Decolonizing Keynesian Macroeconomics by Jayati Ghosh

 

The 9th Godley-Tobin Memorial Lecture was delivered by Professor Jayati Ghosh, from UMass, Amherst, one of the leading development economists. Jayati argues that Keynesian economics must be further “decolonized” by recognizing how financial globalization and currency hierarchies constrain developing countries. Even fiscally disciplined poorer countries face higher borrowing costs, capital volatility, and reduced policy autonomy, so effective Keynesian policy requires tighter regulation of finance and reform of the international monetary system.

Stiglitz on Keynes and the instability of capitalism

 

Stiglitz delivering the 6th Godley-Tobin Lecture in 2023*

The Economist published a short piece by Joseph Stiglitz on Keynes. I would agree with Stiglitz's on the broad political point that Keynes was not a revolutionary socialist, as I have discussed before. He wanted to save capitalism from itself, as they say. Stiglitz essentially says the same. For him: “Roosevelt’s pragmatism and Keynes’s ideas saved capitalism from the capitalists,” because unfettered capitalism in a prolonged depression might not have survived. He also says Keynes was “no left-wing radical,” believed in the market economy, and saw intervention as a “minor fix” rather than a revolution.

Stiglitz correctly suggests that Keynes remained a liberal, not a socialist, and that he was a moderate in politics even if he was willing to experiment pragmatically with policy. In that he differs from Jim Crotty, and Rod O'Donnell's work on Keynes political views, who suggest he was a socialist. Stiglitz, in contrast, suggests that Keynes understood that laissez-faire capitalism had to be transformed or transcended, but he did not abandon bourgeois liberal society. In my paper I say he was “a revolutionary in economic theory, but a moderate in his politics.”

The key difference between Stiglitz interpretation and my view is on theory. Stiglitz’s Keynes is still, to a significant extent, the Keynes of mainstream Keynesianism. Markets can fail badly, can remain in unemployment for long periods, and government spending is needed to stabilize demand. But he frames the issue partly as one of slow self-correction. Even if there are forces bringing the economy back to full employment, “they worked too slowly” to avoid hardship. That leaves open a conventional reading in which Keynes is mainly an imperfectionist, for whom markets may eventually work, but sluggish wages, prices, interest rates, failed expectations related to uncertainty, or financial frictions that make the adjustment too slow.

The disagreement is not over Keynes’ politics, but over the depth of his theoretical break. Stiglitz emphasizes Keynes as the economist who showed that government could stabilize an inherently unstable capitalist economy. I would emphasize Keynes as the economist who broke with Say’s Law and developed the Principle of Effective Demand. That is why, in my interpretation, Keynes is not simply saying that markets adjust too slowly to full employment, rather he is saying there is no automatic tendency to full employment even with flexible wages and prices. Even if he had to resort to uncertainty at the end, because in many ways he remained too close to mainstream Marshallian principles.

The point is not that Keynes thought capitalism was intrinsically chaotic in the sense of constantly tending toward breakdown. Rather, he thought it could be economically stable in a bad equilibrium, capable of persisting for long periods at sub-normal levels of output and employment. He said so in the General Theory, capitalism is “not violently unstable,” and may remain in “a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse."

Stiglitz emphasizes instability in the more conventional economic policy sense. Capitalism produces deep fluctuations, depressions, recessions, and crises, and Keynes showed that government could counteract them. That is true, but it risks making Keynes look like someone whose main theoretical contribution was to show that capitalism is unstable and needs stabilization policy. The Keynes of the 1920s essentially defended that. In my view, Keynes’ more radical theoretical point, only developed in the early 1930s, was different, the system can be stable without being self-correcting to full employment.

Stiglitz stresses Keynes as the theorist of crisis prevention and macroeconomic stabilization, which is fair enough. Certainly that is the dominant view on Keynes. I would stress Keynes as the theorist of stable underemployment capitalism. The danger, for Keynes, was not simply that capitalism would spiral mechanically into economic collapse. The danger was that a system capable of remaining stuck below full employment would generate social and political pressures that could undermine liberal capitalism itself. It was politically unstable, but not necessarily in economic terms.**

Keynes wanted to save capitalism, but not because he thought markets were simply fragile and prone to immediate economic disintegration. He wanted to save capitalism because persistent unemployment and stagnation made the liberal order politically vulnerable, both to Soviet style socialism and fascism. His policy prescriptions aimed at full employment domestically in the face of the rising tide of fascism and communism, both of which he abhorred, as I noted in the paper linked above.

This makes Keynes neither a simple imperfectionist nor a crude instability theorist that believed the system to be on a knife-edge. He was trying to say something subtler. Capitalist economies may be stable enough to survive economically at low levels of activity, but precisely that stability at underemployment makes them politically dangerous. The economic problem is not automatic collapse, but the absence of any reliable automatic mechanism restoring full employment. It was a political problem, and it remains so, even if there are some important changes from his time.

Today, at least in the United States and other advanced economies, the problem is less often mass unemployment in the Keynesian sense than the quality, security, remuneration, and social meaning of employment. Capitalism may deliver low levels of unemployment while still producing precarious, poorly paid, or socially degrading jobs, thereby reproducing a different form of political instability.

* Stiglitz's Godley-Tobin Lecture is free for download here.

** Capitalism would undermine political stability. On a recent post on Schumpeter (the one in the Substack) I suggested that: "The irony is that Schumpeter thought that markets were efficient and capitalism would collapse, while Keynes thought that markets produced suboptimal results, and that capitalism might survive." I would add, Schumpeter thought that democracy would undermine capitalism, Keynes thought that capitalism would undermined democracy.

Robert Skidelsky and the Many Lives of Maynard Keynes

Keeping up with the Keyneses

The death of Robert Skidelsky last week marks the passing of one of the most important interpreters of John Maynard Keynes. He will be remembered above all for his monumental three volume biography of Keynes, widely regarded as the definitive account of Keynes' life and times. That work, written over several decades, together with the publication of the Collected Writings edited by Donald Moggridge, did much to reposition Keynes as a historical figure. It also humanized him in ways that earlier accounts, such as Roy Harrod's, had not. In that sense, Skidelsky's contribution helped bring Keynes back into the conversation at a time when Keynesian economics itself was in retreat.

Skidelsky was also, importantly for us, a member of the editorial board of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE), and a supporter of its broader intellectual mission. As I noted in my short piece on Robert Solow, the journal was conceived as a counter-cultural project, aiming to reestablish Keynesian economics, understood broadly, and without hyphens, as a central framework for macroeconomic analysis. Skidelsky understood that mission and supported it, at a moment when such a project was far from obvious or widely accepted.

At the same time, Skidelsky's interpretation of Keynes was not without its limitations. In his own critique of Harrod's biography, he rightly argued that it sanitized Keynes and obscured important aspects of his life and work. Yet his own work, written in the context of the dominance of the Neoclassical Synthesis and the broader retreat of Keynesian ideas, often did not fully break with that framework. Skidelsky's biography, while more historically accurate and richer in detail, remained in important respects defensive, accepting the view that Keynes' theory rested on imperfections rather than representing a fundamental break with orthodox economics.*

This matters because the interpretation of Keynes is never neutral. The postwar Keynesianism associated with the Neoclassical Synthesis reduced Keynes to a theory of market failure, wage rigidities, and short-run stabilization, leaving intact the core of marginalist theory and Say's Law in the long run. In that reading, Keynes becomes a useful supplement to an essentially self-correcting market system, rather than a critic of it. Skidelsky did much to restore Keynes the person, but less to fully recover Keynes the theorist.

None of this should detract from his achievements. Skidelsky was a serious scholar, a prolific writer, and a public intellectual engaged with the issues of his time. He consistently defended a moderate, pragmatic Keynesianism, what he himself sometimes described as a middle way between the excesses of unregulated capitalism and the failures of central planning.

For those of us working in the Keynesian and heterodox traditions, his legacy is therefore a mixed but important one. He helped keep Keynes alive during decades in which the profession largely moved in other directions. He supported efforts, like ROKE, to rebuild a broad (pluralistic) Keynesian consensus in the profession. But his interpretation also reflects the limits of the period in which it was developed, a period in which Keynesianism was often reframed in more conventional, and less radical, terms.

Each generation, gets its own Keynes. Skidelsky gave us one that was richer, more human, and more historically grounded than the sanitized versions that preceded it. The task remains to recover, more fully, the theoretical and political implications of Keynes' work.

* See the more recent work by Zachary Carter that connects Keynes' biography with the ideas of Joan Robinson and John Kenneth Galbraith, and the development of heterodox views based on Keynes thought. 

ROKE's New Clothes

A first look at the new ROKE cover, launching next year for the journal's 15th anniversary.

A little bit of the history of the journal appears in Robert Solow's obit, who was a member of the editorial board.

Post Keynesian economics and academic freedom

Tom Palley wrote a short post on his recent experience with the Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES). The post raises interesting issues about what constitutes an economic topic and where to draw the line between academic and non-academic work. A similar debate recently occurred on the listserv of the Union for Radical Political Economy (URPE) regarding an announcement about the Gaza conflict (specifically, whether it constituted genocide, whether URPE should have a statement on the topic, and so on).

On the two main topics of Tom's piece -- what constitutes an economic related topic, and what is an academic subject -- I should say that I tend to think that there are relatively clear answers (and my views might not be hegemonic, in this field; see what I did there?). I come from a political economy tradition, that harks back to classical political economy, according to which economics is about the material conditions for the reproduction of society, in which social classes, and the conflict between them are central not only for the determination of distribution, but also of the pace of accumulation and progress (another question open to debate).* Hence, issues related to Ukraine and Palestine, and other geopolitical issues are certainly part of political economy, and it is hard to suggest that they should be excluded from conversation.

On the other, whether something can be consider academic or not, at least from a sociological point of view, is entirely determined by peer review, what economists doing academic work in economics define as academic work. In this case, what Post Keynesians (PKs) considered PK economics to be. From that point of view, and regarding PKs, it seems clear that the issues of the war in Ukraine, that Tom was discussing (whatever the views on that were), would have always been seen as part of the tradition, and a perfectly reasonable topic of inquiry. Just to provide an example, in the second issue of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (the journal that gave the name to the tradition), Charles Issawi had a long discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflicts to understand the 1973 oil shock (there are other papers in that issue on similar topics).

Mainstream economics always took a dim view of PKs willingness to entertain issues that were hard to formalize. Robert Solow famously said that:

"The proper way to do macroeconomics can hardly be all historical context and no analytical structure. Unfortunately the school has provided no systematic description or example of what it conceives to be the right way to do macroeconomic theory. Thus far so-called post-Keynesianism seems to be more a state of mind than a theory." 

Note that, while critical of PKs, Solow was not for the exclusion of PKs from conversation, and he was always willing to discuss with heterodox economists (on this see my short piece on his relation to ROKE on the occasion of his death).

In other words, the post by Tom was on economics on a topic that PKs considered economics, at least ib the past.** For those reasons, it seems hard to justify the PKES decision, which appears punitive and an attempt to stifle conversation, the sort of thing they persistently criticize about the mainstream. This is much worse given the current attack on academic freedom, particularly in the US, with Trump going after academia in general.

* For my views on heterodoxy, and its relation to that tradition see this old post, and this paper. On Post Keynesian economics see this old piece.

** Colin Danby reminded me of the old PK listserv that used to be more than announcement emails, and was effectively a forum for the discussion of ideas. 

Paul Davidson (1930-2024) and Post Keynesian Economics

Paper on Paul with Tom Palley and Jamie Galbraith published by ROKE. From the abstract:

"Paul Davidson was a critical figure in the preservation of John Maynard Keynes’s ideas, sticking with them when they were out of fashion. He was also key to the survival of the Post Keynesian school. Davidson endorsed Keynes’s liquidity preference theory of interest, and he emphasized fundamental uncertainty as a central feature of economic reality, essential to making sense of a monetary economy. His greatest legacy is the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, the intellectual home for a generation of Post Keynesian economists. Without his efforts, the heterodox economics community would be significantly smaller than it is now."

Full paper available here.

Paul Davidson (1930-2024)

 

Paul (I'm next to him) and the Brazilians at the UMKC, PK Conference in 2002

Paul has passed away a few days ago. He wasn't in good shape for a while, and this was expected. He lived a long and productive life. I wasn't personally close to him, even though I met him several times from the mid-1990s onward. He went to two conferences I co-organized at the Federal University in Rio, always with Louise, which was a central figure of Post Keynesian (PK) life, and basically run the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (JPKE) for him.

He was more effective as an institutional organizer, and as an observer of economic reality (and his main book was called Money and the Real World) than in his theoretical endeavors. His views on Keynes stayed close to the flawed discussion of the Principle of Effective Demand in chapter 3 of the General Theory, and an insistence on the importance of uncertainty and non-ergodicity in Keynes' work, that proved to be somewhat of a dead alley for PKs. He also emphasized the ideas of Tony Thirlwall, and his export-led model of growth, as a central PK contribution to economic theory. Finally, he tended to accept the views of Robert Skidelsky on Keynes' intellectual development, who, as I noted here, accepted a conventional on interpretation of Keynes' ideas, relying on imperfections to explain unemployment, even if he provided a much needed accurate biography of Keynes (in contrast to Harrod).

JPKE, that he created with Sidney Weintraub, and help from John Kenneth Galbraith among others, was central for a generation of PKs. He was part of the Trieste Summer Conferences that, in the early 1980s, that included many heterodox groups, and was the closest to Marc Lavoie's broad tent in real life, but failed to provide a unified view, and an alternative to mainstream marginalist theory. Many thought that the PK project was sectarian, and could not incorporate other views. I tend to think that the failure resulted from the fragmentation of the mainstream, that was reflected in the fragmentation of the heterodoxy, and were part of the era. Certainly not Paul's fault, who, at least in my experience, was very open and willing to debate, even if he did stick to his views. At least, not his personal fault.

When LP (Rochon) invited me to start a new journal, more or less at the time Paul was substituted as the editor of the JPKE by Jan Kregel and Randy Wray, on PK monetary economics, I suggested we needed a journal that would bring other Keynesians into the conversation. Hence, the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE).* Paul wrote to me once he knew about the new name of the journal. I knew from him that they had thought of naming their journal the Journal of Keynesian Economics, but the acronym would have been JOKE, so they opted for Post Keynesian, and the name stuck to the school of thought. He wasn't happy. But he understood that our project was very different.

Ours was not a journal to propagate the ideas of the heterodox followers of Keynes, and to emphasize the notion that effective demand mattered, at times that Keynesians were under attack with the neoliberal turn, and the rise of Monetarism and New Classical economics (Paul was in the book of debaters with Milton Friedman, that included also Jim Tobin, and a few other more conventional Keynesians). Ours was an attempt to recreate a Keynesian big tent (not an heterodox one) to reinforce the commonalities with all Keynesians (in spite of the many differences).

Paul was combative, forceful in his discussions, particularly about Keynes' legacy, and a key figure in the preservation of Keynesian ideas, when those were considerably less popular, and the profession moved incorrectly away from the Keynesian Consensus. Later many would gladly talk about the return of the master. Paul never abandoned him, and he was right. A great loss for the profession.

* On that see Tom Palley here and my discussion of Bob Solow's role here.

My short piece on Solow and his relation to the Review of Keynesian Economics

(1924-2023)

Robert Solow, who was a member of the editorial board of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE), died in December 2023. Solow holds a special place in the history of macroeconomics, and he was a strong supporter of the ROKE project. In this brief note I want to honor Solow’s contribution to economics and to place on record his contribution to ROKE.

Histories of macroeconomics tend to emphasize the disputes between Keynesians and Monetarists, at least up to the 1970s. Those disputes very often pitted Milton Friedman against either Paul Samuelson, with whom he alternated in a famous Newsweek column, or James Tobin who was, perhaps, the most prominent of Friedman’s opponents when the Journal of Political Economy edited a debate with Friedman’s critics. In the broader cultural wars, Friedman was often pitted against John Kenneth Galbraith, and his Free to Choose series was seen as a response to the latter’s BBC series The Age of Uncertainty. Solow appears, if at all, as Samuelson’s co-author of a paper on anti-inflation policy (Samuelson and Solow 1960), which is widely viewed as introducing the Phillips curve to the American economics profession.

Yet Solow is, in many ways, the central figure of ‘American’ Keynesianism, and he was awarded the 1987 Nobel Prize in Economics. His work was central to the building of what Samuelson referred to as the Neoclassical Synthesis, which was dominant during the post-war era up to the 1970s. This synthesis combined microeconomic competitive general equilibrium theory, Keynesian macroeconomics, and Solow’s (1956) Neoclassical growth theory. It gave short-run space for Keynesian policy effectiveness but asserted a long-run belief in market forces and Say’s Law, which Solow defended in his growth model and in the Cambridge debates with more heterodox Keynesians. Additionally, Solow contributed decisively to the development of what eventually would be called New Keynesian Economics, with the development of the efficiency wage model in the late 1970s. He lived long enough to see fiscal policy rehabilitated after the Great Recession of 2007–2009, and to see what many view as the return of Keynesian Economics.

Read rest here.

Atonella Stirarti's Godley-Tobin Lecture

There was a problem during the 7th Godley-Tobin Lecture. I disconnected everyone when I was trying to fix a problem with Professor Stirati's presentation, and I didn't notice until much later. The worst part is that the recording was lost. I'm posting here the PowerPoint presentation for those interested. We will also post the link for the published version of the lecture, which will be open also on the website of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE).

Dollar Hegemony and Argentina

First part of a two part interview with Anita Fuentes at Security in Context. The discussion on Argentina and Milei is in the next part. I'll post it as soon as it is up.

Demand-led Growth In Rio

The Review of of Keynesian Economics is co-sponsoring the Fifth Conference on Demand-led Growth in Rio, next July 11 and 12.

2024 marks the 45th anniversary of Thirlwall’s classic 1979 paper that introduced Thirlwall’s law as well as the 75th anniversary of Prebisch’s manifesto on the main development problems of Latin America. These seminal works were key, for post-Keynesian and structuralist literatures, to put the balance of payments constraint at the center and as one of the main problems of long run growth and development. Furthermore, it was an important critique and alternative to the mainstream view that highlights factors of production scarcity as the only explanation to long run growth.

As a result, many demand-led growth theories often emphasize the balance of payments as the main constraint that an economy faces in the long-run. Among the various subjects that balance of payments constraint literature treat, we can name: The role of financial flows in the long run; External indebtedness; Solvency and liquidity problems; Currency hierarchy; The role of the exchange rate; The relation between balance of payments constraint and economic policy, and many others.

All these themes are related with the research lines of the Group in Political Economy at the Institute of Economics of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, which follows the Sraffian framework proposed by Garegnani to make the Keynesian-Kaleckian principle of effective demand compatible with the classical surplus approach. For our Group, growth is demand-led and policy (often balance of payments) constrained. In succession, inflation is a cost-push political economy phenomenon dependent upon conflicting claims over income distribution. Within this framework, macroeconomic policies are fundamental to growth, inflation, and income distribution. In capitalist economies, these policies arise from institutional arrangements as well as political power relations. The Research Group in Political Economy considers that constructing policy-relevant analysis and theoretical and applied models to better understand advanced and developing countries’ actual performance demonstrates this theoretical approach’s soundness.

Given the approach taken by the Group and in the context of the intensification of dialogue and convergence among some Post-Keynesians, Kaleckians, Kaldorians, practitioners of Modern Monetary Theory, and Sraffians, the goal of the 2024 Edition of the Workshop is to strengthen this promising trend by promoting a constructive and policy-relevant debate among these strands of critical thought. Other heterodox approaches to economics are also welcome and encouraged in fostering new contributions concerning demand-led growth analyses, models, their multiplicity of relations with monetary and financial elements and external constraints to growth.

More info here.

Robert Solow (1924-2023), who was on the board of ROKE, is dead

Over the years, I had the opportunity to interact with Bob Solow, who was very open to discuss with people he disagreed with, and debate the substantive analytical and empirical issues, taking seriously the ideas of others. I first met him because when I was an Assistant Director at CEPA (now Schwartz Center, SCEPA), back in 2000 or 2001, working for Lance Taylor, I found out he was spending some time in NY at the Russell Sage Foundation, and I invited him for a talk (if memory doesn't fail me the title was, The Good Five Years, about the Clinton boom). He presented, according to him, his first overhead projector slide.

At any rate, after that I invited him to be part of the board of ROKE, which he accepted. In his letter, he explained what he thought ROKE was about and what it should do to avoid the fate of other heterodox journals.

He also published this paper on Friedman's presidential address in 2017. His obit at the NYTimes here.

Dollar Hegemony, coming soon

The dollar's hegemony rests on the economic, military, and international political power of the USA. There have been two eras of dollar hegemony which were characterized by different models. Dollar hegemony 1.0 corresponded to the Bretton Woods era (1946-1971). Dollar hegemony 2.0 corresponds to the Neoliberal era (1980-today). The deep foundation of both models is USA power, but the two models have different economic operating systems. The articles in this book explore this and consider two further questions: what is the future of dollar hegemony? And: is there a better way of organizing the world monetary order? There has been considerable speculation of a drift to currency multipolarity but, so far, there is little evidence of that. The Chinese renminbi might join or displace the dollar as the world's hegemonic currency, but that will require China making significant changes to its financial markets and monetary policy. Dollar hegemony imposes significant costs on developing and emerging market economies, but the international political economy of systemic reform is fraught, making reform unlikely.

Review of Keynesian Economics New Impact Factor

I am pleased to let you know that the 2023 Impact Factor for ROKE has gone up to 1.6 from 1.219. This puts us as one of the top heterodox journals. There are a few above, in my understanding, like the Cambridge Journal (2), and some incredibly good ones that were not ranked until recently, like the Review of Political Economy (now 1.5). One, of course, should take those ranks with some degree of caution. And old post on that here.

Special Issue of the Review of Keynesian Economics

New issue of ROKE on: Center-periphery analysis reconsidered, Essays in memory of Luigi Pasinetti. Possible topics of contribution to our special issue could address:

• The relevance of the center-periphery analysis and/or its limitations;
• Income and/or wealth distribution: the distributive and redistributive effects (in central and peripheral countries) of the neoliberal globalization;Debt tolerance/financial crises: the destabilizing role of central monetary policies on the peripheral economies;
• International political economy: the ongoing reconfiguration of center-periphery relations;
• Decoupling of a global West from an emerging Asia; future and crisis of globalization;
• The inherent fragility of global supply chains;
• Any other topic related to the center-periphery analysis in a classical-Keynesian perspective.

Submissions should be made using the usual channels of the journal, and they will be managed jointly by editors and guest editors. All accepted articles will be published in the special issue.
Deadline for submissions: November 30, 2023. For further information, please contact the Guest Editors: Matias Vernengo (Bucknell University, U.S.A.; mv012@bucknell.edu) and Roberto Lampa (University of Macerata, Italy; r.lampa@unimc.it)

Review of Crotty's "Keynes Against Capitalism" (forthcoming in ROKE)

It should not be a surprise that John Maynard Keynes is often seen as being relatively conservative by many progressively inclined or radical economists, that often tend to prefer the views of Michal Kalecki, or the more radical approach of Keynes’ favorite disciple, Joan Robinson. That is not the case in James Crotty’s book Keynes Against Capitalism, who takes a diametrically opposite view. He tells us that: “It is almost universally believed that Keynes wrote his magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money [GT from now on], to save capitalism from the socialist, communist, and fascist forces that were rising up during the Great Depression era”, but in his view, that “was not the case with respect to socialism. The historical record shows that Keynes wanted to replace then-current capitalism in Britain with what he referred to as ‘Liberal Socialism’” (Crotty, 2019: 1-2). His Keynes was anti-capitalist and, in some sense, a socialist. The notion that Keynes was a socialist often encounters as much resistance as the notion that he was somewhat conservative, of course.

The book is divided in three parts. The first part of the book traces the development of Keynes’ ideas in the inter-war period starting with his significant role during the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the publication of his instant bestseller, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, that made him a worldwide celebrity, to development of the revolutionary ideas in the GT. The second part analyzes the theoretical ideas of the GT, and how they provide the foundations for a radical and socialist remaking of British capitalism. The third and last part discusses Keynes’ program in action, in the buildup to the war, and during World War-II, and its relevance for our days.

The first part of the book suggests that the Keynesian Revolution started in the 1920s with the slow evolution of Keynes’ thinking about the problems of the British economy, and his rethinking of neoclassical economics. Crotty uses the term classical, as did Keynes, creating unnecessary confusion, in particular because of his own sympathies with Marxist economics, that builds critically on the classical surplus approach. Crotty makes an important point, often neglected in the discussions of Keynesian economics. For Keynes the need for a new theory derived from an appreciation of the historical and institutional changes of British capitalism. Crotty argues: “Keynes’s core belief [was] that the West had entered a completely new historical era in which the institutions and policies currently used to regulate economic life were totally inappropriate. He associated himself with the American institutionalist economist John R. Commons’s view that Europe and America were currently in transition to a new historical epoch in which the main task was to create a new ‘regime which deliberately aims at controlling and directing economic forces’” (Ibid.: 81).

The doctrines of laissez-faire, that were well adapted to the Victorian Era, were not suited for the world that emerged from World War-I, in which mass production, mass consumption and the rise of organized labor required a certain degree of government intervention to manage the economy. This is the best and most original part of the book, in which Crotty reminds us that: “Keynes’s enthusiastic and consistent support for state control of most large-scale capital investment is not the only ‘radical’ policy position overlooked by mainstream ‘Keynesian’ economists; his support of detailed industrial and labor-market policy has escaped their attention as well” (Ibid.: 87). The emphasis on the importance of industrial and labor policies, in particular, their direct connection with Keynes’ opposition to the return to Gold Standard and his support of the coal miners’ strike of 1926, are central to understand his need to rethink his economic theory.

However, even in this part, there is a neglect of an important element of Keynes’ trajectory, and for the development of the ideas exposed in the GT. Crotty forgets to note that Cambridge monetary theory was quite underdeveloped in the 1920s, and was based mostly on an Appendix to Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics, and his evidence to some Royal Commission, and was in fact being developed by Keynes and his colleague Dennis Robertson during the 1920s. At that point it was unclear that this was a complete rupture with Marshallian economics on monetary affairs, as much as Piero Sraffa was starting to break with the marginalist theory of value and distribution with Keynes’ support. In fact, Keynes’ thought that his book A Treatise on Money was the culmination of the development of the alternative theory, which he defended as a member of the Macmillan Committee, and that argued that the Depression resulted from the high interest rates, that prevented investment from adjusting to full employment savings, as a result of the Gold Standard. This view was perfectly compatible with neoclassical economics, even if Keynes already advocated for public works, an unorthodox policy, as a solution for the crisis.

However, it was at this point, exactly as a result of the criticism of his book by the young economists of the Circus – a group that included besides Sraffa and Robinson, the latter’s husband, Austin, Richard Kahn, and James Meade – that Keynes finally developed in 1932, relatively late, his main theoretical contribution to economics, the Principle of Effective Demand. In other words, while the 1920s were formative, it was only with the Great Depression and his immersion in pure theory in the early 1930s that Keynes finally broke with orthodoxy in theory. The fact that he changed his diagnosis of the Depression, and adopted a whole new theory right after the publication of what should have been his major theoretical work to the date, led to the traditional complain that Keynes was inconsistent and held more than one view at the same time. Friedrich Hayek and Keynes’ opponents at the London School of Economics would make a of this inconsistency one of their main criticisms of Keynesianism.

This is also relevant because it shows that Peter Clarke is correct when he argues that: “The Suggestion that he [Keynes] wrote The General Theory because he had an axe to grind in immediate policy arguments is wide of the mark” (Clarke, 1991: 163). In other words, Keynes’ views on policy issues could be defended, and in fact he did defend them in the 1920s as noted by Crotty, even before he developed the notion that changes in the level of income were the mechanism by which savings adjusted to investment, and not the other way round. The fact that Crotty suggests that the GT was written: “to convince economists and members of Britain’s intellectual, business, and political elites that the theory that informed their economic worldview and provided essential support for the disastrous conservative economic policies of the era was fundamentally flawed” (Crotty, 2019: 161) seems incorrect.

This is compounded by the fact that Crotty accepts Keynes’ theory of interest and the notion of a marginal efficiency of capital in the second part of the book, and as such is forced, as Keynes was, in particular in the famous 1937 paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE) amply cited by Crotty, to use the argument of fundamental uncertainty to preclude the possibility that a sufficiently low interest rate would equilibrate investment to full employment savings. Crotty centers his analytical interpretation of Keynes on chapter 12 of the GT, and his defense of the GT in the QJE paper. The argument is essentially one associated with uncertainty and financial instability. In his words: “The outbreak of pessimism and the loss of confidence in the conventions that underlie expectation formation will also cast a pall over the bond market, a point Keynes also stressed in his 1937 defense of The General Theory in the QJE” (Ibid.: 266). It is clear that the abandonment of the marginalist, or neoclassical, notion of a marginal efficiency of capital would actually strengthen Crotty’s point, but for some reason he neglects the important results that followed from the capital debates in the 1960s, which were central for the completion, on a theoretical level, of the Keynesian Revolution in theory.

On the issue of Keynes’ adherence to some form of socialism, Crotty also makes a valiant case for his position. He provides copious circumstantial evidence, and quotes the famous phrase by Keynes in which he says that: “I am sure that I am less conservative than the average Labour voter; I fancy that I have played in my mind with the possibilities of greater social changes than come within the present philosophies of Mr. Sidney Webb, Mr. Thomas, or Mr. Wheatley. The republic of my imagination lies to the extreme left of celestial space” (Keynes, 1926: 308-309). The part that Crotty forgets to cite is the subsequent phrase, in which he tells us: “Yet—all the same—I feel that my true home, so long as they offer a roof and a floor, is still with the Liberals” (Ibid.). Certainly, many of Keynes’ policy proposals were radical. They moved in the direction that was compatible with socialist or social democratic views. And he recognized he had many common goals with Labour and the Fabian Socialists. But he called his views liberal socialism, and remained an Asquith New Liberal all his life.

Liberalism also spoke to Keynes political and social outlook in ways that Labour or Socialism never did. He was an elitist, the product of Eton and King’s College, Cambridge, and a member of the Apostles and the Bloomsbury group. To some extent Labour reciprocated. Philp Snowden, Labour’s first chancellor of the exchequer, was a committed defender of the Treasury View, and an avowed anti-Keynesian. Hugh Dalton, Clement Atlee’s first chancellor of the exchequer, was averse to Keynesian policies, and for him Keynesianism: “was virtually a deathbed conversion, for only in his fourth, final, fatal Budget of November 1947 did he explicitly relate his measures, which stepped taxes across the board, to the problem of controlling inflation… The paradox is that a Keynesian approach was directed chiefly to the problem of keeping demand down, not up” (Clarke, 1991: 186-87). But if there is a future for socialism, Crotty’s view that Keynes’ ideas remain relevant is correct, and there could be no sensible socialism without a good dose of Keynesianism.

References:

Clarke, P. 1991. A Question of Leadership: Gladstone to Thatcher, London: Hamish Hamilton.

Crotty, J. 2019. Keynes Against Capitalism: His Economic Case for Liberal Socialism, London: Routledge.

Keynes, J. M. 1926. “Liberalism and Labour,” in A. Robinson and D. Moggridge (eds.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes: Essays in Persuasion, Volume IX, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

The Problem with the Problem with Jon Stewart (and Larry Summers)

Everybody in the heterodox community, in the United States at least, seems very happy with Jon Stewart's performance interviewing Larry Summers. And of course, Stewart is very good at this kind of stuff. But in all fairness, in this he is canalizing some of the ideological views of the left, which on inflation are fundamentally incorrect. 

Stewart presents at the beginning the adding up theory of inflation, thirty percent demand, twenty five percent wages and the rest corporate greed. His argument is that not all of inflation was caused by demand (I would say none of it was). He is correct on the fact that the stimulus during the pandemic was good and not exaggerated, and that monetary policy (the interest rate hikes are wrong). But he accepts the notion that the labor market is tight, which I think is less clear. I’m definitely in the minority on that. That’s perhaps something for a loner post. Below just the employment-population ratio, which suggests things are less rosy in the labor market.

Worse, Stewart’s explanation of inflation as price gauging by Exxon and Apple is simply incorrect, and here he is getting some progressive arguments that have logical problems. Higher oil prices were not caused by Exxon, that certainly benefited from them, and had higher margins. Note that firms certainly will pass any increase in their costs, including wages, to their prices. And, hence, margins might be readjusted and that plays a role in the increase in prices, that is the level. But firms cannot continuously increase prices, without passing the limit that would trigger the entry of competitors. Barriers to entry work so much.

Note that the problem with this kind of confused thinking is made clear by Stewart. For many progressives the idea that inflation is conflictive, and that there are wage-price spirals, is interpreted as suggesting that inflation is caused by workers. They are the bad guys. Hence, the need for an alternative bad guy, evil corporations (and corporate power is certainly excessive and should be curbed).* This is not the best way to think about the economy. Of course, there is nothing wrong with workers demanding higher wages, and it is only to be expected that corporations would resist, and without great government intervention and protections of workers’ rights, might often win. Conflict over wages is inherently also about the share of profits too.

If anything, it is the mainstream that has more difficulty in introducing conflictive inflation into their models, since distribution is ultimately endogenous and determined by relative productivity. At any rate, there is little reason to be concerned with conflict inflation. Workers are relatively weak, and that has not changed. On all of this see my paper forthcoming in ROKE here.

* Arguably Summers is blaming the bad government for excessive spending during the pandemic, and is just another case of good vs bad guys. That Summers knows a thing or two about the role of bargaining power and the macro-economy, and is less naïve that some heterodox economists have suggested, is given in this paper on the declining power of workers as an explanation of the problems of the US economy.

Neoliberalism, Keynesian Economics, and Responding to today's Inflation

 

 

Q&A Session

The lecture here. Note that it missed a few minutes at the beginning and the slides are not showing, with Professor Stiglitz at the upper right corner. It is still pretty engaging and wroth reading. There is a link to the slides that are not showing up. The actual lecture will be published in the first issue of ROKE in 2024.

 

I'll post link to the published version when it's done.

 

Comments on the history of the Review of Keynesian Economics on its tenth anniversary

By Thomas Palley

This Fall (October/November 2022) marks the tenth anniversary of the founding of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE). The founding co-editors were Louis-Philippe Rochon, Matias Vernengo, and I. At the beginning of 2018 Louis-Philippe Rochon stepped down to become sole editor of the Review of Political Economy and he was replaced by Esteban Pérez Caldentey.

Since then, ROKE has further enhanced its reputation, becoming a leading heterodox economics journal as measured by its Clarivate citation score. It also has premier standing for official research assessment purposes in France, Italy, and Brazil.

Active plans for the journal were set in motion in late 2011 and the first issue was published in Autumn 2012. That first issue includes a founding statement by the three co-editors which lays out the motivation for establishing the journal, its scope, and its purpose. The statement is on ROKE’s website. I think it has aged very well and there is not much in it that I would change today. I encourage people to read it. 

Read rest here.

Palley on the history of the Review of Keynesian Economics

Here a short video. I do offer a few remarks. I would add that Louis-Philippe was central not just in the initial discussions that we had going back two decades now, to when we were at Kalamazoo College, but in getting Elgar into the journal business. Not sure Elgar would have done that without LP convincing them. This happened at the time that the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (JPKE) was transitioning from Paul Davidson editorship, to the Jan Kregel and Randy Wray period.

I suggested Tom to LP, since he had been our teacher at the New School, and I thought three would be a better setting for adjudicating differences between the editors. Tom wanted a journal more open to other traditions. I would say in my view the reasons are not exactly connected to pluralism, as Tom discusses in the clip, and more to the restoration of a political alliance that was more or less in place during the Golden Age, between neoclassical synthesis Keynesians like Bob Solow (who is a member of the board) and people like Joan Robinson. That's why I suggested the Godley-Tobin lecture that in my view makes that alliance explicit. In that sense, the plan, that was originally in LP's plan a post-Keynesian journal related to monetary issues, to not compete directly with the JPKE, became the non-hyphenated Keynesian journal.

PS: And yes, the story of why the hyphen in the JPKE, as told to me by Paul Davidson, is that it couldn't be the Journal of Keynesian Economics, since the acronym would be JOKE! The term post-Keynesian (or is it Post Keynesian) already existed, but in my view it was the JPKE that sedimented its use, and in a sense that was an accident.