Joan Robinson and the three cambridge revolutions

Joan Robinson's association with three Cambridge ‘revolutions’—imperfect competition, effective demand and capital theory—is examined in the context of her personal and intellectual partnership with Richard Kahn, John Maynard Keynes and Piero Sraffa. Initially, imperfect competition appeared to have successfully extended marginal analysis to all market forms. It also allowed Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson to persuade Keynes to present the main argument of The General Theory in terms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply. By the early 1950s, however, Joan Robinson had rejected the Marshallian methodology and had become a strenuous censor of neoclassical theory. In this paper the origin of her critique is traced to her reading of Sraffa's Introduction to Ricardo's Principles.     

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.     

The arrow of time in economics: from Robinson's critique to the new historical economics

Abstract

How time is comprehended in economics is central to the type of discipline to which economics is analogized. Rejecting the symmetrical notion of time in classical physics, Joan Robinson emphasized the importance of ‘historical time’, and hence history. A new generation of economists – including Paul Krugman, Paul David, and Brian Arthur – took up Robinson's challenge, seeking to create a new historical economics by relating random or ‘accidental’ historical events in different ways to the necessity of economic rules, and finding that, as Robinson saw, scale effects were crucial. Their efforts, however, fell short of integrating history into economics.     

Profit-sharing versus interest-taking in the Kaldor–Pasinetti theory of income and profit distribution

Abstract

This paper reformulates the Kaldor–Pasinetti model of income and profit distribution by introducing the interest rate from the very outset of the model but maintaining other Kaldor–Pasinetti assumptions intact. It is shown that the profit rate and the share of profits in national income are not independent from either the capitalists' or workers' propensity to save. Many contributors to the theory of income and profit distribution have erred in attributing a potentially positive impact of the interest rate upon profits. The interest rate is always and everywhere a tax on functional and personal incomes together. This result explains Schumpeter's observation that ‘Interest acts as a tax upon profit.’ In an alternative model, workers receive a share of profits instead of fixed contractual interest. It is shown that the profit rate and share are not independent from either propensity to save. Furthermore, the workers' share of profits has a positive impact on the rate and share of profits. This implies that a profit sharing regime could be more conducive to capital accumulation and job creation. It is found that Pasinetti's Cambridge Equation is more akin to a profit sharing regime.     

What remains of the growth controversy ∗

Nobel laureate R.M. Solow (1992) reflected that, ‘The Kaldor–Kalecki–Robinson–pasinetti line made life harder for itself by being part of a wholesale attack on mainstream economics. Anyway, it was not ever able to muster a body of serious applied work’. This article considers the accuracy of an assessment like Solow's of the sucess of the growth theorys that economists have proposed as alternatives to neoclassical growth theory. The article, which takes an historical perspective, focuses on Kaldor's growth theory.     

Joan Robinson's disillusion with economics

In her last public comments on the state of economics, Joan Robinson made some extraordinary remarks that conveyed profound pessimism and theoretical nihilism. To account for the bleakness of Robinson's later views on economics and economic policy this article examines her last decade. These years were marked by an array of reverses to the causes she espoused. While ill health and a propensity to be provocative coloured her disposition, her comment about economic theory disintegrating in her hands was not made casually; it was, rather, an acknowledgement that her project to integrate Keynes with the classical surplus theory had failed. This acknowledgement crystallised into her rejection of the long-period equilibrium interpretation of Keynes's theory of unemployment. At the end of her life Robinson was willing only to embrace the more traditional short-period Keynesian model grounded in uncertainty and expectations.     

Jacques Le Bourva's theory of endogenous credit-money ∗

About 30 years ago, Jacques Le Bourva published two little-known articles that clearly set out the present post-Keynesian theory of endogenous money developed by Kaldor and Moore. The main features of these two articles are presented, in particular Le Bourva's belief that reverse causation, rather than the instability of the velocity function, is the key objection to the quantity theory of money and the mainstream theory of inflation. Other features include a graphical and an algebraic pedagogical representation of the theory of endogenous money, the use of the Banking school's efflux/reflux mechanism, the dismissal of the money multiplier, and the impossibility of an excess supply of money. Le Bourva's theory of inflation also resembles that adopted by many post-Keynesians, in which price increases due to excessive wage demands and attempts by firms to raise their profit margins to finance investment.     

Competing Models of Socially Constructed Economic Man: Differentiating Defoe's Crusoe from the Robinson of Neoclassical Economics

Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe has seldom been read as an explicitly political text. When it has, it appears that the central character was designed to warn the early eighteenth-century reader against political challenges to the existing economic order. Insofar as Defoe's Crusoe stands for ‘economic man’, he is a reflection of historically produced assumptions about the need for social conformity, not the embodiment of any genuinely essential economic characteristics. This insight is used to compare Defoe's conception of economic man with that of the neoclassical Robinson Crusoe economy. On the most important of the ostensibly generic principles espoused by neoclassical theorists, their ‘Robinson’ has no parallels with Defoe's Crusoe. Despite the shared name, two quite distinct social constructions serve two equally distinct pedagogical purposes. Defoe's Crusoe extols the virtues of passive middle-class sobriety for effective social organisation; the neoclassical Robinson champions the establishment of markets for the sake of productive efficiency.     

The Fault Line between Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A Review Essay

This essay reviews Michael Ambrosi's important but neglected book on the formative period of Keynesian economics. The book traces the evolution of a Cambridge macroeconomic tradition running from Marshall and Pigou to Keynes, and interprets The General Theory as a response to Pigou's analysis of unemployment. Ambrosi also argues that Keynes's disciples, Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor and Joan Robinson, were, in the 1930s, wedded to a Pigovian methodology and did not immediately recognise that Keynes had redefined the meaning of equilibrium in The General Theory. Keynes's attempt to redefine the analytical basis of neoclassical economics was thwarted, not merely by the neoclassical synthesis, but by those who claimed to be the inheritors and guardians of his vision.     

The Economics of Karl Marx: Analysis and Applications

Abstract

Controversy focuses on three questions: Is capital a distinct factor of production? Is capital quantifiable in a theoretically consistent manner? Are process stories necessary around convergence to, or changes in, equilibrium interest rates? To all, Kaldor answers ‘yes’ to Knight's ‘no’. The controversy is historically important in: 1) shifting issues in recurring twentieth century capital theory controversies from periods of production to production functions, from roundaboutness to diminishing returns; 2) revealing Knight's position on increasing knowledge offsetting diminishing returns over time as an unacknowledged ‘precursor’ of new growth theory; 3) marking the turning point for Kaldor's attachment to Austrian theory.     

von Thünen: Capital,Production Functions,Marginal Productivity Wages,and the Natural Wage

This paper puts seminal contributions to theory of production functions and maximization of explicit quantitative objective functions by Johann Heinrich von Thünen into a systematic historical perspective. We show that his comprehensive ‘Tableau Economiques’ do imply two exact parametric production functions. Moreover, the renowned ‘geometric mean wage’ formula is restated as an exact CES marginal labor productivity wage for σ = 2. We review four alternative modes of normative (natural) wage calculations without an explicit production function, and conclude that von Thünen's natural wage differentiation formulas are bona fide alternatives for deriving the natural wage formula.     

Kaldor and Robinson on money and growth

Post-Keynesian theory was developed as an alternative to mainstream neoclassical economics. However, post-Keynesians have not succeeded in getting their message through, partly because of the difficult and controversial economic issues upon which they embarked, partly because they emphasized, both in their monetary and growth analysis, theories that do not radically depart from the mainstream of economics. This paper therefore argues that post-Keynesian economics got off on the wrong foot. Rather than having emphasized the works of Minsky and (the early) Kaldor in money, post-Keynesians should have considered the contributions of Robinson and Kahn. Also, rather than having emphasized the work of Robinson and Harrod on growth, they ought to have given greater emphasis to Kaldor's demand-oriented growth theory. Hence, as a simplification, post-Keynesians should have considered Robinson on money, not Kaldor; and Kaldor on growth, not Robinson.     

Nicholas Kaldor on Adam Smith and Allyn Young

ABSTRACT

Nicholas Kaldor was much influenced by the Smith-Young view of increasing returns. The objective of this paper is to critically examine Kaldor’s interpretation of Smith and Young. In particular, five questions are addressed: (1) Does Smith’s Wealth of Nations have nothing much to contribute in terms of disequilibrium theory or increasing returns after the middle of chapter four? (2) Did Smith and Young have a sectoral view of increasing returns in the sense that they saw increasing returns being confined to manufacturing only? (3) Does the Youngian growth mechanism need to be supplemented with Keynesian aggregate demand so that growth does not fizzle out? (4) What are the important policy differences between Kaldor and the Smith-Young analysis of increasing returns? (5) Finally, what explains Kaldor’s interventionist bent of mind and his dirigiste approach to policy making?     

The modern foundations of Marx's monetary economics

The first chapters of Capital are still often ‘tlerated’, Mirowski (1986: 222) reminds us, as a ‘regrettable metaphysical residuum of [Max's] Hegelian [past]’. Such ‘tolerance’ has unfortunate consequences, howeve, not the least of which is Marx's reputation for ‘theoretical metallism’, simple and derivative. This paper builds on the recent efforts of de Brunhoff (1981), Lavoie (1983) and others to deconstruct, with support from Grundrisse and related texts, the important thrid chapter of Capital, Marx's account of the universal equivalent's four functions. As it is identified here, the chapter's core includes ‘pody-Keynesian’ elements– a reversal of the Ricardian view of the quantity equation, an effective demand principle in which capitalists’ dcisions about the recommitment of hoards assume a prominent role, and the deermination of interest rates, in the short term, on the basis of liquidity preference-– but does not include, in the conventional sense, a commodity theory of money.     

Geopolitics and the Screen: War,the Body and Violence

The paper investigates the promise of Carl Schmitt's concept of ‘nomos’ for developing new spatial imaginaries apposite to the study of ‘the border’ in contemporary political life, as per the aims of the ‘Lines in the Sand’ research agenda. Schmitt introduced the idea of a ‘nomos of the earth’ to refer to the fundamental relation between space and political order. There have been various historical expressions of the nomos, from the Respublica Christiana, to the jus publicum Europaeum, to a post–World War II (dis)order yet to be adequately theorised. We aim to explore the relatively overlooked spatial ontology of Schmitt's work and suggest ways in which it might prompt alternative ways of thinking about borders and bordering practices as representative of broader dynamics in the relation between space and political order.     

PROFIT TAX AND FIRM MOBILITY IN A THREE‐COUNTRY MODEL

We construct a three‐country model that incorporates international relocation by imperfectly competitive firms and examine both the effects of each country's profit tax reduction on the consumption and welfare of all countries, and the incentive for the countries to decrease the profit tax. In such a model, both the terms of trade and international relocation of firms offer the key to understanding the impacts of one country's profit tax policy. In particular, we note that the relocation of firms from the other two countries is positively related to the wage incomes of the third country through a shift in labour demand, and the terms‐of‐trade improvement is not only positively related to the wage incomes, but also negatively related to profit incomes through a shift in world consumption demand. We show that (i) in a three‐country world economy, regardless of the reduction's source, the profit tax reduction of each country leads to relocation of firms away from foreign countries toward its own economy and deteriorates the terms of trade of its economy and (ii) this becomes a ‘beggar‐thy‐neighbour’ policy in the sense that it lowers the welfare of the other foreign countries.     

Concentric circles of limits to the rate of accumulation: an interpretation of Joan Robinson's theory of economic dynamics

In addition to her well-known contributions to the theory of capital, Joan Robinson provided, in her Accumulation of Capital and Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, a theory about the determinants of the rate of growth. The growth rate was limited by entrepreneurs' animal spirits. Within that constraint, growth might be further limited by the inflation barrier, which could occur either because of a floor to real wages or because of full employment. This paper provides a series of simple dynamic models that illustrate these situations, drawing attention to this neglected aspect of her work and making it easier to compare her work with the monetary growth models produced by her neoclassical contemporaries.     

Income Distribution,Econophysics and Piketty

Piketty, Atkinson and Saez have put the analysis of income distribution back on center stage. The distinction between property income and labor income plays a central role in this framework. Property income derives from the rate of return on stocks of income-earning wealth and is more unequally distributed than labor income. Piketty argues that, because the rate of return (r) is generally greater than the rate of growth of the economy (g), property income tends to grow more rapidly than labor income, so that rising income inequality is an intrinsic tendency of capitalism despite interruptions due to world wars and great depressions. This article argues the exact opposite. The rise of unions and the welfare state were the fruits of long-term historical gains made by labor, and the postwar constraints on real and financial capital arose in sensible reaction to the Great Depression. The ‘neoliberal’ era beginning in the 1980s significantly rolled back all of these. The article uses the econophysics two-class argument of Yakovenko to show that we can explain the empirical degree of inequality using two factors alone: the profit share and the degree of financialization of income. The rise of inequality in the neoliberal era then derives from a reduction in the wage share (rise in the profit share) in the face of assaults on labor and the welfare state, and a sharp increase in the financialization of incomes as financial controls are weakened. These are inherently socio-political outcomes, and what was lost can be regained. Hence, there is no inevitable return to Piketty’s ‘patrimonial capitalism’.     

Richard Kahn's fellowship dissertation: The fate of ‘The Economics of the Short Period’

Abstract

In 1930, Richard Kahn became a fellow of King's College, Cambridge, on the basis of his book-length dissertation ‘The Economics of the Short Period.’ It was finally published in the 1980s. Why did he not publish his thesis in the 1930s, when it would have made a substantial impact? We present two arguments. In 1932/33, Joan Robinson published many of Kahn's main ideas, rendering subsequent publication by him derivative. And by the mid-1930s, Kahn discovered that parts of his dissertation left untouched by Robinson were no longer new or distinctive because of rapid progress in research on imperfect and monopolistic competition.