Back to Basics: Remittances in the Keynesian Macroeconomic Framework

This paper examines a remittance multiplier based on the short-run Keynesian equilibrium approach and shows how income may be affected by remittance inflows. We explore this through the equilibrium in the goods and money markets, where remittances can affect both consumption and the demand for real money balances. We present this simple theoretical model utilizing a standard Keynesian framework. The short-run Keynesian equilibrium approach provides insight into how remittances affect output and income, and its potential multiplier effects. The model used is indicative of a positive relationship between the marginal propensity to consume out of remittances and the multiplier. The framework also shows that remittances will have a greater impact if its marginal propensity to consume is greater than that for standard disposable income.     

The economics of ageing and the political economy of old age

Economic discussion of ageing has been largely neoclassical in approach. Ageing has become a specialism within population economics, which is itself a specialism within the neoclassical mainstream. An alternative view has come from authors in sociology and social policy, who have produced their own ‘political economy of old age’. In contrast with neoclassical individualism, sociological depictions of ageing have stressed the social construction of old age and the structured dependency of the elderly. Non-neoclassical economists have had little to say about ageing, despite some relevant work in the early days of Keynesianism. This paper argues that a combination of structural ideas from sociology and disequilibrium ideas from Keynesian and non-neoclassical economics can provide a suitable framework for the economics of ageing.     

The breakdown of the IS–LM synthesis: implications for post-Keynesian economic theory

The monetarist and the new classical economics attack routed the IS–LM version of Keynesian theory and the large scale econometric models from the centre of macroeconomic research. However monetarism and the new classical economics were more successful as a critique of the IS–LM orthodoxy than as a basis for fruitful research and policy analysis.

Post-Keynesian economists also attack the IS–LM orthodoxy, mainly because it misspecified ‘… the economic society in which we actually live’. Post-Keynesians that emphasized financial and labour markets argued that properties of the real world economy made instability normal results ofmarket interactions.

The vacuum in main line theory that developed as the shortcomings of monetarism became evident led to a revival of interest in basic Keynesian propositions. This has spawned what is now labeled a new Keynesian economics. New Keynesian economists conform to the modeling standards set by the new classical rational expectations school but claim to get Keynesian results. To a degree these results are compatible with propositions of post-Keynesian economics.

It is suggested that a convergence between the new and the post-Keynesian economics can be expected, and the result is likely to be fruitful.     

Covered interest parity: The untestable hypothesis

Although post Keynesian economists advocate the realistic bankers’ view of the forward exchange rate, neoclassical economists formulate (CIP) as a testable hypothesis. In reality, CIP represents a formula used by bankers to calculate the forward rates they quote to their customers. This article provides arguments for the post Keynesian view of the forward exchange rate and suggests that CIP is not a theory, that it is a microeconomic relation, and that it is a hedging rather than an arbitrage condition. An empirical illustration shows that deviations from CIP are observed whenever published data are used, but these deviations disappear when transaction data are used instead. It is concluded that CIP is an untestable hypothesis.     

Keynesian models of deflation and depression revisited

This paper extends Tobin's [Tobin, J., 1975. Keynesian models of recession and depression. American Economic Review 65, 195–202] Keynesian analysis of deflation to include a range of additional channels through which deflation exacerbates Keynesian unemployment. The paper provides further theoretical reasons why downward price level adjustment may not solve the Keynesian problem. These arguments challenge the received wisdom that Keynes’ General Theory is a special case resting on downwardly rigid prices and nominal wages. This conventional wisdom has led many economists to recommend policies promoting downward flexibility. These policies have created an environment in which deflation is more likely, giving new relevance to Keynesian analysis of deflation.     

Keynes against Kalecki on economic method

In the past twenty years, there has been considerable debate on the “coherence” of post Keynesian economics, in view of post Keynesian economists’ ambitions to develop a paradigmatic alternative to neoclassical economics. Given the growing importance of methodological aspects in this discussion, this article addresses the differences of approach to economic theory between the fathers of the two most important strands in post Keynesian economics. We thus focus on Keynes’s criticism of Kalecki’s theory of the business cycle and the tensions between Keynes’s logical approach and Kaleki’s formal modeling. We show that in criticizing Kalecki’s theory, Keynes made use of the same methodological criticism (based on detecting logical fallacies in reasoning) he had employed to attack both the classical theory and contemporary “pseudo-mathematical” models. After illustrating these fundamental differences between Keynes and Kalecki about the proper way of doing economics, we draw some conclusions on the possible future evolution of post Keynesian economics.     

A critique of Powell, Woods, and Murphy on the 1920�C1921 depression

A series of recent reviews of the depression of 1920?C1921 by Austrian School and libertarian economists have argued that the downturn demonstrates the poverty of Keynesian policy recommendations. However, these writers misrepresent important characteristics of the 1920?C1921 downturn, understating the actions of the Federal Reserve and overestimating the relevance of the Harding administration??s fiscal policy. They also engage a caricatured version of Keynesian theory and policy, which ignores Keynes??s views on the efficacy of nominal wage reductions and the preconditions for monetary and fiscal intervention. This paper argues that the government??s response to the 1920?C1921 depression was consistent with Keynesian recommendations. It offers suggestions for when Austrian School and Keynesian economics share common ground and argues that the two schools come into conflict primarily in downturns where nominal interest rates are low and demand is depressed. Neither of these conditions held true in the 1920?C1921 depression.     

Endogenous employment rate in the efficiency wage shirking approach

The aim of New Keynesian theorists is to obtain Keynesian results on the basis of maximizing behavior. Accordingly, the New Keynesian shirking models depict a world of fully rational maximizing agents where equilibrium unemployment is the main consequence of the payment of efficiency wages. The problem is that oversimplified nature of most shirking models has until now prevented a full investigation of the interdependence of unemployment, the effort supplied by workers and labor demand. This article shows that the existence of this interdependence weakens the whole approach. In particular, when the unemployment rate is considered a truly endogenous variable, the stability of the macroeconomic equilibrium is generally incompatible with the existence of unemployment ascribed to the fact that firms pay efficiency wages.     

Financialization and Capital Accumulation

In the last decades, financial activities have grown disproportionately compared to other activities. This aroused a growing discussion in Keynesian and Marxian economists about the structures of modern capitalism and the role played by the dominance of finance on capital accumulation. After a brief review of the main issues, we discuss some mechanisms explored in this literature connecting financialization and aggregate investment.     

Hayek, Keynes, and modern macroeconomics

The Great Recession seems to be creating a change in the trend of macroeconomic thinking. Prior to the financial crisis of 2008, dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models dominated the macroeconomics literature without any apparent challengers on the horizon. Since then, however, we have seen an increasing interest in macroeconomic models that address the state of confidence (??animal spirits??), complexity, cognition, and radical uncertainty. Most of the renewed interest in animal spirits, complexity, cognition, and radical uncertainty has come from a more or less ??Keynesian?? perspective. We discuss the potential to emphasize these elements from a more ??Hayekian?? perspective and argue that Austrian approaches to macroeconomics along these lines are more likely to resonate with mainstream economists than in years past.     

A brief history of cliometrics and the evolving view of the industrial revolution

Abstract

Over the past century and a half, economists have differed on methodology, interpretation, and explanation of the causes, consequences, and proper approach to understanding the historical period commonly referred to as the Industrial Revolution. The impact of the methodological debate over the role of theory and history in economics, and the growth of cliometrics on the ways in which we think about and analyze the Industrial Revolution have been primary factors in this debate. This article uses the rise of cliometrics as a lens through which to view the intellectual history of economists’ views of the Industrial Revolution. It is not in itself an attempt to explain the causes or consequences of the Industrial Revolution, but rather, an overview of the evolution of the approaches that economists have used to define what constituted the Industrial Revolution, when it occurred, and how to explain its causes and why it occurred when and where it did.     

The Role of Demand in Macroeconomics

I argue that the standard approach represented by real business cycle theory is misguided, and that a fundamentally different approach is necessary. The new approach, based on the method of statistical mechanics, leads us to a new concept of “equilibrium”. In equilibrium we must have a distribution of productivities rather than a unique level of productivity. We then find that demand plays a crucial role in the determination of the aggregate output, as the old Keynesian economics claims. I show that the demand constraint is important not only in short‐run but also in long‐run economic growth.     

Development Processes Seen Through Non-Marginalist Lenses with Considerations of Complementarities

Marginalism has deeply shaped neoclassical concepts and analytical tools that are applied to development economics. With a static notion of efficiency defined for a state of competitive equilibrium, neoclassical economists study development in equilibrium frameworks, regarding underdevelopment as the consequence of market failures. How might one, who is not equipped with marginalist lenses, look at development processes as they unfold in history? Prior to the emergence of marginalism such observations abounded in the works of the so-called “protectionists,” where ever-evolving production complementarities figure prominently, and there were considerations of indivisibility. In the postwar era, this is present in the works of some early development economists, especially Albert Hirschman in his employment of backward and forward production linkages to characterize development processes, which are viewed as unfolding series of disequilibria. Historical sequences of events reflect path-dependence and they feedback on each other to exhibit circular and cumulative causation. One thing leads to another, or some things lead to others and so on, including institutional changes. However, the activation of linkages could encounter obstacles, with “technological strangeness” being one, in which case sequential policy intervention could be warranted. This article briefly considers differences with the neoclassical approach in generating policy recommendations.     

James M. Buchanan: An appreciation

James M. Buchanan co-founded the field of Public Choice. He was influenced by Austrian economics, and in turn influenced Austrian economics. In particular, he advanced the understanding of subjectivist cost theory. His individualist approach to public policy making has been adopted by many Austrian economists. With Richard Wagner, he analyzed the politics of Keynesian economics. They explained why Keynesianism in practice led to a larger government, permanent deficits and inflationary monetary policy.     

Neo-Kaleckian and Sraffian Controversies on the Theory of Accumulation

Abstract

Non-orthodox economists generally share the Keynesian Hypothesis of the independence of investment from capacity savings, in the long run no less than in the short run. This hypothesis marks an essential point of difference from neoclassical theory. Keynes showed that within the limits of the existing capacity utilisation, investment determines savings rather than the other way around. How best to extend this conclusion to the long run is the object of the current paper. The paper assesses the controversy on demand-led growth that has taken place since the mid-1980s between neo-Kaleckian and Sraffian authors. The Sraffian front may be divided into a first and a second Sraffian position, the latter being the Sraffian supermultiplier approach. I shall argue that this second approach is the most promising framework for analysing economic growth.     

Institutionalism,Critical Theory,and the Administered Society

Paul Krugman recently suggested that John Maynard Keynes helped economists study and resolve mass unemployment at a time when few of them could understand the problem and institutionalists seemed unable to articulate a clear policy strategy. This article responds by outlining John R. Commons' case for full employment with liberty and his three-part strategy (addressing money, people and politics) for curing joblessness while saving capitalism. Commons' argument and recommendations offer insights that extend beyond Keynesian economics in important ways, and his contributions have special relevance today in light of the recent global financial crisis and still ongoing Great Recession.     

Walras' Law and Keynesian Macroeconomics

This paper examines the claim that Keynesian models violate Walras' law. Walras' law is founded in the logic of exchange. Standard statements misrepresent it, as it pertains to a monetary economy. Keynesian models are consistent with Walras' law once this misrepresentation is corrected. The law holds for both notional and effective demands. It also holds in unconstrained Walrasian equilibria, constrained Walrasian equilibria, and constrained non-Walrasian equilibria. The latter corresponds to a Keynesian conception of equilibrium: markets need not clear, but agents expectations must be fulfilled.     

实际商业周期:理论、检验与争议

围绕实际商业周期所展开的研究涉及经济学研究的基本方法和经济学家们对经济社会运行的基本认识。与此同时,它也反映了经济学两大流派,即凯恩斯学派和新古典学派之问的争论。本文试图从 RBC 理论的产生背景说起,系统地为读者介绍 RBC 的理论体系以及求解和检验 RBC 模型时所使用的一些技术。与此同时,我们也将揭示 RBC 研究所面临的问题和引发的争论,并在此基础上指出未来 RBC 和宏观经济学理论研究可能的发展方向。     

Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology

Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.     

Vicarelli’s Keynes and the New-Keynesian analytical method

This article provides a critical review of the foundations of the new Keynesian apparatus, to evaluate the actual strength of the Keynesian inheritance. As a reference of the Keynesian vision, Fausto Vicarelli’s recognition of the Keynesian message is adopted. The critical recognition of the new Keynesian methodology focuses on its analytical foundations, the recent extensions and on the criticality of its empirical performances and controls. The new Keynesian construction is shown to lack truly Keynesian roots in at least three key theoretical features: the role of the microfoundations, the stability of equilibrium, and expectations formation. The directions of an ongoing research narrowing the new Keynesian theoretical fracture from Keynesian economics are addressed.