Maria da Conceição Tavares and demand-led growth in developing countries

New paper by Franklin Serrano, Miguel Carvalho and Ricardo Summa on Maria da Conceição Tavares (1930-2024) and her contributions to demand-led growth theory. The paper reviews the pioneering contributions of Maria da Conceição Tavares to the theory of demand-led growth, emphasizing her early recognition that effective demand is central not only in the short run but also in the long-run process of capital accumulation. In that respect, it is more focused and detailed in the discussion of economic growth, than my paper (in this book) that tried to put her ideas in the context of the Latin American Structuralist School, and the emergence of heterodoxy in Brazil.

From the 1960s onward, Tavares developed a framework that departed from dominant development economics, which typically treated growth in developing countries as supply-constrained. Instead, she argued that developing economies function like any capitalist system, where output and growth respond to demand.

A key contribution highlighted in the paper is Tavares’s analysis of structural change during import substitution industrialization. She explains how growth regimes can shift from export-led to domestic demand-led as the economy develops a capital goods sector and increases the domestic content of demand. Public investment and industrial policy play a central role in sustaining this transition, reinforcing the idea that growth is driven by expanding demand rather than limited by supply constraints.

The paper also stresses her critique of stagnationist theories. Against views (including Celso Furtado’s work) that predicted long-run stagnation due to structural constraints, Tavares argued that slowdowns are typically the result of insufficient effective demand rather than inherent limits to growth. By distinguishing between capacity and its utilization, she shows that apparent structural problems often reflect cyclical demand deficiencies.

Another central element discussed in the paper is her Kaleckian inspired separation between distribution and accumulation. Tavares argued that income distribution does not mechanically determine growth. Instead, it affects demand conditions but does not impose a necessary trade-off between consumption and investment. Growth depends on autonomous components of demand, and different distributive regimes can sustain accumulation depending on the broader demand structure.

The paper emphasizes her original contribution regarding autonomous demand, particularly capitalist consumption and public expenditure. These components, along with residential investment, are seen as crucial drivers of long-run growth because they sustain demand without directly expanding productive capacity. This insight anticipates later developments in demand-led growth theory, especially the supermultiplier framework.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the authors discuss Tavares’s views on investment and financial capital. Drawing on Hilferding, Hobson and Schumpeterian ideas, she incorporates autonomous investment linked to innovation and financial structures. The paper concludes by showing her influence on two strands of contemporary research, one that treats investment as fundamentally autonomous, related to the financialization literature, particularly as developed at Unicamp, where Tavares taught starting in the 1970s, and another, associated to Serrano himself and his co-authors at Tavares's alma mater in Rio, that led to the Sraffian supermultiplier, where investment is entirely induced.

Development by invitation: a short digression on the concept

 

Development? Be my guest 

The concept of development by invitation, as far as I know, and most of my knowledge comes from Esteban Pérez's paper in a book we co-edited long ago,  originates with Arthur Lewis and refers to a development strategy in which small developing economies attract foreign capital to initiate industrialization. For Lewis, the problem of many small developing economies, particularly in the Caribbean, was that they lacked several key elements required for industrialization, namely: domestic capital, entrepreneurial skills and large domestic markets. Because of these constraints, industrialization could not easily emerge through domestic investment alone. Lewis therefore proposed industrialization by invitation, meaning that governments should invite foreign firms to establish manufacturing activities in the country.

Immanuel Wallerstein refers to a path of development in which a peripheral country advances economically because the multinational corporations from central countries actively expand into the world economy. This development occurred not through autonomous national transformation, but through external investment resulting from political and economic cooperation with central countries. For Wallerstein, the concept referred to a structural process within the capitalist world-system. In his framework, central countries allowed limited industrialization in some peripheral areas as multinational firms relocated production. That was, in fact, to some extent the phenomenon in a good part of the Latin American periphery, In other words, development by invitation was not a development policy, but a mechanism of global capitalism that reorganized production.

In the work of Carlos Medeiros (published with Franklin Serrano; he is pictured above), the notion of development by invitation refers to a historical process in which peripheral or late-industrializing countries accelerate their development because the leading powers of the international system actively support or tolerate their industrialization for geopolitical reasons. The concept is embedded in their analysis of international monetary regimes and growth dynamics. Growth is demand-led, and based on the supermultiplier, if that wasn't clear.

For Medeiros, the starting point is that capitalism naturally generates divergence between countries due to structural asymmetries in military power, technological capabilities, and monetary hegemony. All three are interrelated. Because of these asymmetries, most peripheral countries face a balance-of-payments constraint that limits growth. However, in certain historical periods, some countries can overcome these constraints when the dominant power facilitates their development.

For Medeiros,  development is not simply the relocation of production associated to multinational or transnational firms, be that as a policy strategy or an endogenous process of integration within the capitalist system. It involves state-led industrialization and strategic geopolitical support from the hegemonic power. Hence, development by invitation can produce successful industrial catch-up, not merely integration into the world economy.

Note that Esteban's discussion implicitly highlights a critique of the early concept from a structuralist perspective. Even though Lewis viewed the strategy as a path to development, in practice it often led to enclave industrialization and persistent dependence on multinational firms. The outcome sometimes resembled the type of dependent integration emphasized by Wallerstein. In a sense, Medeiros version is a further critique, suggesting that the interaction of political coalitions, behind the developmental state, and the geopolitical context matter.

Note that one might be correctly skeptical  of the notion that a country develops simply because the hegemonic power invites it to do so. Even acknowledging that favorable geopolitical contexts existed, such as those of Japan, South Korea, or several European countries in the postwar period, one might argue that development was ultimately the result of internal strategies, that is, strong states pursuing active industrial policies of technological catch up. In this view, the invitation may have constituted a favorable external framework, but it was never the decisive factor.

However, this critique appears to address a somewhat simplified interpretation of Medeiros’ concept. In his framework, development by invitation was never presented as a purely external process or as a microeconomic explanation based on private decisions. The concept was formulated in macroeconomic and geopolitical terms, placing emphasis precisely on the role of the state. The question was not whether Japan or Korea developed simply because the United States invited them, but rather why certain developmental states were able to industrialize so rapidly through manufactured exports. The answer highlights that these states benefited from exceptional external conditions. First, the unilateral opening of the US market, financial transfers,  very often facilitated technological transfers, beyond tolerance toward aggressive industrial policies, and strategic support within the context of the Cold War. This was not diplomatic magic, but rather a combination of an internal developmental state and a relaxation of the external constraint facilitated by American hegemony.

In other words, Medeiros’ concept does not attempt to explain development exclusively through external factors, but rather to illuminate why certain developmental states faced fewer external constraints, had greater access to financing, and enjoyed broader access to strategic markets than others. This allowed for a particular mix of export promotion and import substitution and helps explain why several Asian countries not only avoided the lost decade that followed the debt crisis of the 1980s, but also managed to accelerate their process of industrialization as a good part of the center, and other peripheral regions deindustrialized.

If the discussion is brought to the current Argentine case (I wrote a short note on this in Spanish), the most important point may not be to deny the relevance of the concept but to recognize that Argentina today lacks a developmental state capable of taking advantage of any potential invitation. If the government dismantles industrial, technological, and financial policy instruments, then whether a country is invited or not becomes almost irrelevant. The issue is not whether Washington extends a diplomatic invitation, but whether there exists a national strategy capable of transforming a favorable geopolitical context into productive accumulation.

Ultimately, the debate should not revolve around whether development arrives mechanically by invitation, but rather around the interaction between internal state strategy and external conditions. Development has never been automatic or purely external, but neither has it been independent of the geopolitical order and the decisions of the hegemonic power.

The bridge to austerity and stagnation

I have always emphasized in the blog the importance of  the Principle of Effective Demand and the pitfalls of Say’s Law, as central to understand Keynesian economics. Keynesianism is about that and NOT about the rigidity of wages, or the interest rate, or even fundamental uncertainty (something to which Keynes had to appeal to defend his ideas from 1937 on, as a result of retaining the marginalist notion of the marginal efficiency of capital). Very often that is an abstract discussion, hard to follow for students. I'm in the middle of teaching this again this semester (first time I taught Intermediate Macro was in 1993 at the Universidade Federal Fluminense, UFF).

A recent paper by Guilherme Haluska, Franklin Serrano, and Ricardo Summa (2026) provides a good empirical look at these theories in action. The authors analyze the period from 2015 to 2022 in Brazil, a phase marked by a radical shift toward fiscal austerity, labor reforms, and a rigid constitutional cap on government spending. This policy shift, famously dubbed "The Bridge to the Future," was predicated on the neoclassical belief that cutting public spending would boost confidence and reduce interest rates, thereby triggering an explosion of private investment and export-led growth.

The results, as the authors demonstrate, were exactly the opposite: the bridge led straight to stagnation. By utilizing a demand-led growth framework, they show that the sharp contraction in public investment and social spending actually dragged down aggregate demand. Far from being crowded in, private business investment fell as a share of GDP because firms, facing a shrinking domestic market and stagnant consumption, had no incentive to expand capacity. In other words, the accelerator works. As often emphasized in this blog.

The paper serves as a powerful contemporary reminder that, as Keynes argued and as we have noted in many prior posts (too many to link), when the state retreats from its role in managing demand, the market often fails to find a natural path back to prosperity, leaving the economy trapped in a low-growth equilibrium.

PS: A version of that, linked in the blog before, here. For a few similar posts suggesting Brazil has no fiscal problems, see this from 2024, or this one, this one from 2019, and this one from the beginning of the Brazilian stagnation period in 2015 (check how correct, in your view, my predictions were).

Make Argentina Crash Again

 

My article for The American Prospect on the Argentina situation was just published online. Argentina is far from being out of the woods. The expectation that the country will stabilize prices, float its currency, and build up reserves, and restart economic growth is a chimera. Despite market support for Milei’s program, the crisis remains unresolved. In my article, I explain why the challenges persist, an why this will end like the previous three neoliberal experiments, with a crash. While an immediate crash may not be on the horizon, it is somewhat inevitable. It's a matter of when, not if. And it may very well be with the next president, if the U.S. continues to financially prop Milei's government.

Note that contrary to the IMF, or Barry Eichengreen, who actually provided the IMF justification for floating rates more generally (as he explains there), I don't think to abandon the dirty float (band in this case) would be a good idea.* On that I think Milei's administration is correct. I even think that some degree, even more I think, of a reintroduction of exchange rate controls (the government reintroduced some controls on individuals, I must add) is necessary. Something that supposedly the IMF also favors. Capital controls as a macro-prudential measure in times of crises.

I also want to make clear that this is mostly about the current macroeconomic circumstances. The point is not to return to a world of Bretton Woods, with fixed exchange rates, and capital controls. It is clear that Brazil, for example, did much better than Argentina, with a dirty float and no capital controls. But, as noted by Fabian Amico, in a talk at Universidad Nacional de Moreno, recently, Brazil accumulated reserves in a different macroeconomic scenario.

Brazil accumulated foreign reserves (see graph), maintaining a positive interest rate differential (the domestic interest rate minus the foreign reference rate, the U.S. one, the expected depreciation, and a measure of country risk). We discussed that with Amico and Serrano a few years back (in Spanish). Note that as capital inflows allowed Brazil's central bank to accumulate dollars, the real appreciated in nominal terms. In Argentina where both left and right of center governments have 'appreciation fear' (and their fear is about the real rate, let alone the nominal one), that would be politically difficult.

Exchange rate depreciation at this point would lead to accelerated inflation, and to contractionary pressures. Of course, there might be a situation (they had more than a few over the years) in which, with low country risk, and high interest rates at home, leading to a higher differential that allows for the profitability of holding peso denominated assets to be higher than holding dollars, we might finally get on the road to stability. That would be orderly macroeconomic policy, and not draconian fiscal adjustment. At any rate, that doesn't seem to be the case right now.

Over the long-term, it is very clear that all the previous experiments with this kind of policy (fiscal austerity, financial deregulation, and trade liberalization) ended up in a crash. There is also little reason to believe that this time it will be different. 

* It goes without saying that I would also be against dollarization, something that Milei promised in his campaign in 2023, and that has been recently floated by Laurence Kotlikoff in the Financial Times. This suggests that the old bipolar consensus has not been completely abandoned in more mainstream circles.

Recession, Stagnation, Inflation, Debt Crises and more (with Franklin Serrano, Ricardo Summa, and Nathalie Marins)

Slow at posting. This should have been uploaded before, but it wasn't on my Zoom account. At any rate, I think the panel holds well even after a couple of months (from late February).

Policy Parlor with Franklin Serrano

My conversation with Franklin during his visit to Bucknell University. We talked about the supermultiplier and its applications to understanding real economies. The quality of the sound is better than I had expected, even if the camera is moving somewhat, and could be distracting.

Serrano, Summa and Marins on Inflation, and Monetary Policy

This is the full round table on Inflation and Monetary Policy organized by the Bucknell Institute for Public Policy (BIPP), with Franklin Serrano, Ricardo Summa and Nathalie Marins.

Challenges and Perspectives of International Monetary Policy

 

Carlos Pinkusfeld interviews Ramaa Vausdevan (Colorado State University) and Franklin Serrano (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) to discuss the complex challenges of monetary policy in the international arena. Exploring issues such as financial globalization, the influence of large economies on the global monetary system, and the implications for developing countries, the experts offer important perspectives on the role of central banks and the effectiveness of monetary policies in the globalized economy. This is an essential debate for those who want to understand the direction of the world economy in a context of dynamic changes and growing uncertainty.

 

Development Finance, External Constraints and Effective Demand in Maria da Conceição Tavares' Thought

 

A panel about Maria da Conceição Tavares with talks by three of her disciples and students, Ricardo Bielschowsky, Carlos Medeiros and Franklin Serrano.

More on oligopolistic inflation (Greedflation)

Marc Lavoie has written this post on the current inflation debates, which received some attention. We had a conversation (I don't say debate because we mostly agreed, and the video is here, last September). I also recommend Julia Braga and Franklin Serrano's paper on Marc's chapter on inflation, which is relevant for the current debates. The debate rages, within heterodoxy, as if a lot of the ideas are new, but quite frankly they are a recap of discussions of the past, particularly for those that dealt with the extensive debates about inflation and hyperinflation in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s.

That demand-pull inflation was not the cause of inflation, I think is accepted among heterodox authors, and increasingly so within the mainstream or at least the media, that mostly covers the mainstream. After an initial idyll with Larry Summers and the notion that excessively large fiscal packages during the pandemic had caused inflation, now his view that a prolonged period of relatively high (or at least higher) unemployment was necessary for stabilization has fallen out of favor. Disinflation has taken place with relatively low levels of unemployment (which, it's worth remembering measure very poorly the conditions in the labor market in our neoliberal era, and where there is more slack than noted due to significant numbers of discouraged workers). The coverage has changed from thinking Summers was right to dismissing his views. He was wrong both times.

I'm more concerned with the dominant view among progressives that inflation was caused by higher profit margins, associated to the excessive power of corporations. Something that has been called greedflation, by many commentators (see Robert Reich's recent column here), and that back when, in a distant past in another galaxy, we called oligopolistic inflation. So this is mostly a debate between neoliberal and progressive Dems (Republicans have been less relevant; for their view go to this conference/book including John B. Taylor, John Cochrane and others at the Hoover Institution; not very different than Summers, who was at the conference, at least conceptually, even if more hawkish, if that is possible).*

In particular, I think the main remaining issue is the question of the role of mark ups, or profit margins in the inflationary process. As I noted before, the idea of oligopolistic inflation is in some sense a reaction to the notion that wage resistance and wage-price spirals would imply that workers are responsible for inflation (in this reading as much as demand-pull inflation would require unemployment for stabilization, conflict inflation would imply the need for wage stagnation). Some heterodox economists have even suggested that wage-price spirals are sort of a myth.

Note that when workers manage to increase wages, then price making firms will try to recompose their margins and increase prices. And if workers are not satisfied, as prices go up again and real wages fall, then you get a spiral. Hence, the wage-price spiral is a reflection of distributive conflict, and that workers and capitalists are not satisfied with their relative shares. In that sense, inflation is neither wage-led nor profit-led, like accumulation can be. It is the result of incompatible income claims by both classes.

There is a simple model in this old paper for the Handbook edited by Phil Arestis and Malcolm Sawyer, in which I discussed the three causes of inflation for heterodox authors, supply shocks, inertia and conflict.

* The inflation paranoia is somewhat surprising, with Taylor saying that: "The answer to the key question, 'Are We Entering a New Era of High Inflation?' is clearly 'yes,' unless monetary policy makers change policy." Note that this is not new. The late Allan Meltzer warned against the dangers of excessive monetary expansion after the 2008-9 crisis, saying back then: "the enormous increase in bank reserves —caused by the Fed’s purchases of bonds and mortgages — will surely bring on severe inflation if allowed to remain." So, you would have to really believe in the lags in monetary policy (more than a decade) for his prediction to make any sense.

Lavoie on Inflation Theory: Conflicting claims versus the NAIRU

New Paper by Julia Braga and Franklin Serrano. From the abstract:

The conflicting claims approach to the theory of inflation so thoroughly surveyed and well presented in Chapter 8 of Lavoie’s (2022) book is deservedly becoming increasingly consensual among heterodox (and even some notable mainstream) macroeconomists. However, the relevance of a concept (and the very existence of) a NAIRU (Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment) derived consistently from the very premises of the conflicting claims approach is still very controversial. In this review article, we will be to argue that a NAIRU is not really useful for the conflicting claims approach. First, it can only properly be derived under quite restrictive assumptions; second, if a NAIRU actually existed, it would render demand management policies undesirable and very destabilizing anyway. With that in mind, the key aspects explored here are: 1) the different roles of hysteresis in the output and labour markets; 2) the assumptions concerning real profit markups of firms; and 3) the extent to which money wage increases actually incorporate past (or expected) inflation. We also add some remarks regarding the role of changes in international commodity prices and nominal exchange rates that further illustrate the necessary relation between conflicting claims inflation and the theory of distribution and relative prices.

Read the rest here.

Distributive Conflict and the "New" Inflation

Franklin Serrano on inflation (in Portuguese). More or less what I have been saying on the issue, with some interesting discussions on the changes in the New Consensus Model, and the changing views of some of the key authors like Larry Summers.

Thinking about Inflation: A conversation with Marc Lavoie

The conversation on inflation with Marc Lavoie at the Fields Institute in Toronto. I think that there was an agreement, between us, and most people in the room that the oligopolistic view of inflation does not hold water. I tried to discuss the Argentinean case on the basis of a piece that I co-wrote with Fabián Amico and Franklin Serrano, published in the local version of Le Monde Diplomatique online. A longer version, also in Spanish, here. An English version is in the works, btw.

Production of Commodities at 60

Video of the conference, without the long part before it starts that was on the Review of Keynesian Economics Facebook page.

At any rate,the three presentations by professors Serrano, Palumbo and Nell.

60 Years of Sraffa's PCMC: Watch the whole seminar here

Ed Nell, who shared his signed copy of PCMC

 

The whole Zoominar can be watched at the Review of Keynesian Economics' (ROKE) Facebook page here. It starts early with the live-stream, you can jump to minute 49 or so and watch from the onward.

60 Years of Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities/ROKE Webinar

Tomorrow we will talk about this book that is the Rosetta Stone of the history of economic ideas (read post 6 below for more on that). I'm happy to have a great panel to discuss it. In the meantime below 7 previous posts on Sraffa's contributions to economics, which might be helpful for some.

1. Sraffa and the Marshallian System
2. Sraffa, Marx and the Labor Theory of Value (LTV)
3. Sraffa, Ricardo and Marx
4. The Standard Commodity and the LTV
5. The Capital Debates
6. Microfoundations of Macroeconomics and the Capital Debates
7. Free Trade and the Capital Debates

Di Bucchianico on Krugman and the Liquidity Trap

New paper on the problems of Krugman and the Liquidity Trap argument (some will be able to download if for free, and I recommend this version; however, there is a previous working paper linked at the bottom for those unable to open).

From the abstract:

Krugman’s ‘liquidity trap’ model constituted a ground-breaking contribution by attributing the long-lasting Japanese stagnation to a negative natural interest rate. Our critique to such a proposal will focus on three aspects. First, we will question the logical structure of the model, providing an alternative interpretation of its closure and arguing that aggregate demand has no crucial role in it. Second, we will argue that a negative natural interest rate can emerge only after a series of overtly restrictive assumptions in a model that does not treat capital and avoids long-run equilibrium analysis. Finally, we will discuss the mainstream literature which followed up until the recent rediscovery of the Secular Stagnation Theory. Within that line of literature, the key features of the ‘liquidity trap’ model continue to occupy a prominent role, thereby letting the critical issues that have been singled out resurface. Our conclusion is that the ‘liquidity trap’ explanation did not provide a satisfying rationale for Japan’s stagnation and cannot describe later economic predicaments either. A comparison with Post-Keynesian models shows their ability to offer insightful policy prescriptions without relying on those shaky theoretical foundations.

Note that an important part of the argument is the critique of the natural rate of interest, something we have done extensively over many years in this blog, and of the notion of a negative one in the context of Summers' discussion of secular stagnation (also done in this blog; see for example here and more recently here in the context of a debate with Stephanie Kelton and MMTers; btw her book is out and anybody wanting to reviewed it for ROKE send me an email; I look forward to reading it too).

The important thing in the paper is that it goes beyond the capital debates critique, and shows the extra restrictions needed for Krugman to get his results, including some interesting thoughts on the problems associated with intertemporal models.

PS: ROKE will soon publish a paper by Serrano, Summa and Garrido Moreira (Fall issue) in which other limitations of the negative natural rate are explored.

PS': Link to working paper here.

60 Years of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities

ROKE sponsored event soon.

It will be live-streamed too.

Who really wants the (Brazilian) economy to grow?

Franklin Serrano and Vivian Garrido (Guest bloggers)

When the Brazilian economy was growing with low unemployment rates and reducing income inequality, it was said that “businessmen have never made so much money” and, at the same time, the business community’s discontent with the government was increasing. On the other hand, in the current situation of semi-stagnation that followed from a deep recession, the entrepreneurs of both real and financial sectors declare their unrestricted support to the current government, despite the daily mess and shame of various government members and the bad economic conditions. We believe that, in order to understand both this apparent paradox and the very tendency of the Brazilian economy to stagnate, it is useful to clarify some basic theoretical relationships between investment, growth of demand and profitability.[1]

What matters to entrepreneurs?Entrepreneurs want "profitability". Profitability is not simply about selling more (total profit volume), but about the amount of profit compared to the size of the invested capital. Of course, as the economy grows, the volume or mass of profits invariably increases in absolute terms. But, as Garegnani said, companies do not care about the mass of absolute profits, but about the rate of profit, that is, the amount of profit relative to the capital invested; this variable may simply be called “profitability”. However, in the short run, the capital stock already installed is given; it’s a result of past investments. Then, in this short run, the rate of profit on this capital stock will depend only on the amount of profit and this, by its turn, depends on two factors: how much is produced and sold (the level of output) and the share of the product (and income) that goes to profits. Let us clarify in more detail these two factors.

In order to do so, let's imagine a scenario (let's call it “scenario 1”) in which real wages rise more than the trend of growth of labor productivity. This tends to reduce the rate of profits as the share of profits on sales (the second factor above) falls. It is true that, since in aggregate level these increases in wage share tend to increase the demand for consumption (because the share of wage income spent on consumption is naturally higher than that of profit income), aggregate consumption and production increase, which means that, in the short run, the degree of utilization of already installed capital increases and firms as a whole, partially offset lower margins with higher sales (i.e., the first factor above). Lower margins tend to decrease the rate of profit, but higher sales, on the other hand, tend to increase the rate of profit on this already installed capital stock. But one thing does not fully offset the other. This offset, however, besides being of a short term nature, is also only partial, as any increase in the payroll increases company costs and only part of this increase comes back as additional demand and revenue for them. This is because part of the amount of these additional wages will be spent directly on imported consumer goods (and indirectly on imported inputs of consumer goods produced in the country). Another part of the payroll increase goes either to pay direct taxes or is captured by indirect taxes paid by consumers and embedded in the price of retail goods. And also because part of the payroll is saved or used to pay workers's debts with the financial sector (whose owners tend not to spend these revenues).

So, is this profit rate that matters to entrepreneurs?Not really; or rather, although this is the actual rate of profits realized on the existing capital stock, it is not the rate of profit that determines the expected profitability of entrepreneurs in their new investments. In the latter case, companies are going to invest an adequate amount for the production capacity to adjust to the new expected total demand (which, in the present case, has grown) at a planned or normal degree of utilization, that, in its turn, is calculated to meet the expected fluctuations in demand, which implies that now (beyond the short term), the volume of capital invested will increase. Therefore, because of the rise on real wages, the expected rate of profit on new investments will fall as much as the share of profits will fall, without any partial compensation (as in the previous case), and gradually the profit rate related to the capital that is being installed goes falling as much as the expected rate of profit. And this rate of profit, that is, the rate of profit on the productive capacity planned to be used at the normal level, is the one that matters, because it determines the expected profitability. This longer run profit rate is called the “normal” or “expected” rate of profit.

But why do companies focus on the expected rather than on the actually realized profit rate?Well… due to competitive pressure, firms do not want either to overestimate the expansion of the market (in order to avoid loss), nor underestimate this expansion, otherwise they will lose market shares to rival companies and/or new entrants in their sectors. Hence, any individual entrepreneur who refuses to invest just because he is not content with a lower profitability (i.e., a lower normal rate of profit) while demand is expanding will simply be losing market share to another one. The idea of ​​planning the production capacity to be used at the so-called “normal” level contemplates the possibility of fully meeting the average demand over the life of the equipment while maintaining a slack to meet temporary or seasonal demand peaks, thus avoiding losing market share to competitors during these peaks. And because the productive capacity is planned to operate at the normal level based on the expected demand, then it is the expected not the realized rate of profits that becomes decisive.

Does this mean that, although “upset”, entrepreneurs still invest knowing that their expected profit rate will fall?

Exactly.

So, profitability matters to entrepreneurs but it doesn't matter to the investment decision? What do you mean?

This is where we would like to separate and clarify the confusion between the expected profit rate and the investment decision. The total amount of investment depends only on the expected demand and not on the expected profit rate! This leads us to two opposite but not antagonistic conclusions. First, that the business community generally does not like reductions in the share of profits in income through real wage increases above the rising trend in labor productivity. That is, as we said above, the business community struggle for their profitability, because this is what matters to them. But second, when this scenario of a rise in the wage share actually happens and markets expand, the combination between competition and the lack of a better alternative, cause entrepreneurs to expand their investments, even if expected and realized profit rates are falling, unless they fall below their opportunity cost, given by the interest rate, which is its lower bound. With profit rates still above this lower limit and if demand is expanding, investment continues to grow. A central implication of these propositions is that the reaction of the business community to a downward trend in profitability will not be, therefore, an implausible "investment strike." As Kalecki said: "capitalists do many things as a class, but they certainly do not invest as a class". If and when there is a capitalist reaction, it will consist of doing something like political pressure for the State to change the economic policy regime, in order to reverse the situation in the direction of their own interests.

To illustrate, let us now suppose a second scenario (let's call it “scenario 2”), where we observe such a class reaction that succeeds and, through austerity policies, the government manages to generate stagnation with mass unemployment and this then reverses the trend of rapid growth in real wages. In this second scenario, if demand is no longer expanding and even more if there is unwanted idle capacity in the already installed capital stock, companies have no incentive to invest, no matter how much real wages and other costs or taxes and corporate contributions fall, due to labor reforms or social security or due to tax exemptions to firms in general. As much as the business community can and will be satisfied with this high level of profitability, there is no incentive for additional investment, since it would only create unnecessary productive capacity. Probably some entrepreneurs will invest in innovations to steal market share from other companies. But if the innovators succeed, those other companies that have lost market tend to reduce their own investments in the same magnitude. Unfortunately, without growth of final demand, an aggregate expansion of investment will not be sustained for too long.

And what matters to workers?Naturally, workers generally are interested in more jobs, and in increase in real wages. Both factors are directly connected with higher economic growth because growth tends to generate more jobs. In fact, politically and historically, it is through decreasing unemployment and underemployment that the bargaining power of workers rises (and has risen) and facilitates the achievement of higher real wages and better working conditions. Increases in real wages above labour productivity growth is even better for workers, because, in this case, in addition to the initial increase in wage purchasing power, there is an increase in the economy’s aggregate marginal propensity to consume (share of total income that is spent on consumption) and thus, an additional increase in aggregate demand and employment as a result of this wage increase itself.

In our view, due to a number of structural characteristics of the economy, Brazil was, until 2010, close to the previous situation described above, which is equivalent to our scenario 1. These characteristics had included elements such as: the demographic transition _ reducing the growth of labor supply _ and the low labour productivity growth _ due to a more than proportional expansion of the services sector, what generated more employment than the expansion led by other sectors. In addition, several aspects of the growth pattern adopted, based on a strong rise in the minimum wage, an elevation of job formalization, and an expansion of the welfare state (giving the poor the opportunity to survive or study without working in precarious conditions) contributed to increase the bargaining power of workers, especially the low-skilled ones, which has grown substantially and unexpectedly during the boom of the Brazilian economy since 2004. Nevertheless, since 2011 the government, pressured by the discontentment of the capitalist class with this trend, has taken a number of palliative measures to restore the corporate profitability (especially tax exemptions) and seemed to have been surprised with the lack of positive impact of such measures on private investment, in a context where government had helped to decrease markedly the growth of demand. Then, in 2015, the government decided to assume the austerity policies and the gradual weakening of the welfare state with the reduction of social rights. The capitalist class and its external allies, counting also on the support of the workers with higher salaries (the latter particularly outraged by basic wages increase and progressive measures such as the 2013’s housekeepers PEC[2]) and seeing that they had nothing to fear from a government without any firmness, set out to attack. And, through a succession of coups, the transition to something close to our scenario 2, against the workers' interests,was completed, and here we are now. Profitability conditions improve by each measure taken by the government, helped by the low bargaining power of the workers in this stagnant and mass unemployment economic situation.

In short ...

… With this note, we came up with a scenario that now, we hope, seems less paradoxical, and it is: a) interesting for entrepreneurs; b) uninteresting for workers; c) with an upward trend in the profit rate and d) with low investment growth.

Due to the weak growth of demand that largely resulted from austerity policies, investment and the economy are barely growing and there is a huge and successful effort to focus the political debate on anything but the state of the economy and social rights, in order to prevent the loss of legitimacy and maybe electoral failure of forces supporting the government. Promoting economic growth is not and has never been a priority for big businessmen and, as has been clearly acknowledge, neither growth is a government priority. But who really needs growth are not the entrepreneurs in general _ apart from some small entrepreneurs, for whom and whose family the company generates jobs _ but the workers.

REFERENCES

SERRANO, F. & SUMMA, R. F. (2018) Conflito distributivo e o fim da “breve era de ouro” da economia brasileira. Novos Estudos CEBRAP, v. 37, p. 175.

NOTES:

[1] For more details see Serrano and Summa (2018)

[2] PEC is a brazilian instrument created to facilitate changes in small parts of the Federal Constitution. In the case refered in the text, it was a particular formalization of housekeeper’s jobs.

Why do we need a theory of value?

The theory of value and distribution is at the heart of economics. To be clear, when I say that it is at the center, it means that discussions of almost any topic in economics, in one way or another, depend on a certain theoretical position about the theory of value and distribution. However, most economists have no clue about it, about the centrality of value. Not only they don't understand the original and now infamous labor theory of value (LTV), that dominated between Petty and Ricardo (and Adam Smith too, even though that tends to surprise and puzzle most economists),* but also they misunderstand the dominant marginalist paradigm. Some economists actually think that you don't need a theory of value at all, and some don't even understand that they use a conventional (some vulgar form of supply and demand) theory of value. Hence, the reason of this post is to try to help clarify some very basic issues related to the necessity of a theory of value for proper theorizing in economics.

In a sense, this topic was discussed here before, in my post on Sraffa, Marx and the LTV. But it is worth revisiting, and thinking in broader terms, beyond the LTV, to understand why a theory of relative prices is needed in general, to understand almost everything in economics.

Let me start with the authors of the surplus approach. In fact, a bit earlier with the economists that would eventually be known as Mercantilists (if you can talk about a school). If we are allowed to generalize and simplify, the latter believed that the wealth of nations depended essentially on maintaining trade surpluses, and accumulating precious metals. Profits were essentially the result of buying cheap and selling dear, or profits upon alienation, which indicates that, for Mercantilists, profits were generated in the exchange process.

Classical political economy authors, starting with William Petty, emphasize the determination of profits in the process of production, as a residual of output, once the conditions for the reproduction of the productive system were satisfied. So profits are not the result of selling high and buying low, something that could result from the mere fluctuation of market prices, but from the ability to produce beyond what was needed for the simple material reproduction of society. Note that to obtain profits, part of the residual, the surplus over and beyond reproduction requirements, one needs to know the prices of the means of production. That is, one needs to be able to account for the normal prices of the goods that went into the production of all commodities. And these prices would include a normal profit. Again, not the extra gain that might occur from a high market price. So the normal rate of profit is needed to determine prices, and prices are needed to determine the normal rate of profit. This was well understood by both Ricardo and Marx.

Value (the relative prices of commodities) and distribution (the normal rate of profit) are intertwined. Smith knew that the simple LTV (amounts of labor incorporated) was not correct other than in very rudimentary economic systems, with essentially no produced means of production. His solution was to adopt the idea of labor commanded (more on that on my post on Sraffa, and the one on the standard commodity). Ricardo solved this problem, in his corn essay, by assuming that the surplus and the means of production advanced to produce output where all in physical quantities of corn, hence profits could be determined independently from relative prices, as a physical quantity. And Marx adopted the simple labor theory of value in volume one of Capital. Both believed, for slightly different reasons, that their main arguments would hold even if the LTV was not precisely correct.

I am not concerned with the problems with the LVT in Ricardo and Marx (worth noticing that the mathematical solution was not known in their time, and was essentially developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) or Sraffa's solution. It is worth insisting that the LTV does have an analytical solution that is unique, and stable (see my post on the standard commodity for the former, which suggests a Smithian, i.e. labor commanded, version of the LTV is perfectly fine).** That's good, btw. It suggests that the classical political economy notion that there are prices that guarantee the reproduction, and, beyond the the expansion (or accumulation), of the economic system do exist.

Here I want to emphasize the importance of the LTV for the analysis of other aspects of the economy. Ricardo saw the problems of the Smithian adding up theory. That's the notion that prices were composed by the sum of natural wages, profits and rent and that prices would go up if one of its components went up.  In order to determine the rate of profit properly, Ricardo noted the explanation of value was essential. The rate of profit was central because in his view the processes of accumulation depended on the rate of profit. Hence, proper discussion of accumulation and growth depends on a proper theory of value and distribution. Btw, all classical authors assumed that real wages were exogenously determined by institutional and historical circumstances (so there was a role for history and institutions in their theory; also, for accumulation that was seen as too complex to be theorized in the same level of abstraction that value). But even if one is less keen than Ricardo on the role of profits in accumulation, it is undeniable that distribution affects accumulation, and, hence, a proper theory of value and distribution is needed.

Note also, that other things that depend on relative prices are crucially affected by the theory of value and distribution. Classical authors assumed that the process of competition, by which they meant only free entry and not the size or the number of firms in an industry, would lead to a uniform rate of profit. In that sense, the forces of competition were central in forging the structure of production, and, hence, the determination of technological change or to understand the patterns of trade specialization, which cannot be understood without the determination of relative prices. In fact, perhaps the most famous and the most controversial issues coming out of Ricardian economics dealt with international trade and the effects of technical change (the so-called machinery question), and are directly connected to the theory of value.

Even the most crucial macroeconomic problem, the question of output determination (and employment, for a given technique) is affected by the theory of value. Note that classical political economists assumed output as given for the determination of the surplus. And Ricardo accepted Say's Law as a way of determining output and employment (not Marx, btw, so it's NOT a requirement of the surplus approach). But as much as for accumulation understanding of distribution is central for the determination of the level of output, as it is explicit in the Kaleckian effective demand model. the classical long term prices are compatible with levels of output that do not guarantee full employment. And the parametric role of distribution in affecting the size of the multiplier is crucial for output and employment determination. So unemployment is possible in the long run, as a regularity of market economies.

In other words, for a coherent theory of output, accumulation, international trade, technological change and more (taxation, etc.) you need a theory of value and distribution. That is also the case in the mainstream. Marginalism developed in the last quarter of the 19th century, both as a result of the lack of analytical solution in that period for the problems of the LTV and as a reaction to radical revival of the theory (Marxism). The important distinction is that while classical political economy authors dealt only with objective factors, and considered demand as given when determined value and distribution, marginalism incorporated subjective preferences as central for the explanation of long term normal prices, and prices and quantities were determined simultaneously.

Beyond the problems with the marginalist solution for the existence of long term prices (see this on the capital debates) and their switch to the intertemporal approach, which basically only deals with short term prices, their theory is also central for almost everything in economics. In a sense, given that in marginalist analysis distribution is determined by supply and demand, and by the relative scarcity of factors of production, the theory of value and distribution is even more central for other parts of their theory than in the surplus approach. Here the theory of distribution does not affect indirectly the level of output and the process of accumulation. Here the level of employment and, for a given technology, output determination is the same as the theory of distribution. Real wages and the level of employment are determined in the labor market simultaneously. Everything derives from that.

Before getting to the reason why the theory of value and distribution, central for everything, is often ignored, let me note briefly the possibility of a third alternative to value and distribution, beyond the surplus approach and marginalism. That would be the markup theories of pricing. Note that theories of markup pricing essentially describe how firms determine prices. Most of these theories were developed as a result of the imperfect competition literature sparked by Sraffa's famous (1926) critique of Marshallian price theory (see an old post on that here).

First, as it would be known for the readers of this blog (at least the ones that have been reading for a long while), markup pricing is actually dealing with a different set of issues, and Franklin Serrano suggested here that they are different than the classical political economy normal long term prices (the Marxist prices of production or Sraffa's prices), and that Fred Lee and Marc Lavoie were right about that. He argued that some Sraffians (I won't name names), and I would add probably Fred too, thought that Sraffian prices were compatible with the full cost pricing tradition, and I could have included myself in this group.*** Note that what I mean by that is simply that the behavior of firms must be compatible in the real world with the logic of gravitation in classical analysis. In other words, if prices of production imply a normal profit over the full cost for a given technique, then firms somehow must be trying to do that.

But it is clear that the full cost pricing of a particular firm might not be the long run equilibrium price around which market prices gravitate, with free mobility, that is, with competition in the classical sense. In a way, the same circularity suggested above reapers, costs depend on prices (and that involves the profit related to the markup), and prices depend on costs. The firm's individual prices might not be the prices that are required for the reproduction of the economy as a whole. In that sense, markup theories must be grounded on some surplus approach understanding of value and distribution, and they are essentially theories about market prices, meaning short run behavior. In that sense, they run into the same problem than the intertemporal marginalist models, the Arrow-Debreu type, that became more popular after the capital debates, and that led to what Garegnani famously referred to as the change in the notion of equilibrium (that is the abandonment by the mainstream of the notion of long run equilibrium). Some heterodox groups see this as a positive development, but again it implies that they cannot say anything clear about distribution and relative prices, and that has implications for almost any other theory.

I might add here, which is more concerning for some heterodox groups, is that many of these theories are also compatible with marginalist interpretations of the theory of value and distribution. Many imperfect competition theories just suggest simple inverse relations between markups and the price elasticity of demand. This again fall into the type of situation I discussed recently regarding Karl Polanyi, of well-meaning critics of the marginalist mainstream, using marginalist or neoclassical concepts w/o knowing they are doing it (if it's conscious acceptance of the mainstream model, then it's something different).

One last thing in this regard, while markup theories must be grounded on some theory of value and distribution, and my take is that the surplus approach is where it would make sense, the opposite is not true. There is no need for a theory of the firm, of individual behavior, to understand long term prices. Classical political economists certainly discussed behavior, but that essentially entailed some notion related to class, to general social norms, not about what is going on in someone's brain. Even Smith that was certainly concerned with the issue of the role of self-interest in determining the equilibrium outcomes in the market, cannot be assumed to be a precursor of the rational maximizing agents of the mainstream, or of methodological individualism. The same could be said of utilitarian views and Ricardo, who was, to some degree, close to many utilitarians including Bentham. Here too, many heterodox economists think that an alternative theory of behavior is central for economics, and that is why many see behavioral economics as somewhat heterodox.

Finally, getting, even if briefly, to the point of why most economists remain oblivious to the relevance of value and distribution. I would suggest that this is a recent phenomenon. It is the result of what I have discussed here before, the return of vulgar economics (for example, here or here), and that the mainstream has abandoned the long run, and provides only a theory of short run prices. But at the same time the mainstream must revert to the old model in order to promote economic policy. Note that only in that model you can guarantee that markets provide efficient allocation of resources (w/o imperfections), and the price system signals the direction of adjustment. It is often missed by the heterodox groups that resist old classical political economy (often for incorrectly assuming that it is a precursor of marginalism) that their theory of value and their long term prices provide something completely different, an understanding of the conditions for the reproduction of society. That notion, btw, is alive and well in other social sciences (see here or here). Not in economics.

* It survived in the fringes and it was rediscovered by Marx and then much later Sraffa, who actually provided a coherent solution to some of its logical limitations. But after Ricardo, the LTV was never dominant again.

** On the gravitation of market prices towards normal prices see the work by Bellino and Serrano here.

*** My fondness for the subject in part derived from having worked for Wynne Godley at the Levy for two years, who was a disciple of P. S. W. Andrews one of the key authors of the Oxford Economists' Research Group (OERG) behind full cost pricing theories.