Search results

The purpose of the paper is to develop alternative paths to the transition process as a result of alternative models of transition.

A political economy methodology to the transition process results in alternative transition models. As a result five alternative models of transition come into being.

Transition models can be distinguished on the basis of economic analysis, speed and the political structure. Each model recommended a set of economic policies to facilitate the transition process. The adoption of gradualist processes of transition – except in the case of shock therapy – requires a sequence by which the reforms should be introduced.

The paper contributes to the transition literature by developing a set of economic policies combined with a sequence path for each transition model.

The aim of this article is to assess the macroeconomic consequences of some specific aspects of financialization (i.e. share buy-back) using a hybrid post-Keynesian model of growth and distribution based on Kaldorian and Kaleckian characteristics.

The study follows a post-Keynesian approach and deals with financialization issues by implementing several numerical simulations.

The numerical simulations reveal the negative real impacts of massive share repurchases on the rate of accumulation because they immediately siphon off revenues directly intended for investment projects. Moreover, the negative effect of share buy-backs is reinforced especially when firms' investment decisions are more sensitive to a variation in retained earnings. Next, this macro-model also reproduces several well-known figures of the Kaleckian tradition and the paradox of costs.

The present article can be considered as a starting point for further theoretical extensions and requires empirical validation.

The Kaldor-Kalecki macro-model could be useful for policymakers who are interested in containing some of the negative excesses of financialization.

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.

The anthropological literature on the gift has split the social and material world into a premodern realm of thick sociality where gifting is located, and a modern realm of thin sociality in which exchange occurs. It concedes the modern realm to neoclassical economists. This paper challenges both the premodern/modern split and the adequacy of neoclassical theory as a description of material life anywhere, drawing on Post Keynesian critiques of the neoclassical treatment of time. The heterodox Post Keynesian school provides a conception of the subject situated in time that is better fitted to non-reductionist theories of material life.

The aim is to integrate the dynamics of asset accumulation for open economies with the conflict theory of wage and price formation. This synthesis allows us to assess the results obtained in the mainstream asset market models based on an atomistic view of the economy, analyse the influence of market power in product and labour markets on aggregate economic activity, and to investigate new sources of potential instability.

This article analyses documents before the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System. The proceedings of the Radcliffe Committee are recognised as providing a watershed in the history of monetary thought, particularly as pertains to the propositions of post‐Keynesian monetary economics. These propositions, recently detailed in two books (Rousseas, 1968; Moore, 1987), can be summarised as follows:

This paper seeks to evaluate how some of the core general principles of heterodox political economy (HPE) can be applied to the issue of how HPE has managed to undergo resurgence and development over recent decades.

Four major principles of heterodoxy are applied successively to this issue: historical specificity; contradiction; heterogeneous agents and groups; and circular and cumulative causation.

These principles assist in comprehending how HPE is able to develop its own concepts, networks, publications, academic departments, teaching and policy‐relevant material.

HPE has had considerable success in developing a conceptual apparatus, which helps to explain the emergence of much of its edifice being developed in academic and policy circles. The performance of HPE has been impressive.

The conceptual apparatus of heterodoxy can be applied to real world situations; specifically a component of world history over especially the past 40 years.

This is the first time such a theme has been explored in the literature.

The neo-Kaleckian model follows the ideas of Marx, Keynes and Kalecki, that investment is a key influencing factor in the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production. Through the discussion of different forms of investment decision function, this paper constructs the analysis framework of wage-led and profit-led economic growth regimes.

The model has become an important theoretical paradigm for current Western heterodox economists regarding the research on the impact of functional income distribution on economic growth, and it has a very large impact on both theoretical and empirical research. Starting from Marx's reproduction theory, this article discusses the theoretical shortcomings of the neo-Kaleckian growth regime model.

This paper mainly focuses on three aspects: (1) the ideological legacy of “Smith's Dogma”; (2) neglecting the restrictions on income distribution from the organic composition of capital and the surplus value rate; (3) technological progress and the formation of a new long economic wave.

The authors believe that the neo-Kaleckian model unilaterally emphasizes the demand-side factors in the economy and, unconsciously or not, ignores the role of the supply-side, which makes it encounter certain limitations in explaining long-term growth. Even if some empirical conclusions are employed to bridge functional income distribution and technological progress, there is still a lack of a theoretical basis for accurately describing long-term economic changes using this model. In order to better promote high-quality economic development and accelerate the formation of a new pattern of economic development in which the domestic large-scale cycle is the mainstay and the domestic and international double cycles promote each other, the authors need to adopt a policy combination with the supply-side as the main and the demand-side as the supplement, and to work from both sides.

Based on Geoffrey Harcourt's Palgrave volumes, this review article attempts to picture how, in a Cambridge environment, Keynes's fragmentary monetary theory of production grew organically out of Marshall's equally fragmentary monetary theory of exchange. The dangers associated with Keynes's close links with Marshall are alluded to. Indeed, without taking account of the classical spirit of Sraffa's work, Keynes's monetary theory may quite easily be integrated into the Marshallian‐neoclassical framework of analysis. However, theorising, not literally, but in the spirit of Keynes and Sraffa, within a Ricardian‐Pasinettian framework of vertical integration, opens the way to a Classical‐Keynesian monetary theory of production.

The paper seeks to answer the question: why is John Kenneth Galbraith a radical economist? The purpose of this paper is to show how he contributed to the development of economic theory and how this contribution differs radically from mainstream economics.

In concentrating on Galbraith's theory of power – certainly his most radical contribution to economics – the paper begins to provide an overview of his conceptual work. This overview includes Galbraith's theory of consumption, the firm and financial crisis and ends with his vision for the future. To demonstrate the radical nature of Galbraith's frameworks, they are compared to other heterodox economic theories – namely Institutional and Post Keynesian economics and to a number of randomly chosen standard economics textbook.

This comparative and interpretive exercise clearly demonstrates links of Galbraithian with other heterodox economic theories and very little mentioning and uptake of these concepts in widely used economics textbooks. Galbraith's ideas do seem to fit in well with Institutional and Post Keynesian economics, but not with standard economics.

Galbraithian economics is a clear example of a set of heterodox economic ideas that can be taught probably best as a separate and alternative framework of analysis to the mainstream. To familiarize students with Galbraith's economics will certainly strengthen their analytical abilities and provide them with radically different and particularly useful insights in this time of financial crisis.

The paper demonstrates the explanatory value of Galbraith's economics and the origin of the radical nature of his concepts which lies in his theory of power.