Capital Flows to Latin America (2003–17): A Critical Survey from Prebisch’s Business Cycle Theory

ABSTRACT

The economic literature on capital flows to developing countries has shared two important commonalities since the 1990s. Published works (whether they focus on the external situation or stress the domestic determinants of capital flows) tend to assume a beneficial effect of capital inflows, which leads to an improvement of peripheral institutions, whose deficiencies are ostensibly the main cause of economic turmoil and/or failure in attracting capital flows, in continuity with New Institutional Economics. In doing so, mainstream economists deliberately overlook the asymmetric characteristics of the international monetary system and the persisting hegemony of dollar. Raul Prebisch’s pioneering work on business cycles in Latin America provide an alternative view, one capable of amending the existing mainstream literature. On the one hand, Prebisch stressed the destabilizing role of capital inflows on Latin American economies, particularly short-term speculative capital. On the other hand, Prebisch designed a set of counter cyclical monetary policies in order to contrast capital volatility, particularly during downturns. An analysis of stylized facts shows that, when correctly updated, Prebisch’s theory has remarkable explanatory potential when applied to Latin America’s current economic and financial situation.     

创新型增长视角下的金融发展：综述及展望

传统经济增长理论分析框架下,金融系统只影响资本形成,并不创造社会财富,它对经济增长的作用只有水平效应而没有增长效应。新增长理论,尤其是熊彼特增长理论．突破了新古典增长理论关于技术进步的外生性假设,强调资本积累和创新是促进技术进步和经济增长的重要力量,这为研究金融体系对技术进步和经济增长的促进作用提供了全新视角。当前,中国金融发展现状与创新型增长要求之间存在一定程度的不相容性,需要在制度、政策和监管体系上不断完善与变革,逐步实现科技创新和金融发展的良性互动。     

网络经济下的金融理论与金融治理

建立在信息革命基础上的网络经济 ,对传统金融产业和金融理论产生了深刻的影响。网络金融成为了本世纪金融业发展的主流 ,电子货币也将在社会经济生活中发挥更大的作用。金融产业组织的变化和货币形态的变革 ,使货币理论和货币供求关系出现了新的变化 ,并导致了货币政策、金融市场等的一系列演进。金融体系主客体的变化 ,使金融风险有了新的特点 ,金融治理需要进行相应的调整。     

The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?

Ecological economics and its policy recommendations have become overwhelmed by economic valuation, shadow pricing, sustainability measures, and squeezing Nature into the commodity boxes of goods, services and capital in order to make it part of mainstream economic, financial and banking discourses. There are deeper concerns which touch upon the understanding of humanity in its various social, psychological, political and ethical facets. The relationship with Nature proposed by the ecological economics movement has the potential to be far reaching. However, this is not the picture portrayed by surveying the amassed body of articles from this journal or by many of those claiming affiliation. A shallow movement, allied to a business as usual politics and economy, has become dominant and imposes its preoccupation with mainstream economic concepts and values. If, instead, ecological economists choose a path deep into the world of interdisciplinary endeavour they will need to be prepared to transform themselves and society. The implications go far beyond the pragmatic use of magic numbers to convince politicians and the public that ecology still has something relevant to say in the 21st century.     

Social capital and social economics

The “discovery” of social capital in the early 1990s led to an upsurge of research into the economic impact of social cohesion and governmental effectiveness. This paper outlines key developments in the social capital literature over the past 13 years. It then examines theory and evidence of the links between social cohesion, quality of governance, economic performance and human welfare. The literature indicates that social capital makes a measurable contribution to economic development and overall wellbeing, particularly in developing countries. Partly in response to this emerging body of evidence, there has been increased interest in the application of community development principles to economic development initiatives. This paper argues that the advent of social capital theory represents a partial convergence between social economics and mainstream economics, and signifies an increased acceptance that economic activity cannot be meaningfully “disembedded” from social and political context.     

Marx,Finance and Political Economy

ABSTRACT

Shortly after the publication of Volume I of Capital, the financial requirements of capitalist enterprise forced the financial innovation of bond and stock finance for joint stock companies. Marx intended to re-write Capital in order to incorporate this change. He did not achieve this. The economic analysis of capitalism with long-term finance was undertaken by Hilferding in his Finance Capital. Thereafter, a strand of economic analysis of production and distribution emerged in the work of the Austro-Marxists, Veblen, Keynes, Kalecki, Steindl and Sweezy, and the Italian Kaleckians, Joseph Halevi and Riccardo Bellofiore, which incorporated the change made to the structure and dynamics of capitalism by long-term finance. However, this shift in capitalist financing has largely been ignored in economic theory, while much of the heterodox analysis that seeks to challenge the role of finance in contemporary capitalism has not integrated finance consistently. The change from the classic capitalism to finance capital raises important questions about the meaning and relevance of Marx’s work today.     

Social capital and social economics

The “discovery” of social capital in the early 1990s led to an upsurge of research into the economic impact of social cohesion and governmental effectiveness. This paper outlines key developments in the social capital literature over the past 13 years. It then examines theory and evidence of the links between social cohesion, quality of governance, economic performance and human welfare. The literature indicates that social capital makes a measurable contribution to economic development and overall wellbeing, particularly in developing countries. Partly in response to this emerging body of evidence, there has been increased interest in the application of community development principles to economic development initiatives. This paper argues that the advent of social capital theory represents a partial convergence between social economics and mainstream economics, and signifies an increased acceptance that economic activity cannot be meaningfully “disembedded” from social and political context.     

凯恩斯经济学方法的科学哲学评价

主流经济学在凯恩斯经济学形成之后,一直存在着争论,如何理解凯恩斯经济学理论的真谛,是当前研究现代经济学一个值得关注的问题,而在理解凯恩斯经济学理论中有关他的研究方法的哲学思想内涵是方法论的根本,也是构成其经济学理论的重要组成部分。本文以凯恩斯的《通论》为基础,分析凯恩斯经济学方法的哲学基础,并在方法论意义上进行了评价。分析结果表明,对于凯恩斯经济学的理解应当以全面发展的眼光看待,宏观经济学只是其理论起源的一个方面,追求经济思维的合理性和适应人类经济活动的需要是凯恩斯经济学方法论的根本。     

对主流经济物理学研究范式的担忧——兼议其在中国面临的困境和挑战

主流经济物理学具有以下方面的偏执:从物理学上看,忽视非统计物理学在其领域的应用;从经济学上看,局限在数据丰富的金融领域,追求普适性法则以及缺乏完整的理论框架;从数学上看,局限在非线性、概率统计以及随机方面,忽视代数、几何以及更适合经济系统的半定量和半确定数学的应用;从研究方法上看,热衷于逻辑实证主义和复杂科学,确立了从数据出发的研究模式;从理论检验上看,推崇裁判竞争性理论的数据维度;从经济学的自然学派看,忽视经济学自然维度的寻找。主流经济物理学在中国面临着挑战:长期的文理分科使得在交叉学科研究方面缺乏相应的知识结构;美国经济物理学研究范式在中国硬性推广,而忽视了国内经济行为自身环境。因此,中国学者应更多关注与政治制度等有关的,对经济行为存在自上而下影响的经济学,同时赞同经济物理学应研究经济行为决策的自然维度。     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

企业家社会资本与企业创业绩效关系——基于陕西省经验的实证分析

企业家人力资本对创业绩效的贡献作用一直备受主流经济学的关注,但是,伴随着新经济时代的到来,单纯的人力资本已不能充分解释企业不断增长的问题,尤其是创业企业的绩效差异问题。因而,企业家社会资本开始受到理论界的关注。文章以陕西创业企业为例,通过与人力资本相比较,采取实证方法对企业家社会资本对创业绩效的影响进行具体分析。运用主成分分析法对企业家社会资本和创业绩效分别作归类分析。以创业绩效为因变量,企业家社会资本和人力资本及它们的交叉项为自变量,建立多元线性回归模型。分析结果表明,企业家社会资本对创业绩效的贡献作用远远超过人力资本,并在文章最后对此现象进行解释。     

农村发展中金融要素作用的实证分析

农村金融是农业及农村经济发展的“核心”,新农村建设离不开金融的有效支持。通过建立分析农村金融作用的指标体系,运用因子分析法计算得出农村金融作用质量的得分,分析各因素对农村金融作用的影响程度。研究发现：农村经济货币化程度对农村经济发展起到非常重要的作用,农村金融对农村建设发挥着越来越大的作用。因此,要充分挖掘农村金融发展对农村经济发展、农户增收的作用,要扩大农村金融规模,强化支农效率：改革农村金融中介机构,引导资金回流;加大城乡金融调控力度以促进农民增收,加强对中小企业的信贷支持,加强对农业和农民的信贷支持。     

论人力资本产权收益

本文从财务角度对人力资本产权收益的实现机制进行研究.从财务角度来看,人力资本是有意识投资的,具有促进财富和经济增长的内在特性的,一种能享有资本产权收益的价值.所有员工都符合人力资本的特性,因此都是企业人力资本的栽体.按层次可将人力资本分为高层、中层、基层人力资本.人力资本产权特性具有债权和股权双重特性,不同层次人力资本在双重特性上的分布程度是不同的.人力资本产权收益的构成既包括债权投资意义上的收益,也包括股权投资意义上的收益.相对于非人力资本享受的税后收益,人力资本的税后收益的意义更为广泛,还包括剩余控制权相对应的收益.文章提出构建以契约底薪和法定保险为基础,以税后收益分配为调节,同时实施人力资本产权基金制度的人力资本产权收益的实现模式.     

我国三十年来农村地区金融改革的逻辑轨迹——基于新比较经济学分析框架的研究

文章基于新比较经济学的分析框架,从正规金融和非正规金融两个方面来论述三十年来中国农村地区金融改革的基本逻辑。研究认为,农村金融发展滞后于农村经济发展的原因是政府对农村金融的控制方式不尽合理。文章充分肯定了国家2005年至今的改革措施,认为新型金融机构的引进将成为建立完善的农村金融体系的契机。     

非正规金融发展的区域差异及其经济增长效应

中国非正规金融发展呈现出明显的区域差异,这与商业文化发达程度、正规金融对民营企业金融支持力度、民间资金丰裕度等因素有关.利用区域宏观经济数据在新古典经济增长理论框架下对金融发展的经济增长效应进行实证检验,文章发现非正规金融发展的区域差异对经济增长的区域差异具有显著的解释力.通过对金融发展水平指标的重新构建,文章认为正规金融与非正规金融均有显著的经济增长效应.     

Thought Contagion and Financial Economics: The Dividend Puzzle as a Case Study

In this paper we explore the connection between the theory of thought contagion and the ways of thinking in financial economics. We argue that financial economics became what it is today not by coincidence, or a methodically optimal process in search of some universal truth that is "out there," but by an organized campaign to inhibit thinking. We show that much of financial economic thinking is influenced by the modes in which this thought control takes place. We use the dividend puzzle, one of the great enigmas of modern finance, as a case study to demonstrate the validity of our thesis.     

互联网金融促进了企业研发创新吗

互联网金融作为基于互联网的新金融模式,通过提升金融资源配置效率影响企业研发创新。基于278个地级市面板数据,分析互联网金融对企业研发创新的影响,探究产业发展、传统金融发展和人力资本对互联网金融创新效应的影响。实证结果表明,互联网金融可显著促进企业研发创新,经过一系列稳健性检验后发现该结论依然成立。进一步研究发现,产业发展、传统金融发展以及人力资本水平与互联网金融具有互补性,有利于增强互联网金融创新效应。此外,异质性研究发现,互联网金融在科教水平较低的城市和级别较低的城市具有显著创新效应,区位因素并不是影响互联网金融创新效应的显著性原因;互联网金融在对外开放水平、市场化水平以及经济发展水平较高城市的创新效应大于其它城市。     

新常态下的人力资本与经济增长——综合金融资本和创新创业的理论建模

在国内外形势的双重影响下,中国经济步入了"新常态"的阶段,放缓的经济增长步伐带来新的矛盾和挑战,经济增长模式从以往的粗放型逐渐向集约型转变,但以往的经济理论在经济新阶段都具有一定的局限性.本文使用主流宏观经济学前沿的建模方法将现有的四大经济增长理论囊括在一个综合模型中,把人力资本投资、金融资本投资、实物资本投资、创新创业活动、纳什博弈机制有机地结合在统一的分析框架下,对经济增长理论文献做出重要的概括和拓展.通过校准赋值和数值模拟,得出理论模型的基本结论:人力资本积累虽然可以通过创新和创业促进经济增长,但是其效果仍是递减的,呈现出新古典增长模型的属性.     

中国金融效率促进经济增长效应的区域差异及地方政府宏观调控的异质需求

把金融效率分为资金聚集效率和资金分配效率,采用2001—2015年中国八大经济区域的面板数据,实证检验了资金聚集效率和资金分配效率与经济增长的关系,分别验证了政府干预对上述相关性的影响。全国整体层面的检验结果显示:资金聚集效率对经济增长具有促进作用;资金分配效率对经济增长具有抑制作用。分区域检验结果显示:资金聚集效率和资金分配效率对经济增长具有不同的作用效果,且存在明显的区域差异。加入政府干预变量后的检验结果显示:地方政府影响了区域金融效率促进经济增长效应的释放,且这种影响同样存在区域差距。这表明,具有不同发展初始条件的区域对金融政策的实施和调控具有异质需求,地方政府应根据区域发展的实际需求,结合经济增长转型及政府职能转变,选择合适的金融领域实施相应政策,有效提高区域金融效率,支持经济长期良性增长。