The Point of Effective Demand

Abstract

Keynes's principle of effective demand conceives competitive equilibrium in terms of the choices of entrepreneurs, investors and consumers, rather than of the optimal allocation of factors of production. In The General Theory, effective demand is distinguished from aggregate demand and from income, expected or realised, and there is no suggestion that equilibrium means the convergence of expectations. Reconsideration of Keynes's use of time and equilibrium periods leads to the conclusion that he treats employment as in continuous equilibrium, at the point of effective demand, determined by the state of expectation, the correctness of which is strictly irrelevant. The nature of the equilibrium represented by the point of effective demand is here described, not in terms of the multiplier, but in terms of the continuous equilibrium of supply and demand in short-term forward markets. This reading is faithful to Keynes's conception of aggregate demand as dependent upon the expectations of entrepreneurs, and it resolves the meaning of his ‘long-period employment.’ Formal appendices identify the differences between Keynes and Walras and the nature of the multiplier. The paper concludes that the Keynesian cross and ‘Swedish’ analysis should be abandoned, and the Walrasian conception recognised as only the limiting case of general competitive equilibrium in a monetary economy.     

The Comparative Statics of Effective Demand

Keynes introduces the term ‘effective demand’ in Chapter 3 of the General Theory as designating the point of intersection of two functions: the ‘aggregate demand function’ (D) and the ‘aggregate supply function’ (Z). For the first time in the literature, I here use specific functional forms for the D and Z functions and run numerical simulations which allow study of the comparative statics of the model in the face of various ‘shocks’. The demonstration of how the D/Z model actually works will hopefully prove useful for future students of the economics of Keynes.     

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.     

A note on the speculative demand for money

In the General Theory, Keynes argued that expectations about future bond prices tend to be “sticky”. A rise in bond prices causes more investors to “join the bear brigade” and so increases the aggregate demand for money. Since Tobin's classic article on liquidity preference, this explanation of the downward sloping demand for money curve has largely disappeared from the literature. This note introduces sticky expectations into the Tobin framework. It shows that the existence of such stickiness does not necessarily cause the demand for money to be more elastic because investors have expectations about the variance of future bond prices as well as about their mean. A sufficient condition for a more elastic demand for money under sticky expectations is that the Pratt-Arrow coefficient of relative risk aversion be either constant or decreasing in wealth.     

Explaining the aggregate price level with Keynes's principle of effective demand

The mainstream view of Keynes's principle of effective demand is that it states something about quantities—and about quantities only. The principle is held to determine the levels of output and employment in a world not governed by Say's law. This paper argues that the principle of effective demand goes beyond this to explain not only ‘real’ activity levels but also the aggregate price level. A variant of the post-Keynesian D/Z-model is brought together with Marxian reproduction schemes to derive this result.     

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.     

Sraffa,Keynes and 'The Years of High Theory'

This paper argues that Shackle's interpretation of 'the years of high theory' is flawed. Shackle (1967) sees Sraffa's critique of the Marshallian theory of value only as a step in the development of the theory of imperfect competition. In the same vein, Shackle reduces the message of Keynes's General Theory to the claim that unemployment results from the existence of uncertainty and irrational expectations. Thus, Shackle leaves open the possibility that both Sraffa's critique of Marshall and Keynes's theory of effective demand do not question the internal coherence of neoclassical theory, but instead merely assert that market imperfections render it irrelevant for the analysis of the real world. This paper argues, in contrast, that the theories of Sraffa and Keynes should be interpreted as radical departures from marginalism, and represent a return to the surplus approach of classical political economy.     

Entrepreneurial competition and its impact on the aggregate economy

This paper models entrepreneurship as the entrepreneur’s information processing activity in order to predict changes in demand and reallocate resources. The results show that allocative efficiency—and therefore aggregate productivity—increases through intensified competition by entrepreneurs grasping at opportunities. This fierce competition leads to price reductions that result in the improvement of measured aggregate productivity. The price reduction also forces relatively less able entrepreneurs to become workers. As resources are then dealt with only by relatively talented entrepreneurs, this selection effect also increases aggregate productivity. The paper also discusses how the selection effect influences the distribution of firm size.      

Keynesian uncertainty and the instability of beliefs

In an influential critique, Coddington (1982) argues that Keynes uses the theme of uncertainty in an opportunistic way in the General theory emphasizing it when it suits his purposes and ignoring it when it does not. This reading is examined in the light of Keynes's earlier Treatise on probability. The first part of the paper argues that Keynes's epistemology differs in important respects from the one Coddington is attacking, and in particular, that Keynes's account contains conceptions of uncertainty not considered by Coddington. The two premises of Coddington's argument are then assessed. These are: 1) that Keynes provides no account of the relative impact of uncertainty in different decision-making contexts; and 2) that uncertainty is not a sufficient condition for unstable beliefs about future outcomes of current (investment) decisions. It is argued that Coddington is mistaken in asserting 1) and, although 2) is correct in principle, that there is nevertheless a strong presumption that uncertainty does lead to unstable beliefs in the particular situations Keynes describes. The conclusion is that the connection between uncertainty and unstable beliefs cannot be regarded as either analytically destructive or somehow beside the point, even on Coddington's terms.     

Optimal pricing and capacity choice for a public service under risk of interruption

We develop rules for pricing and capacity choice for an interruptible service that recognize the interdependence between consumers’ perceptions of system reliability and their market behavior. Consumers post ex ante demands, based on their expectations on aggregate demand. Posted demands are met if ex post supply capacity is sufficient. However, if supply is inadequate all ex ante demands are proportionally interrupted. Consumers’ expectations of aggregate demand are assumed to be rational. Under reasonable values for the consumer’s degrees of relative risk aversion and prudence, demand is decreasing in supply reliability. We derive operational expressions for the optimal pricing rule and the capacity expansion rule. We show that the optimal price under uncertainty consists of the optimal price under certainty plus a markup that positively depends on the degrees of relative risk aversion, relative prudence and system reliability. We also show that any reliability enhancing investment—though lowering the operating surplus of the public utility—is socially desirable as long as it covers the cost of investment.     

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.     

Sectoral Changes in Employment: An eclectic perspective on ‘good’ jobs and ‘poor’ jobs

The linkage Keynes established between the volume of employment that business firms require to make a particular number of jobs available provides an operational perspective about the way in which labor markets work. The aggregate supply or Z function is, in fact, a job offer curve. The most significant insight to derive from this curve is that job offers are inseparable from the economy's aggregate expenditure (or demand) level. This interdependency of aggregate supply and aggregate demand is necessary to understand the functioning of labor markets in the real world. This paper argues that a disaggregated model which encapsulates the economy's price-taking and price-making sectors offers a promising analytical tool to gain perspective about ‘good jobs’ and ‘poor jobs’ in post-Fordist economies. It is maintained that the sectoral deployment of workers reflects whether employing firms, as price-makers, can capture the increasing returns inherent in modern technology.     

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.     

Teaching Keynes’s Principle of Effective Demand within the Real Wage vs. Employment Space

This paper reviews several models for teaching Keynes’s principle of effective demand with a special focus on a framework that is familiar to advanced undergraduate students of macroeconomics: the real wage vs. employment space. It is argued that existing approaches to teaching Keynes’s principle of effective demand reflect a tension between two goals: being true to Keynes and translating the effective-demand principle into a story about real wages and employment within a single graphical space. Our main contribution consists of presenting an extended version of a model originally proposed by Lavoie (Rev Radic Polit Econ, 35(2):166–182, 2003), which seems to be a reasonable compromise between these two goals.     

The Propagation of Keynesian Thinking in Australia: E. R. Walker 1933-36*

Walker attended Cambridge in the early 1930s when Keynes was moving toward an expenditure-oriented explanation of output and employment but had yet to break through to his theory of effective demand. In conveying this thinking to an Australian audience through 1933-35, and in setting up as a Keynesian critic of depression policy, Walker raised the level of local discourse upon the unemployment problem. In 1936, too, he was quick to novelty in the General Theory; but now others were to carry forward the intellectual revolution that was consummated in war and post-war planning.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.