Lucas on involuntary unemployment

The aim of this paper is to examine critically Lucas' argumentsagainst Keynes's General Theory and in particular against Keynes'sconcept of involuntary unemployment. It comprises two main parts.In the first part of the paper, the author questions Lucas'sclaim that Keynes betrayed the equilibrium discipline by freeinghimself from the postulates of optimising behaviour and marketclearing. In the second part, Lucas’ three arguments againstthe involuntary unemployment concept are discussed—first,that there is no rationale for drawing a distinction betweentwo sorts of unemployment; second, that every economic outcomefeatures the voluntary and the involuntary jointly; and third,that alternatives to unemployment are always present.     

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.     

Revolution and counter-revolution: two views of unemployment

There is a view in economics that Keynes did not have a microeconomictheory underpinning his explanation of macroeconomics. For example,Friedman (1970) even goes so far as to maintain that pricesare arbitrary in Keyne's approach to economics. The conclusionwhich follows from this critique of Keynes is that Keynesianeconomics cannot explain the occurrence of unemployment in amarket economy except by invoking ad hoc assumptions. It isargued in this paper that the above critique is based on a misunderstandingof the focus of the Keynesian explanation of unemployment. Thefocus in Keynes is not choice, but exclusion from choice. Inconventional microeconomics, the concept of choice is not consideredproblematic. The observation that a particular action is takenis confused with the view that the action is voluntarily chosen.The Keynesian explanation entails an exploration of what theconcept of voluntary choice means.     

The logic of Keynes' criticism of the Classical model

The Classics' remedy for unemployment was to lower money wages. Keynes opposes this remedy. Therefore, in The General Theory, he aims at building a model in which a fall in money wages may not cause an increase in employment. Most of the interpretations of Keynes identified this aim, but did not attach enough importance to it. Reading The General Theory in the light of this aim, we discover what Keynes' logic of elaboration is, then what Keynes' ideas about voluntary or involuntary unemployment are.     

A Note on Changes in the Earnings and Unemployment Structures in Spain Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study

This note tests whether the extraordinary rise in Spanish unemploymentin the 1980s can be traced back to rigidities in the earningsstructure in the face of relative net demand shocks againstthe unskilled (this claim is also known as the "Krugman hypothesis").I can establish that youth joblessness is key to the Spanishunemployment problem, but sampling procedures in the data setmake it impossible to track the youth unemployment problem acrosstime in a satisfactory way. Even though high youth unemploymentis consistent with the Krugman hypothesis, substantial skillupgrading of the Spanish labour force in the 1980s explainswhy the low education groups did not experience an increasein relative unemployment. (JEL J21, J31, J64)     

Involuntary unemployment: the missing piece in Keynes's General Theory *

Using a retrospective methodology, my paper examines critically the insights on involuntary unemployment offered by Keynes in his General Theory. Keynes, it is argued, gave involuntary unemployment a modern micro-founded definition yet — quite opportunely, in view of the difficulty of the task—did not attempt to provide a direct microeconomic explanation of it Rather, his claim to the demonstration of its existence rests on an indirect argument, where involuntary unemployment emerges at the corollary of effective demand falling short of its full employment level. This justification is based on the more or less tacit assumption that involuntary unemployment and effective demand-deficiency are equivalent. This claim of equivalence, it will be argued, is wanting. Hence the view that involuntary unemployment may have been demonstrated through the proxy of demand-deficiency falls. My paper evaluates whether Keynes's other arguments in favour of involuntary unemployment are robust. Several alternative interpretations of his General TheoryChapter Two ‘fundamental observation’, focusing respectively on money illusion, adjustment flaws, and resistance to cuts in nominal wages, are discussed. Here also the verdict will be negative. The general conclusion then follows that no solid explanation for the existence of involuntary unemployment is to be found in theGeneral Theory.     

A tale of two traditions: Pierre Force's Self-interest before Adam Smith

Abstract

The paper compares different strands of New Keynesian Economics with regard to Keynes' original work. Two issues are analysed in detail. First, the explanations provided by Keynes and New Keynesians of nominal and real wage behaviour. Second, the different theories concerning the ability of flexible nominal wages in assuring full employment. It is argued that, although involuntary unemployment is a central problem both in Keynes' and New Keynesians' views, referring to the role of nominal and real wages in explaining unemployment, New Keynesians theories present important features that differ, sometimes substantially, from the concepts developed by Keynes in his General Theory.     

Labour market reform and the macroeconomic efficiency of the labour market in Australia

This paper assesses the effects of a decade and a half of labourmarket reform in Australia on labour market flexibility at themacroeconomic level. Increased labour market flexibility isinterpreted as reduced structural unemployment and enhancedefficiency of matching. We use shifts in the Beveridge Curveas a measure of changes in labour market efficiency (followingSolow, R., What is labour-market flexibility? What is it goodfor?, Keynes Lecture, British Academy, London, December, 1997).Time series analysis of unemployment, vacancies and other relevantvariables strongly suggests that changes in the efficiency oflabour market matching over the period reflect the cyclicaleffects of hysteresis rather than the effects of labour marketreform.     

Market forms and effective demand: Keynesian results with perfect competition ∗

In recent years there has been a flourishing of models with microfoundations based on imperfect (or monopolistic) competition that claim to yield Keynesian results which, it is held, are incompatible with perfect competi-tion. The paper shows that Keynes’s results do not depend on market forms but are contingent on his treatment of investment. In Keynes’s analysis, the existence of underemployment equilibria is demonstrated regardless of the assumed market form. Far from taking into account the importance of investment, recent models with ‘Keynesian results’ ignore investment altogether.

The article argues that if the investment demand function, with its distinctive characteristics, is removed, involuntary unemployment can be explained only by imperfections or rigidities that prevent producers from pushing their supply up to the level of full employment. A conclusion that Keynes wanted to avoid.

The introduction of a hypothesis of market forms different from imperfect competition may be useful in order to develop macroeconomics along more realistic lines, however, as the conclusions of the paper suggest, this hypothesis loses its analytical power if made separately from a satisfactory treatment of investment.     

Keynes's Z function, heterogeneous output and marginal productivity

Keynes was adamant that the assumption of homogeneous outputand capital in macroeconomic theory is inadmissable. His aggregatesupply or Z function is a generalisation of Marshall's ordinarysupply function to take account of heterogeneous output, andis an essential element of the principle of effective demand.The ‘linear Z curve’ controversy can be attributedto Keynes's desire to demonstrate how his general monetary theoryof value and output encompasses the special case of Classicaltheory, including the marginal productivity theorem. The infamoussecond footnote on pages 55–6 of The General Theory canthereby be fully resolved.     

Redistribution and employment policies with endogenous unemployment

We study optimal redistribution policy in an economy with three types of unemployed persons: those unable to work, the voluntarily unemployed, and the involuntarily unemployed. Both voluntary and involuntary unemployment are endogenous. Voluntary unemployment arises because individuals have different preferences, while involuntary unemployment results from frictions in the labour market or from an efficiency wage. We consider the employment policies of a well-informed government when it can and cannot commit to its policies. The model is simple, yet rich enough to reflect real-world policies, including transfers to the disabled, welfare for non-working employables, unemployment insurance, employment subsidies, and taxes on workers and firms.     

Schumpeter on unemployment

Joseph Alois Schumpeter’s approach to the phenomenon of unemployment differs strongly from the traditional classification with its strict distinctions between frictional, cyclical and structural unemployment. By relating these three categories to his theory of creative destruction, Schumpeter collapsed them all into one: technological unemployment. In our paper, we provide a systematic overview and discussion of Schumpeter’s varied writings on unemployment, from 1908 to 1954. We compare his view with the positions of some of his contemporaries, such as Wicksell, Hicks, Beveridge and Keynes. Finally, we discuss to what extent recent writers, such as Aghion, Howitt and Caballero, have integrated Schumpeter’s approach into modern macroeconomics.     

UNEMPLOYMENT POLICIES IN AN ECONOMY WITH ADVERSE SELECTION

This paper studies the effects of unemployment policies in a simple static general equilibrium model with adverse selection in the labour market. Firms offer a contract that induces the self‐selection of workers. In equilibrium, all unskilled workers are screened out and some skilled workers are rationed out. It is shown that the provision of unemployment insurance raises involuntary unemployment by encouraging adverse selection, while unemployment assistance – or subsidy to unemployment – reduces involuntary unemployment. A simple efficiency wage model is also presented to show that either of the two policies reduces employment by taxing effort and subsidizing shirking. The key is whether the social role of unemployment is a sorting device or a worker discipline device.     

High pressure and black clouds: Keynes and the frequentist theory of probability

The thesis of this paper is that Keynes wrote A Treatise onProbability in opposition to the frequentist theory of probability,systematised by John Venn, which denied any role for probabilityin decision theory. Keynes was interested in finding an alternativeconception of probability that could be utilised as a guideof life. To analyse this point, the paper considers Keynes'scriticisms of frequentist tradition in the two versions of hisFellowship dissertation, and in the published edition of hisTreatise. Keynes's project is then illustrated with the famousexample of whether or not to go out with one's umbrella in thesituation in which the pressure is high and the clouds are black.     

CONTROVERSIES IN THE THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT

The guarded and undogmatic attitude of the best economists hasnot prevailed against the general opinion that an individualisticlaissez-faire is both what they ought to teach and what in factthey do teach (J. M. Keynes, The End of Laissez-Faire, 1926)     

The Cambridge School of Keynesian Economics

There have been strong ties between the Cambridge Journal ofEconomics (CJE) and the Cambridge School of Keynesian Economics,from the very beginning. In this paper, the author investigatesthe environment that saw the birth of the CJE at Cambridge (UK),in 1977, and the relationship that linked it to the direct pupilsof Keynes. A critical question is explicitly examined: why didn'tthe ‘Keynesian revolution’ succeed in becoming apermanent winning paradigm? Some behavioural mistakes of themembers of the Keynesian School may explain this lack of success,but only to a certain extent. In any case, there were and therestill are remedies too. But what we are inheriting is a uniqueset of analytical building blocks (the paper lists eight ofthem) that makes this School of economics a viable (and in somedirections definitely superior) alternative to mainstream economics.Admittedly, there is some important work still to be done. Thepaper highlights the need for a two-stage approach, addressingpure theory and extensive institutional analysis. It is arguedthat a combination of the two would strengthen the coherenceof the theoretical foundations, and at the same time would providea fruitful extension of economic analysis to empirical, institutionaland economic dynamics investigations.     

Keynes, Lucas and involuntary unemployment: a reply to Hayes

In this response to Mark Hayes's criticism of his article, ‘Lucason involuntary unemployment’, the author insists on theneed to draw a distinction between labour rationing (a marketoutcome) and unemployment (the activity of job seeking). Economictheory is mainly concerned with the former. Yet the issue ofthe voluntarity versus the involuntarity of unemployment pertainsto unemployment as an activity. Failing to make this distinctioncannot but lead to semantic confusion.     

Mr Keynes,the Classics and the new Keynesians: A suggested formalisation

Abstract

The paper suggests a new Keynesian model of the General Theory. A reduced form entails a diagram with three curves relating employment and the real wage, which represent the two fundamental classical postulates and the principle of effective demand. This diagram illustrates better than IS–LM the generality of Keynes's theory, clarifying the distinction between voluntary and involuntary unemployment. Other significant features are the role of the distribution of expected interest rates among heterogeneous agents, whether dispersed or concentrated, in shaping the LM curve, as well as the role of wage competitiveness constraints as a foundation of Keynes's relative wage hypothesis.