approaches to understanding how capitalism functions. He has been particularly intrigued by the surplus approach to theories of value and distribution, especially those that are grounded in some form of a labor theory of value. The New School’s history of providing space to explore alternative, progressive approaches to a variety of disciplines has provided Shaikh with a natural home, encouraged by leading historians of econo mic thought and method, such as the late Robert Heilbroner and Adolph Lowe. Capitalism is the culmination of his life’s work, his magnum opus."

Read rest here.

PS: Anwar uses the term classical-Keynesianism, that I like and that I took from Heinrich Bortis's book Institutions, Behaviour and Economic Theory. There might be some differences on what exactly one means by classical political economy and Keynesianism, but there is a similar preoccupation, which I think is among the most important points of both books.

A Brief Sketch of the Classical-Keynesian Perspective

By David Fields

From a Classical-Keynesian perspective (Bortis, 1997, 2003), rates of interest regulate rates of profits (Panico, 1980, 1985), and, thus, real wages are endogenously determined. The presence of financial instruments, which represent titles to future flows of income, makes it so that the actual center of distributive conflict in capitalism lies not in the technical conditions of production, but is rather governed by the real rate of interest, which is a conventionally-determined exogenous variable that reflects the relative powers of finance capitalists vis-à-vis industrial capitalists & labour (Pivetti, 1985, 1991, 2001).

The rate of profit, as a ratio, has a significance, which is independent of any prices, and can well be ‘given’ before the prices are fixed. It is accordingly susceptible of being determined from outside the system of production, in particular by the level of money rates of interest. (Sraffa, 1960: 33)

In this sense, high real rates of interests induce industrial capitalists to prefer short-term speculative financial investment, instead of long-term productive real investment, since access to credit is expensive. Consequentially, industrial capitalists center attention on the pursuit of immediate surplus value realization, via speculation, in order to handle the burden of costly interest payments—the social cost being nominal wage suppression, which, by implication, exhibits an enlargement of the reserve army of labour.

[…] the credit system, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralisation, and gives this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but also to interfere in actual production in a most dangerous manner— and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it. (Marx 1894: 544-45)

Along these lines, heterodox growth and distribution models have been put forward (cf. Hein, 2008), highlighting the need for a redistribution of income from finance/industrial capitalists to labour (Lavoie and Seccareccia, 1999) and making unemployment the primary policy target (Smithin, 2004). Underpinning these models are works that incorporate Keynes’ principle of effective demand and Sraffian price theory in a long-period analysis of capital accumulation (Park, n.d.; Cesaratto et al. 2003). These studies pay considerable attention to the extent to which the Hicksian supermultiplier concept effectively explicates the degree to which induced consumption and investment, via the accelerator, determine average levels of total output (Serrano, 1995) and, thus, normal capacity utilization (Amadeo, 1986; Trezzini, 1998), with the richness of a framework inspired by Kaldor and Pasinetti (Docherty, 2012) that meticulously constitutes the palpability of Kalecki’s famous aphorism that ‘capitalists get what they spend…workers spend what they get’.

Originally published in the URPE blog.

References:

Amadeo, Edward J. 1986. “Notes on Capacity Utilisation, Distribution and Accumulation.” Contributions to Political Economy 5(1):83–94.

Bortis, Heinrich. 1997. Institutions, Behaviour and Economic Theory: A Contribution to Classical-Keynesian Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bortis, Heinrich. 2003. “Keynes and the Classics: Notes on the Monetary Theory of Production.” In Modern Theories of Money: The Nature and Role of Money in Capitalist Economies, (eds.) Louis-Philippe Rochon and Sergio Rossi. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Cesaratto, Sergio, Franklin Serrano, and Antonella Stirati. 2003. “Technical Change, Effective Demand and Employment.” Review of Political Economy 15(1):33.

Docherty, Peter. 2012. “Long Period Interest Rate Rules in a Demand-Led Kaldor-Pasinetti-Sraffa-Keynes Growth Model.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 34(3):521–46.

Hein, Eckhard. 2008. Money, Distribution Conflict and Capital Accumulation: Contributions to 'Monetary Analysis'. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kalecki, Michal. 1971. Selected Essays on The Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy 1933-1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1955. “Alternative Theories of Distribution.” The Review of Economic Studies 23(2):83–100.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1966. “Marginal Productivity and the Macro-Economic Theories of Distribution: Comment on Samuelson and Modigliani.” The Review of Economic Studies 33(4):309–19.

Lavoie, Marc, and Seccareccia, Mario. 1999. “Interest Rate—Fair.” In Encyclopedia of Political Economy, vol. 1, (ed.) Phillip Anthony O’Hara. London: Routledge.

Marx, Karl. 1894. Capital Vol. III. New York: International Publishers.

Panico, Carlo. 1980. “Marx’s Analysis of the Relationship between the Rate of Interest and the Rate of Profits.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 4(4):363–78.

Panico, Carlo. 1985. “Market Forces and the Relation between the Rates of Interest and Profits.” Contributions to Political Economy 4(1):37–60.

Park, Man-Seop. n.d. “Towards a ‘Classical-Keynesian’ analysis of Effective Demand in the Long Period.” Retrieved May 8, 2014.

Pasinetti, Luigi L. 1962. “Rate of Profit and Income Distribution in Relation to the Rate of Economic Growth.” The Review of Economic Studies 29(4):267–79.

Pasinetti, Luigi L. 1974. Income Distribution and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Pivetti, Massimo. 1985. “On the Monetary Explanation of Distribution.” Political Economy: Studies in the Suplus Approach 1(2):73–104.

Pivetti, Massimo. 1991. An Essay on Money and Distribution. London: Macmillan.

Pivetti, Massimo. 2001. “Money Endogeneity and Monetary Non-Neutrality: A Sraffian Perspective.” In Credit, Interest Rates and the Open Economy, (eds.) Louis-Philippe Rochon and Matias Vernengo. Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elgar.

Serrano, Franklin. 1995. “Long Period Effective Demand and the Sraffian Supermultiplier.” Contributions to Political Economy 14(1):67–90.

Smithin, John. 2004. “Interest Rate Operating Procedures and Income Distribution.” In Central Banking and the Modern World, (eds.) Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Sraffa, Piero. 1960. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trezzini, Attilio. 1998. “Capacity Utilisation in the Long Run: Some Further Considerations.” Contributions to Political Economy 17(1):53–67.

Massimo Pivetti on Interest Rates and Gross Profit Margins In Recent Experience of Advanced Capitalism

From a paper prepared for the colloquium “What have we learnt on Classical economy since Sraffa?” Paris, October 2014

According to the monetary explanation of distribution, as elaborated over the past 25 years on the basis of a well known suggestion by Sraffa, the normal rate of profit would be arrived at in each sphere of production by adding up two autonomous components: the rate of interest on long-term riskless financial assets, plus a normal rate of profit of enterprise, viewed as a component of normal production costs and reflecting objective (or widely perceived as objective) elements of risk attached to each different productive employment of capital. Since the normal margins for profit, given production techniques, depend on normal profit rates, the same two variables, the rate of interest and the rate of the profit of enterprise, would govern also the course of net normal profit margins in the different production spheres. For any given set of profits of enterprise, the long-term rate of interest would thus act in the economy as the regulator of the ratio of prices to money wages. Once the normal profit of enterprise in each sphere of production is taken as given, in that it is determined separately from both the rate of interest and the rate of profit, attention is focused in this approach on the rate of interest.

Read rest here.

Heinrich Bortis on Europe's Need For Classical-Keynesian Political Economy

By Heinrich Bortis

Based on theoretical reasoning this article suggests that a radically new conception of Europe is required to get out of the present economic and political crisis situation. Neo-liberal Europe must give way to a social-liberal Europe...Europe needs a new type of economic theory, classical-Keynesian political economy to wit, to shape institutions and socio-economic policies

Mind you, it's not just Europe that needs CKPE...

Read rest here (N.B. the article starts on page 4).

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.

Pivetti on Advanced Capitalism and the Determinants of the Change in Income Distribution: A Classical Interpretation

Massimo Pivetti

Technological change, though paramount in the dominant theoretical approach to distribution in terms of the relative scarcity of factors, also plays a significant role in the alternative classical surplus approach.

See rest here

Bortis on the Classical-Keynesian Approach and the limits of neoclassical-Walrasian economics

The paper Prof. Bortis presented at the 1st World Keynes Conference at Izmir University in Turkey is here. From the intro:

The paper starts with considering the domination of the neoclassical exchange paradigm since the Marginalist Revolution 1870-1890, brought about by Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics. The inability of neoclassical theory to properly explain the formation of the fundamental prices prevailing in modern monetary production economy, the prices of production to wit, through the mechanism of supply and demand and to cope with the deep depression of the 1930s initiated a classical-Keynesian counterrevolution in the course of Shackle’s Years of High Theory 1926–1939 (Shackle 1967), a counterrevolution which was accomplished in 1960 through Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (section 2). However, as is alluded to in section (3), a wide gap existed between Keynes’s General Theory and Sraffa (1960), Keynes emphasising uncertainty about the future associated with the various investment projects, Sraffa putting determinism to the fore with the prices of production being governed by technology and distributional institutions. Section four deals with Pasinetti’s effort to close the gap between Keynes and Sraffa, which opens the way to the classical-Keynesian synthesis of Keynes and Sraffa, set out in the central section (5). In the following section (6) the classical-Keynesian system of political economy is compared with neoclassical-Walrasian economics made operational by Marshall; here we also ask the question as to which of the two theoretical systems is more plausible. In section (7) classical-Keynesian economic policies are set out. Some implications of classical-Keynesian political economy for political philosophy and the associated political system are exhibited in section (8). The concluding remarks emphasise the necessity for a new economic, financial and political world order.

Very similar to the ideas developed in my old graduate history of thought course.

PS: Geoff Harcourt's book on Post Keynesian economics, which also tries to put together the old classical political economists and Marx with Keynes, is available here.

Lars P. Syll On What’s wrong with IS-LM?

By Lars. P. Syll

Yesterday, David Fields of Naked Keynesianism wondered what was my position on the fact that many heterodox economists would consider the IS-LM framework “to still be relevant if given enough flexibility without neoclassical synthesized elements.”

I will sure come back on this when time admits a more thorough analysis, but let me start by giving at least a tentative answer — focusing on where I think IS-LM doesn’t adequately reflect the width and depth of Keynes’s insights on the workings of modern market economies.

Read the rest here.

ISLM: a further explanation and a defense

I noted before  the traditional representation of the ISLM is problematic. Yet as I also noted the ISLM model can accommodate changes that incorporate the criticisms of classical-Keynesian, post-Keynesian and other heterodox groups. There is no need for an investment function based on the marginal productivity of capital and the principle of substitution. The accelerator can be incorporated, and the inverse relation with the rate of interest would result from the effects of interest rates on other components of demand. Also, endogenous money can be incorporated easily, and for the most part this has been done in New Keynesian models (the ISMP).

In the post (linked by David here) that prompted this sort of defense of a changed ISLM, Lars Syll correctly notes that New Keynesians are often right on policy, but incorrect on theory. And I for the most part agree with Lars intentions. Yet, he suggests that the problem lies in that:

"If macroeconomic models – no matter of what ilk – assume representative actors, rational expectations, market clearing and equilibrium, and we know that real people and markets cannot be expected to obey these assumptions, the warrants for supposing that conclusions or hypothesis of causally relevant mechanisms or regularities can be bridged, are obviously non-justifiable."

As I noted in my debate with Noah Smith, the problem with marginalism (neoclassical economics) is NOT rationality, utility maximization or supply and demand (not quite the same list raised by Lars). Here I would add that although one can certainly add heterogenous agents, assumptions that simplify and assume representative agents maximizing profits, for example, are not really problematic at all. Classical political economists and Marx did assume something like that and still did not reach the conclusion that the system was efficient in the sense of providing full utilization of resources.

Also, the idea that agents use all information per se is not necessarily bad (Tom Palley favors some sort of rational expectations, which he refers to as model consistent; see his old manual here). The problem is that the model used, by New Classical and other mainstream authors, has logical problems. Last but not least equilibrium per se is not a bad concept (on this there is the whole thing that Post Keynesians have inherited from Joan Robinson that makes things confusing for many heterodox economists). Equilibrium is actually quite essential for long-term analysis. And I would actually argue that it is relevant since it DOES have real world applications. In other words, real economies do fluctuate around long-term equilibrium positions that are sub-optimal.

The problem with mainstream theory is the notion of a natural rate, which is based on the principle of substitution which allows for 'factors of production' to be fully utilized. These are the problems that Keynes, by negating the idea of a natural rate, and Sraffa, by showing the logical problems of the principle of substitution, undermined. An ISLM without the natural rate is not only possible, but actually reasonably good as a tool for analyzing real economies.

PS: Note that Keynes wrote to Hicks on the ISLM that: "I found it very interesting and really have next to nothing to say by way of criticism." Keynes did not criticize the investment function in Hicks model, but note that this problem also was integral to the General Theory (GT). And yes Keynes was being nice, but he was nice too about Harrod's review of the GT, but did tell him that he did not mention effective demand.

Innagural Issue of Marxist Sociology Section of American Sociological Association Newsletter

 

Colleagues,

I am sure many of you would be interested to know that the Marxist Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association has relaunched its monthly newsletter, of which yours truly is a co-editor (and wrote an introductory essay). Our inaugural issue can be seen here. Our website is here. 

Marx's monetary analysis and post-Keynesian economics

This paper by Eckhard Hein is, in my opinion, an invaluable guide for assessing the degree to which a synthesis can be constructed between the insights of Marxian political economy, Keynes' (long period) theory of effective demand, and Sraffa's price model, in which the conventional rate of interest is exogenous. Hein provides an articulate framework for how to conceive the foundations for a Classical-Keynesian political economy research program.