レギュラシオン派の貨幣金融論 : 概念的成果とその課題(<特集>レギュラシオン理論の到達点と展望)

抄録

This article is a survey of regulationists' contribution to the subject of money and finance. In section 1, we specify the lines of this article: we will deal with only conceptual implications of their works; we won't refer to their regulation research as such. In section 2, we examine how regulationists have treated problems of money and finance in the study of Fordist growth model, and find that their concept of monetary constraint is referred to the dimension of social connection of labor and that the money-form as an institutional form, in the regulation theory, has a function of transposing monetary constraint. In section 3, we examine regulationists' concept of monetary social cohesion, which consists of two parts: one is the function of money as satisfying individual's demand for protection and being, another the function of money as means to perform debt of life. Such an aspect of money is called money as a social tie. In section 4, we examine how regulationists have formulated stability conditions of modern monetary regime, making use of various concepts: sovereignty of money, contradictory dual nature of money and three forms of confidence in money. In section 5, we introduce two recent arguments on the so-called financialized capitalism: one is on the crises of financial globalization, another on the transformation of wagelaborer society. There we find that regulationists are interested in the problems of social cohesion posed by financialization. In (last) section 6, we notify merits and insufficiencies in the arguments on money and finance among regulationists. As a result, we see merits as follows. 1) In their analysis of Fordist growth model, regulationists could place the problem of monetary constraint and money-form in the context of the dynamic and structural evolution of capitalist economy. 2) By elaborating the concept of monetary social cohesion, they have succeeded in revealing some implicit dimensions of market system and stimulating our interest in money or finance. 3) On the basis of the concept of monetary social cohesion, they have expressed a unique, so-called societal, viewpoint on the topics of financialized capitalism. On the other hand, we see insufficiencies as follows. 1) Regulationists referred to two social dimensions in consideration of money: social connection of labor and monetary social cohesion. The articulation between the two dimensions isn't so clear in their arguments. In that, further theoretical elaboration seems necessary. 2) It's not clear how they articulate the constituents of monetary social cohesion. As for this point, we expect their effort to construct more precise formulations. 3) As far as their image of the future of wage-laborer society is concerned, further complementary discussions are needed concerning the nature of human desire or culture.