Search results

This analysis attempts a comparative specification of certain aspects of the country studies contained in this volume. The point of departure is the banking crises of the early 1990s (deep in Finland, Norway and Sweden, mini-crisis in Denmark and absent in Iceland) and the contrast to Iceland's financial meltdown in 2007/2008 (no crisis in the three, a new mini-crisis in Denmark). Detailed process tracing of the Icelandic crisis is provided. The case account is then used to shed light on the different roles of neoliberalism, economics expert knowledge and populist right-wing party formation in the five Nordic political economies.

The new rich of the nineteenth century were not brought up to large expenditures, and preferred the power which investment gave them to the pleasures of immediate consumption. In fact, it was precisely the inequality in the distribution of wealth which made possible those vast accumulations of fixed wealth and of capital improvements which distinguished that age from all others. … The immense accumulations of fixed capital which, to the great benefit of mankind, were built up during the half century before the war, could never have come about in a Society where wealth was divided equitably. [Sic!] — John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919/20; Chap. II, sec. III), “Europe before the War,” “The Psychology of Society.”

The recent recession has seen something of a resurgence in the debate over military Keynesianism. Recent commentators, who should know better, have claimed that it would make sense to stimulate the U.S. economy through increases in military spending, as though this has not been a commonly contested view over the last 40 years. A large, literature has debated the economic effects of military spending, and while it has reached no consensus, there is also little support for any belief that military spending is a good way of stimulating the economy. This paper makes a contribution to the debate by assessing the theoretical perspectives and the empirical approaches used. It then undertakes an analysis of the United States using a number of approaches, and the results suggest that the simple military Keynesian arguments still lack empirical support.

Keynes, with his heretical contribution to the family of the neo‐classics, was as profound as the heresies of Luther against the Pope. He accepted the institution of profit, private initiative, personal ownership of the means of production, the price mechanism of the market in the production and consumption of goods and distribution of income. He refused to accept, however, the old concept of equilibrium with full employment according to the Say law of the markets. Instead he introduced the concept of equilibrium with unemployment, anathema to the classics.

In preparing this article, I have approached Shackle's “fundamentalist” interpretation of Keynes from a slightly different angle. Much of the discussion as to whether Shackle is right tends to get bogged down in a rather narrow textual exegisis. That is, debates that focus on whether the 1937 Quarterly Journal of Economics article means more, or less, than Keynes's apparent “endorsement” of IS/LM Keynesianism contained in his famous letter to Hicks. This type of discussion too easily overlooks the more fundamental methodological considerations that motivate Shackle. Such issues as the way in which economic actors acquire knowledge and the nature of economics as a social science are important to him. Therefore], a more meaningful way of assessing Shackle's views would be to consider whether they are in sympathy with Keynes's views on such matters.

This article attempts to provide an institutionalist analysis and diagnosis of the current crisis of orthodox economics. We shall, first, characterise the predominant opinion in economics—the neoclassical synthesis. Next, we examine the anomalies which are currently vexing orthodox opinion and their power to provoke a period of crisis and extraordinary science. In the final section, we diagnose the source of the anomalies of the neoclassical synthesis.

The theme of micro‐foundation of economic theory has not been adequately addressed. This is true even of those who pioneered the area of micro‐foundation of macro‐economics. The great missing link in economic theory, both of micro‐economics and macro‐economics, is the inability to methodologically integrate ethical and moral values through preference mapping. This missing methodology disables the study of institutions, policy formulation and normative statements of structural transformation. On the other hand, such issues are once again haunting the human race in the murky and troubled global relations today – from capitalism to war to governance. This paper addresses the preference mapping and embedding of ethical and moral issues as endogenous dynamics in economic theory. The approach is rigorous and methodological.

The editorials of the then-new Business Week during the 1929–1933 contraction offered sophisticated Keynesian policy prescriptions: against a laissez-faire response, against deflation, against balanced-budget fetishism, for monetary expansion. These editorials, which seem to have been largely forgotten, likely played a considerable role in the dissemination of Keynesian economics in the United States in the 1930s. This chapter reviews the editorials and their congruence with Keynes’s writings. The magazine’s archives, including surveys of their readers, suggest that the editorials were among the most read and most valued parts of the magazine. The magazine cultivated an elite executive readership at that time, so the editorials may well have been important in gaining business support for Keynesian policies in the early New Deal.

The chapter presents a short biography of Kalecki, from his early years in Łódź, through his economics research and development of his theory of business cycles, participation in the Keynesian Revolution and work after the Second World War on the economics of socialism and the developing countries. The key role of capital accumulation (investment) in determining levels of employment and total output is put forward as Kalecki's main innovation. There are evident similarities between Kalecki's theory of the business cycle and that of the Austro-Marxist Emil Lederer, as well as in the distributional analysis of Rudolf Hilferding. Kalecki's analysis of monetary circulation, and the centrality of his theory of profits was anticipated by Rosa Luxemburg in her Anti-Critique. But that monetary theory is rooted in a Marxian understanding of money as a means of settlement between capitalists.