Search results

An interview with Milton Friedman in 1996 ‐ presents his reflections on some of the important issues surrounding the evolution of, and currrent debates within, modern macroeconomics. A world‐renowned economist and prolific author since the 1930s, Milton Friedman has had a considerable impact on macroeconomic theory and policy making. Associated mostly with monetarism and the efficacy of free markets, his work has ranged over a broader area ‐ microeconomics, methodology, consumption function, applied statistics, international economics, monetary theory, history and policy, business cycles and inflation. In the interview discusses Keynes’s General Theory, monetarism, new classical macroeconomics, methodology, economic policy, European union and the monetarist counter‐revolution.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the interaction between the economic and political imperatives of new monetarism. The breakdown of the global derivatives markets, which came into the spotlight during the 2008/2009 global debt crisis, brought up the issue of trust. The matter at hand is the loss of trust in investors' ability to make informed decisions, but trust in the self‐regulating capacity of open markets has also been seriously shaken.

Relying on Roche and McKee's analysis of the global financial crisis, the author emphasizes that new monetarism is not a new paradigm, but rather a result of economic circumstances. Although the growth of financial asset prices was indeed partly a result of the liberalization of financial markets, the decisive factor is to be found in the creation of new financial instruments. On the one hand, derivatives have drastically increased the “investment power” or “purchasing power” of money. However, on the other hand, derivatives are a form of under‐appreciated liquidity that creates bubble assets.

Over the last two decades, the value of global financial assets has grown much faster than the real economy in its background, which means that in the era of new monetarism, financial markets set the tone of the real economy. Consequently, in the eyes of investors, the crucial term becomes “liquidity”, rather than “real economy”. As disinflation multiplied the value of financial assets, central banks progressively lost control of money. Players in financial markets that had increasing trust in cheap money started to introduce new forms of money, which allowed them to create liquidity, independently of the central bank. It has been shown that the quantity and cost of money available for investment can be frozen up to a point where it threatens the global financial system.

Networks for promoting social responsibility of the corporate sector, which more and more tightly cover our small planet, wish to make transparent the connections between corporate leaders, politicians and organizations to which they are connected. Their members conduct research with the aim of making the invisible power of money visible.

New financial democracy in the post‐modern era presupposes financially literate citizens, which without a doubt presents a challenge for education systems, which will evidently have to incorporate a new, crucial form of literacy, in addition to linguistic, mathematical and computer literacy – financial literacy.

This paper is a review essay of Leeson, R. (Ed.), Keynes, Chicago and Friedman (2 volumes), Pickering and Chatto, London, 2003. These volumes contain a comprehensive collection of previously published papers, and also some interesting new materials, relating to the controversy about the accuracy of Milton Friedman's depiction of the “oral tradition” in monetary economics at the University of Chicago in the 1930s and 1940s. As such, the work is a notable addition to the scholarly literature. The broader issue raised by this collection is the precise relationship between Friedman's “monetarism” and the so‐called “Keynesian economics” of the neoclassical synthesis, and specifically, whether there was any real difference between them.

Since the late 1970s, the study of the role, structure and functions of personnel management in the United Kingdom has been greatly facilitated by surveys emerging from a number of large‐scale surveys. A major interest in interpreting the data from these surveys has been to evaluate the impact of recession, and, latterly, recovery on the power, structure and roles of personnel departments and personnel specialists in recent years. The survey data are used comparatively to evaluate the empirical plausibility of the different scenarios which have arisen, and to account for the results that emerge.

Ideology as a mixture of consciously or unconsciously accepted ideas and beliefs provides the underlying support or rationalisation for fundamental features of thought and action in a society. A vigorously promoted contending ideology may at any given time also influence developments. Value judgments, which are likewise not based on the logical rules of observation and verification, may for present purposes be taken as concerned with less comprehensive or less fundamental matters than ideology.

Received histories present national accounts as universal, purely economic measures based mostly on theoretical foundations. This paper argues that this is an anachronistic approach to the long and uneven development of these estimates and builds on geopolitical economy to examine national income estimates as quantifications of state power. First, it reveals national income accounts to be historically and geographically contingent rather than universal, suggesting contestation instead of any hegemony or dominance of one central ideology. Second, the economic power and motivations of nation-states, rather than economic theory, are at the core of the design of national income estimates, which are used to promote states’ position in international competition as well as advocate for particular national economic policies. The history of national accounting closely tracks the rise of the nation-state, the unique phase of British hegemony, the two World Wars, the east-west competition of the Cold War, and the north-south competition of the recent two decades. To this day, revisions to national accounting systems reflect the shifting balance of power and incessant international competition.

This chapter starts from the issue of debt in the context of a national economy by contrasting two opposed views: policy prescriptions based on the Washington Consensus prioritize low public debt and a limited role of the government in the development process whereas a more heterodox view considers debt as logical, necessary, and helpful in order to allow the government to pursue an ambitious growth and development strategy. However, things change when the economy is considered in its international context: foreign debt is different from domestic debt and while the same heterodox analysis still rejects the Washington Consensus' demand for trade and financial liberalization, its own ambitious development strategies for the domestic economy get constrained by trade deficits, the threat of capital flight, and exchange rate instability. The question arises how the government can still significantly contribute to economic development beyond the limits of a purely private sector–driven approach. This is why this chapter reviews proposals to relax or overcome the balance-of-payments constraint. Finally, it considers a reform of international payments, which can be implemented by a single country unilaterally, and which enables it to stabilize its current account, avoid foreign debt accumulation, and support domestic development strategies.

This paper focuses on the differences between the Austrian School's (Au) and the Monetarist's (Mt) position on Monetary theory. It will be shown that Au have a complete micro outlook that is not in the quantity theory tradition. Au reject central banking and coordinated monetary policy in favor of a system of free banking in which there is no government money. To Au, central banking, with its monopoly of government issued currency, not only allows commercial banks to expand credit beyond prudent limits, but also is responsible for the artificial lowering of market interest rates, followed by abnormally high investment demand, causing more volatile business cycles. In contrast, Mt do have a macro outlook that is in the quantity theory tradition. They believe in central banking, but want to limit discretionary monetary policy by using a growth rule. They focus on the aggregate price level and believe in the long run neutrality of money.

Post-pandemic renewal has to be much more radical. In this chapter we develop a considered response to reimagining the public sector with a focus on Liverpool City Region, its local economy and local government. By drawing on wider ideas of new municipalism, new narratives of how to make local economies more social through public investment, accountability and democratic governance can be made. The local scale offers the frame through which this can be examined as we make the case for new municipalism in the Liverpool City Region.

As scholar-activists we have been involved in responding to the continuous austerity imposed on local government. We research and debate the social and economic problems faced in the Liverpool City Region and present some of our findings here. In our work, through an organisation known as ‘Beacon’ – a grass roots movement agitating for new municipalism – we make the case for new policy initiatives and seek to demonstrate a need for a different type of public sector reform through local government.

In the context of the ‘levelling up’ agenda of the UK government, there remains concern across the city region about how local government can function given the ongoing austerity imposed from the centre. We have a public sector that has faced disinvestment in communities for over a decade and because of this, we reimagine public sector renewal by advocating for a new municipalism based on strategies of economic and political innovation that can lead to greater levels of democracy, accountability, wealth creation and distribution. We show examples outside of the UK, such as in the US and Spain, where embryonic forms of new municipalism are evident.

Our work sets out a roadmap to achieve a new municipalist agenda in the Liverpool City Region through an activist movement, Beacon. We bring together ideas and practices that are often underway elsewhere that have real political and economic impacts. In articulating the need for renewal, not only must we critically reflect on underpinning problems but seek to campaign for the change we advocate. The challenge we face is one of coordination and scale.