Great Recession and Macroeconomic Theory: A Useless Crisis?

ABSTRACT

The global financial crisis of 2007–08 and the subsequent Great Recession have pushed many economists to acknowledge a fundamental limit in the theoretical models elaborated after the monetarist counter-revolution: these models disregard the financial system. The years following the Great Recession have thus been marked by the development of what can be called the ‘Financial Frictions Approach’, a theoretical approach based on the addition of the financial system to the New Keynesian DSGE model. The results of this line of research are beginning to appear also in macroeconomics textbooks. Significant examples are the publication of the seventh edition of Blanchard’s textbook, and the publication of the third edition of the textbook co-authored by Blanchard, Amighini and Giavazzi. The objective of this work is twofold: (i) to show that the new model presented by Blanchard, Amighini and Giavazzi, which reflects the results of the ‘Financial Frictions Approach’, does not allow to elaborate a coherent explanation of the Great Recession and (ii) to present the pillars of an alternative theoretical model based on the lessons of Keynes, Schumpeter and Minsky.     

COUNTERING THE ASSAULT ON CAPITALISM

Capitalism is the most efficient system for solving problems and for advancing human welfare. Yet it faces opposition both from intellectuals and those with vested interests in big government. If business leaders would push for ‘liberate to stimulate policies’, they might succeed in creating a freer tomorrow and solving more of humanity's problems.     

中日韩新能源合作探析

新能源已经成为目前各国竞相发展的产业,新能源技术开发甚至被喻为"第四次科技革命"。在从熊彼特创新理论角度探讨新能源开发重要性的基础上,分析了中日韩三国在新能源领域合作的基础和意义,最后提出了相应的政策建议。     

Capitalism and democracy in the 21st Century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy*

 This paper explains how and why the developed countries are undergoing a fundamental shift away from a managed economy and towards an entrepreneurial economy. This shift is shaping the development of western capitalism and has triggered a shift in government policies away from constraining the freedom of business to contract through regulation, public ownership and antitrust towards a new set of enabling policies which foster the creation and commercialization of new knowledge. The empirical evidence from a cross-section of countries over time suggests that those countries that have experienced a greater shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy have had lower levels of unemployment.     

Competitive selection, self-organisation and Joseph A. Schumpeter

Post-Schumpeterians have tended to use biological analogies to understand economic evolution, in contrast to Schumpeter himself. In this paper it is argued that the biological analogies used tend to be outdated and that Schumpeter espoused an intuitive understanding of the evolutionary economic process that is closely related to modern conceptions of self-organisation, suitably adapted for application in socioeconomic systems. Using a self-organisation approach, competition can be understood without recourse to biological analogy, in terms of general systemic principles that operate in the presence of variety. Viewing economic evolution in terms of complex adaptation in self-organising systems yields nonequilibrium and nonlinear perspectives that parallel Schumpeter's own intuitions, reinvigorating them as the basis of evolutionary economic thinking in the new Millennium.     

Metatheory as the key to understanding: Schumpeter after Shionoya

In his recent book, Yuichi Shionoya departs from previous Schumpeterianstudies. He sets out to reconstruct Schumpeter's metatheoreticalframework, which he argues is the key to a correct interpretationof his substantive writings. The centrepiece of this projectis the thesis that Schumpeter has a coherent methodologicalposition—instrumentalism—which consistently underpinshis theoretical work. The present paper examines this thesis,and in so doing paves the way for an alternative hypothesison Schumpeter. This hypothesis is based on Tony Lawson's workon the philosophy of economics.     

Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature

During the last two decades we have seen a revival of interest in the works of Joseph Schumpeter and “evolutionary” ideas in economics more generally. A professional society honouring Schumpeter's name has been founded, and linked to it we have had for more than fifteen years now a professional journal devoted to this stream of thought. However, it has been argued that, despite these developments, the link between Schumpeter's own work and the more recent contributions to evolutionary economics is in fact rather weak. This paper considers this claim. Based on an analysis of Schumpeter's contribution to economics the paper presents an overview and assessment of the more recent literature in this area. It is argued that although there are important differences between Schumpeter's work and some of the more recent contributions, there nevertheless remains a strong common core that clearly distinguishes the evolutionary stream from other approaches (such as, for instance, so-called “new growth theory”). RID="*" ID="*" Many people have contributed to this paper in various ways. Jon Hekland at the Norwegian Research Council started it all by asking me to make an overview of the contribution from “evolutionary economics” to our understanding of contemporary economies. Several people helped me on the way by supplying written material, comments and suggestions, and I am indebted to all of them. Brian Arthur, Stan Metcalfe, Keith Pavitt, Erik Reinert, Paolo Saviotti and Bart Verspagen may be particularly mentioned. A preliminary version was presented at the conference “Industrial R&D and Innovation Policy Learning – Evolutionary Perspectives and New Methods for Impact Assessment” organised by the Norwegian Research Council (“SAKI”) at Leangkollen, Asker, April 18–19.2002. I wish to thank the discussant, Tor Jakob Klette, and the participants at the conference for useful feedback. Moreover I have benefited from comments and suggestions from the editors and referees of this journal. The final responsibility is mine, however. Economic support from the Norwegian Research Council (“SAKI”) is gratefully acknowledged.     

Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: a Kaleckian interpretation of a Schumpeterian problem

The paper reinterprets Schumpeter's views on the dynamic effects of taxation, as originally expressed in Crisis of the Tax State, from a Kaleckian perspective. In light of Schumpeter's rejection of Keynesian and Marshallian approaches to taxation, the paper argues that a recently developed Kaleckian approach provides an appropriate basis from which to analyse the effects on the business cycle of balanced changes in the structure of taxation. It is shown that, under certain shifting assumptions, increases in the taxation of wages or profits will stimulate investment and attenuate the amplitude of the business cycle. Ultimately, the shifting of taxes reduces to a conflict over income shares. The changing distribution of income in the United Kingdom in recent years suggests that investment is likely to remain sluggish unless there is a significant reversal of income shares. This may give rise to increasing economic and political tensions into the 21st century.     

Industry concentration,excess returns and innovation in Australia

This paper examines market concentration and stock returns on the Australian Securities Exchange. We find that dominant companies operating in concentrated industries in Australia are able to generate significant risk‐adjusted excess stock returns. Our results for Australian data are opposite to that found by Hou and Robinson (2006) for United States market data. Hou and Robinson reason that United States firms which operate in concentrated industries are insulated from competitive pressures, have lower levels of innovation (Arrow, 1962) and therefore experience lower profitability and stock returns. By contrast, the Australian data show a significant and positive relationship between concentration and innovation expenditure. Therefore, the excess stock returns of dominant companies in Australia are consistent with previous research linking innovation expenditure with excess stock returns. We hypothesize that the apparent contradiction of our results compared with Hou and Robinson (2006) for the United States market is resolved by an examination of the differences in size and competition in United States and Australian industries and the consequent differential ability of dominant companies in the two countries to generate monopoly rents and invest in ‘Schumpeterian’ (Schumpeter, 1942) innovation.     

重商主义经济学：争论与反思

重商主义是经济思想史上最为悠久和影响最大的一种思潮,但理论界对其看法其实存在严重分歧,斯密、施莫勒和熊彼特分别代表了三种截然不同的评价。一百多年来围绕重商主义展开的争论集中在“什么是重商主义”、“重商主义成功了吗”以及“斯密是重商主义的对立面吗”等三个主题。重商主义本身的二重性、定义的混乱、方法论的差异和立场的对立等,都是导致出现争论的原因。后续研究应在细化范围、明确概念、加强原始文本阅读和历史重建方法应用等方面有所深化。