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.     

Patinkin as a reader of Keynes’ General Theory: Are wage cuts a good remedy to unemployment?1

Abstract

This paper analyses Patinkin's appraisal of Keynes’ concept of involuntary unemployment while focusing on his reading of the General Theory Chapter 19. On several critical issues, Patinkin departs from Keynes’ original matters of concerns. He leans against an individual criterion for unemployment and implicitly endorses Wicksell's understanding of voluntary unemployment as chosen leisure. His appraisal of involuntary unemployment as a disequilibrium phenomenon ultimately relies on nominal rigidities and assumes the existence of a competitive adjustment process. On all these three critical points, Patinkin departs from Keynes but also initiates the contemporary New Keynesian programme that went even further from Keynes.     

James Steuart and the making of Karl Marx’s monetary thought

Abstract

This paper analyses the influence of James Steuart on Karl Marx’s monetary thought. It deals more specifically with Marx’s rejection of an automatic mechanism that links variations in the quantity of money to their direct impact on prices. Steuart’s pioneering discoveries in economics inaugurate an anti-quantity theory tradition that Marx supported and which fed his own conception of money and credit. Here, we deal with the criticism of the assumptions of the quantity theory of money (QTM), the specifically social character of labour which creates exchange value, the distinction between the functions of money, the difference between income spending and capital advances, and the difference between simple circulation and reflux of money credit.     

Three macroeconomic syntheses of vintage 1937: Hicks,Haberler, and Lundberg

Abstract

The 1920s and 1930s were years of intensive debate about economic dynamics and stabilisation policies. There was a large variety of explanations of cycles and depressions, and Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) was pitched against them. In 1937, followed three different attempts to provide synthetic expositions of macroeconomic theory that would deal with the Keynesian challenge: Hicks’ Mr. Keynes and the “Classics”, Haberler's Prosperity and Depression, and Lundberg's Studies in the Theory of Economic Expansion. This paper compares those 1937 syntheses and contrasts them with the “Neoclassical Synthesis” and the current “New Neoclassical Synthesis”.     

Keynes on State and Economic Development

ABSTRACT

This article has two purposes. On the one hand, it develops Keynes’s concept of economic development. On the other hand, it presents Keynes’s ideas about the role of State, chiefly the State Agenda. Keynes believed that the stage of economic development would only be attained if the State Agenda was in practice. In turn, to Keynes the economic development would be a stage in which the economic problems of society have been surpassed, and the motto of the individual behavior has been changed from the love of money to the love of living.     

Considerations on Inequality,Corporate Governance,and Financialization

Abstract

Disjunctures between corporate governance, increasingly dominated by financial considerations, and social inequality have been among the motor forces of current world-wide “populist” voter revolts. This article looks for clues for the relation between economic inequality, corporate governance, and financialization by re-examining the work of Karl Marx and of Adolphe Berle and Gardiner Means. Marx is widely considered, in Japan, to have pointed out that the division of profit into the wages of management and the profit of enterprise is considered as a path to the association. However, this general interpretation in Japan may not be sufficient for capturing capitalism’s contemporary reality. This presentation develops an alternative interpretation of this chapter by combining Marx’s explanation with the theory of the separation of ownership and management proposed by Berle and Means. We then explore causal relations among income inequality, corporate governance, and financialization.     

Marx,Sraffa, and Surplus: Observations Prompted by Garegnani (2018)

ABSTRACT

In a posthumously published article, Pierangelo Garegnani (2018. ‘On the Labour Theory of Value in Marx and in the Marxist Tradition.’) depicts Marx’s project in Capital as that of ‘developing systematically the theory of Ricardo and [the] implications of social conflict’ implied by Ricardo’s ‘surplus approach to value and distribution’. This paper argues to the contrary that Marx’s theory of surplus value and exploitation differs from (neo-)Ricardian surplus theory in fundamental ways, and modifies Garegnani’s simple Sraffian model to illustrate the distinctive implications of Marx’s theory.     

MARX@200

ABSTRACT

The article begins by outlining the philosophic anthropology that Marx derived from his reading of Hegel. We continue by arguing that this formed the basis of his materialist conception of history and his analysis of the political economy of the capitalist mode of production, with particular reference being made to Marx’s theory of value and his account of the economic contradictions of the capitalist system. We then discuss his views on the nature of post-capitalist society, concluding with a critical but broadly positive account of the relevance of his ideas to modern capitalism. Marx, we suggest, should not be regarded as a purely 19th-century thinker, as some recent biographers have maintained.     

The Keynesian Features of Graziani's Monetary Theory of Production and Some Unresolved Issues

Abstract

The aim of this article is twofold. First, it seeks to verify the elements of affinity between Graziani's approach to the Monetary Theory of Production and Keynes’ Treatise on Money and his General Theory. It is shown that two important theoretical elements, from the Treatise on Money, enter Graziani's basic schema, namely the view of endogenous money supply and the distribution process. At the same time, uncertainty and aggregate demand—conceived as a crucial variable in the General Theory—can play a significant role in the basic schema of the Monetary Theory of Production. Second, the article sets out a critical reconstruction of Graziani's basic schema emphasising the existence of ‘open issues’– such as bank behaviour and the ‘paradox of profits’—relating to internal and external inconsistencies.     

Sraffa’s Constructive and Interpretive Work,and Marx

ABSTRACT

This article provides a summary account of Piero Sraffa’s constructive and interpretive work on the classical approach to the theory of value and distribution and its relationship with Marx’s contributions. It is shown that in the early phase of his constructive work Sraffa developed his equation systems by adopting a ‘physical real cost’ approach and a strictly objectivist point of view, and completely eschewed Marx’s labour-based approach and the related Marxian concepts. Only at a later stage did he explore systematically the relationship between his own modern re-formulation of the surplus approach to the theory of value and distribution and Marx’s contribution. He considered Marx’s most important analytical contribution to the further development of the surplus approach to consist of the re-integration of circular production relations, which allowed him to see the existence of a maximum rate of profits and its role in an analysis of accumulation and technical change.     

On re-reading Joan Robinson's ‘On re-reading Marx’

This paper offers some reflections inspired by a re-reading of Joan Robinson's On Re-reading Marx on the 50th anniversary of its initial publication. Robinson wrote the pamphlet in the light of Sraffa's Introduction to Ricardo's Works and Correspondence, which suggested to her that the concept of the rate of profit was essentially the same in Ricardo, Marx, Marshall and Keynes. In addition to the connections among Ricardo, Marx, Marshall and Keynes, Robinson also addresses the issues of equilibrium and time, and the dogmatism of Marxism.     

Keynes,Ricardo and the classical theory of interest

Keynes made harsh and repeated attacks on the work of Ricardo, blaming him particulary for what Keynes called the ‘classical theory’ of interest. Garegnani and others argue that Keynes' criticisms of the classical theory of interest apply to later neoclassical writers, but not to Ricardo. This paper re-examines Keynes' criticisms. It argues that Keynes attacked Ricardoapos;s theory of interest despite his awareness that Ricardo did not hold the ‘classical theory’. Moreover, Keynes not only expressed sympathy for Ricardo's understanding of interest, but his criticisms which do apply to Ricardo do not address Ricardo's theory of interest.     

Some Misunderstood Aspects of the Final Chapter of Keynes’s General Theory

ABSTRACT

Some seriously misunderstood issues arise in three paragraphs in the last chapter of Keynes’s General Theory concerning the relationship between his theory and orthodox theory. That these passages permit a form of theoretical reconciliation is a view shared by prominent commentators of opposing persuasions. Joan Robinson and John Eatwell strongly criticised Keynes for inconsistency and for opening the door to neoclassical elements that undermine his theorising, while Paul Samuelson made Keynes’s comments the foundation of his textbook neoclassical synthesis. The reconciliation view, however, is based on hasty non-contextual readings and is mistaken. More careful analysis leads to three conclusions: neither internal inconsistency nor neoclassical appeasement exists; Keynes’s paragraphs are aligned with the theoretical positions previously advanced in the General Theory; and what is actually deployed is a complementarity view relating his macro-theory to one particular part of orthodox micro-theory. Rejecting the dominant view, however, does not remove the issue of the absence in Keynes’s work of an adequately exposited micro-theory to accompany his macro-theory.     

Profit Expectations and Confidence: Some unresolved issues in the Austrian/Post-Keynesian debate

Austrian and Post-Keynesian economists both continue to make important contributions to subjectivism in economics. Yet, as the ongoing debate between members of the two schools demonstrates, Austrians and Post-Keynesians have very different views about the possibility of intertemporal coordination in a market economy. This paper returns to the debate between Hayek and Keynes in order to respond to a contemporary Austrian critique of Keynes's theory of expectations. The paper shows that the fundamental difference between the two schools ultimately boils down to the nature of conventional expectations and the question of confidence. If the conventional expectation holds to assume the future will look enough like the present to give investors confidence in their decisions, Hayek's arguments about the possibility of intertemporal coordination merit attention. If, however, this convention does not hold, as Keynes thought was sometimes likely, the self-regulating potential of a market economy is called into question.     

Book reviews

Abstract

This article contributes to the literature on the Hayek–Keynes controversy on two points. The first contribution is to show that the question of the micro-foundations of macroeconomics is crucial to understand the Hayek–Keynes controversy. The second contribution is to reveal that Hayek's attack on the micro-foundations issue had a methodological impact on the making of the General Theory especially via the concept of marginal efficiency of capital. The paper concludes that what finally contrasts Hayek and Keynes is the kind of micro-foundations that economists should adopt to explain business cycles.     

Schumpeter’s new combinations

The paper focuses attention on Schumpeter’s achievements in his classic contribution and how these relate to the contributions of other major authors. While deeply indebted to Marx’s vision of capitalism as a system incessantly in travail, Schumpeter was no ‘Marxist’. He shared B?hm’s view that profits are not due to ‘exploitation’, but thought that the latter’s attack on Marx was a failure. There are remarkable differences, but also similarities between the analyses of Schumpeter and Keynes. Marx, Schumpeter and Keynes rejected Say’s law and other basic ideas constituting the marginalist doctrine. They saw capitalism as a restless, crisis-prone system.     

The neglect of replacement investment in keynesian economics

Abstract

This article describes Keynes's early analysis of replacement investment and his subsequent neglect of the subject, especially by his followers. It goes on to explain how this deficiency helped to mislead later economists who attempted to use Keynes as a guide for economic policy and theory and the consequences of the errors of these economists.     

‘Anecdotal myths’: Tinbergen's influence on Harrod's growth theory

Abstract

In the history of economic theory, Harrod's transition from the explanation of business cycles in An Essay on the Trade Cycle (1936) to his well‐known growth theory in ‘An essay in dynamic theory’ (1939) has always been surrounded by some degree of speculation. One of the topics in that area of speculation concerns the (degree of) influence exerted by Tinbergen on the development of Harrod's growth theory during the 1936–9 period.

This paper argues that Tinbergen's influence on Harrod's work mainly took place on formal, mathematical, grounds, leaving methodological matters untouched. This matter is of some importance in understanding the success of what was initially considered by others as a ‘dynamic’ extension of the Keynesian research programme and later evolved, through the work of Tinbergen and Solow, into a neoclassical growth theory.     

Is ex‐ante ex‐post analysis irrelevant to Keynes's theory of employment?

Ex‐ante ex‐post analysis has become a standard tool in macroeconomics. Yet Keynes dismissed it. We argue that Keynes's dismissal of ex‐ante ex‐post analysis is not an oddity but an indication of the originality of his theory of employment compared to standard macroeconomics. First, the principle of effective demand does not amount to a process that determines employment and income at the point of intersection of the traditionally defined ex ante supply and demand functions. Second, the finance motive allowed Keynes to confirm the identity of aggregate supply and demand already asserted in The General Theory. This latter conclusion is puzzling, however, since the principle of effective demand presupposes the possibility of a discrepancy between supply and demand. We suggest that Keynes's theory of employment is linked to a theory of income distribution whereby profits are a redistributed share of factor income which is transferred to firms when prices exceed factor costs. The identity and the equilibrium condition then relate to separate measurements of income and output, factor cost and prices.     

Augusto Graziani and the Marx-Schumpeter-Keynes ‘Cycle of Money Capital’: A Personal Look at the Early Italian Circuitism from an Insider

ABSTRACT

The paper goes back to the origins of the theory of the monetary circuit in its Italian incarnation. Focus is on the evolution of Augusto Graziani's thinking between mid-1970s and mid-1980s, considering: (i) how Graziani connected (positively or polemically) with Keynesianism and Post-Keynesianism, both in its Cambridge and US incarnations; (ii) how Graziani interpreted the contributions of Keynes proposing a continuity between the Treatise on Money, the General Theory, and the articles on finance published after the 1936 book; (iii) how beneath the research programme of Italian circuitism (Graziani) we may recognise a peculiar Marxian inspiration, later on pursued for a while by some participants to the Seminar in Monetary Theory that Graziani coordinated in Naples (1981–85). Since the mid-1970s Graziani — who already had a profound knowledge of Neoclassical Theory; and who was deeply aware of the role of institutions — developed more and more his heretical stance into what we may label as a ‘structural Keynesian' approach, inserting Keynes’ views about finance to production and effective demand into a Schumpeterian vision of the capitalist process, and leading to Marxian conclusions about value and distribution. The early forays into circuitism by Graziani were not only critical towards the Neoclassical Synthesis, Monetarism, or New Classical Macroeconomics. They were also grounded in an intense confrontation with other contemporary heterodox currents. The outcome was the construction of an original scheme of thought which amounted to nothing less than a macro-monetary theory of capitalist production.