Okishio's Accumulation Theory (first edition) is first published in 1967. Thereafter we have experienced a long-term low growth trend in most of advanced countries and especially severe two decades stagnation in Japan. It has led a transformation in main stream economics but their core structure remains unchanged. At the same time the heterogeneous economics has evolved into many fields. Okishio's Accumulation Theory was a very influential contribution to heterogeneous economists in Japan and has effects to wider range of economists including main stream academics. In this paper we reconsider Okishio's Accumulation Theory in the light of modern perspectives. First we present the main message of Accumulation Theory, which are summarized as the following four items. 1) historical character of capitalism, 2) disequilibrium and its unstable cumulative movements, 3) profit-led and investment-led character of capitalism, and 4) the long-run tendency of capitalistic economy. It is shown that Okishio's propositions in these four items are still relevant. Next we evaluate the post-Keynesian economic theory, especially Kaleckian model. We compare the standard Kaleckian model with the standard Okishio's accumulation model. There are some shared visions of capitalistic economy in these standard models, but distinct differences exist in setting up the investment function and therefore analyzing dynamic movements of the economy. We discuss that the standard Kaleckian model presented by Lavoie (2010) has problematic points in defining long-run economy and its setting-up of investment function. Nevertheless, there is a important contribution in recent researches following Kaleckian model. It shed light to explore the effects of distribution and accumulation on employment and growth, to examine the possibility and conditions to realize the wage-led economy in the medium run, which are the emerging area of research. There exist many unsolved issues to be analyzed in detail.

View full abstract

In Marxian economics, the capitalist economy is conceived of as an exploitative system. Since Okishio (1963), it had been recognized that the validity of this basic Marxian insight was shown by the so-called Fundamental Marxian Theorem (FMT), assuming a simple Leontief economic model with the Okishio definition of exploitation. However, FMTis no longer robust once a more complex economic model is considered. Moreover, the Generalized Commodity Exploitation Theorem indicates that the definition of exploitation a la Okishio(1963)-Morishima (1973) does not properly capture the core feature of exploitation as a concept of social relations, but rather it simply represents the productiveness of the economic system as a whole. Given these two criticisms, Roemer (1982, 1994) proposed the property relations definition of exploitation (PR-exploitation) which was to recognize exploitation as a concept of social relations stipulated by the ownership structure of productive assets. Though PR-exploitation has nothing to do with the classical labour theory of value, it is a mathematical extension of the Okishio definition. Moreover, it is generally true that, under the definition of PRexploitation, the capitalist economy can be conceived of as exploitative. However, the PR theory of exploitation is a double-edged sword in that it denies the relevance of the notion of exploitation as a primary normative concern: Roemer (1994) argued that the primary normative concern should be injustice of unequal distribution of productive assets rather than exploitation per se. His criticism against exploitation was so influential that the Marxian theory of exploitation was almost "killed", in that there had been no substantial works in this field after Roemer (1994) until recently. However, the Marxian notion of exploitation has now been revived: indeed recently, there has been some significant developments in theories of exploitation as the social relation of unequal exchange of labour (UE-exploitation). This paper examines, among others, the arguments of proper conceptual definitions of exploitation developed by Vrousails (2013) in political philosophy and by Wright (2000) in sociology. Both approaches share a common feature, in that they address the systematic generation of the unequal exchange of labour due to the asymmetric power relations embedded in the trading structure. Interestingly, by the new theory of exploitation a la Vrousails(2013)-Wright(2000), Roemer's claim that the theory of exploitation is reduced to a theory of distributive injustice can be invalidated, and the notion of UE-exploitation is restored as a primary normative concern. Given this new trend, one of the relevant subjects for Marxian exploitation theory would be to identify the proper formulation of UE-exploitation, which has been developed significantly due to an axiomatic theory of exploitation initiated by Veneziani and Yoshihara. Among many others of them, this paper examines Profit-Exploitation Correspondence Principle (PECP) [Veneziani and Yoshihara (2013a)] which is proposed to characterize axiomatically the eligible definitions of exploitation. Then, an extension of the exploitation form a la New Interpretation is shown, among the main definitions in the literature, to be uniquely eligible.

View full abstract

Okishio's way to deal with labour value concept was to separate it from price concept. It is consistent with Marx's fundamental dual view of the reification theory that the nature of the human society in general, which is the mutual labour interdependence among persons, does not appear directly but appears taking the form of the exchange relationship among commodities. The latter, where the price categories hold, alienates from the former, where the bestowed labour(the substance of the value)hold as a key category to grasp the reproduction. It is the existence of gap between price and labour value that this view emphasizes to criticize this structure, rather than the price reflection of labour value. First in the present paper, the alleged compatibility of two "total identity propositions" proposed by the Single System Approach is criticized. It is shown that their value of the labour power is the labour to produce the similar contraction of the net production bundle, which contains commodities workers never buy. And the compatibility of the two total identity propositions holds between any two evaluation vectors, besides labour value and production price. And Marx-Okishio's dual structure of the theory is confirmed. The Hawkins-Simon condition of I-A, where A is the input coefficient matrix, means net production is possible as well as labour value is definable(labour is alocatable). Whereas the Hawkins-Simon condition of I-A_+, where A_+ is the extended input coefficient matrix adding labour force sector to A, means surplus production is possible as well as positive profit exists. The former condition indicates the productiveness of personal interdependence nature of society. The latter condition indicates the productiveness of capitalistic reification form of society. Okishio's Fundamental Marxian Theorem, which states equivalence between positive profit and exploitation of labour, observes profit phenomenon holding at reification world as a fare equivalence of trades, from the stand point of the human interdependence world and then there finds exploitation relationship between humans. So called Generalized Commodity Exploitation Theorem uses bestowed commodity concept other than bestowed labour and finds that exploitation of any commodity is equivalent with positive profit. But we realize that the existence of a positive bestowed commodity vector is identical with some kind of Hawkins-Simon condition. And it is shown that the condition means productiveness for a special "net production" concept, which includes inputs to produce the commodity but does not include workers' consumption. We can interpret a commodity exploitation concept as an interpretation of profit from a stand point on a special understanding of essence of society that grasp society as interdependence relation between the commodity. Labour value concept has been developed from the primitive definition by simultaneous equations to Morishima's labour minimization definition and then to my Minimum Labour with Equal Utility definition. The present paper traces this direction of development, which goes further leaving price concept, and shows my study plan that describe non-profit=non-exploitation state as a normative state for workers' class, which functions as a criterion for the criticism free from the reification. In this state, the bestowed labour concept works as a standard to organize he balanced allocation in the personal inter-dependence world. Then, the relation between this criterion and Roemer's criterion, which considers equal distribution of means of production as normative, is examined. In the short run, under the constraint of endowment of means of production, the means of production claim net products even by the social planning without reification. Thus the equal distribution of the means of production is regarded as normative. In

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

Nobuo Okishio (1927-2003) and Michio Morishima (1923-2004) belonged to the same generation. Both of them started their study of economics through Hicks's Value and Capital. Because of Okishio's conversion from Hicksian to Marxian economics, their academic path once separated in the mid-1950s. However, since the late-1960s Morishima undertook a reformulation of Marxian value theory. In the 1970s He also accepted Keynes's principle of effective demand as the proper description of contemporary capitalism where the Say's Law does not hold true anymore. The purpose of this paper is to overview Okishio's and Morishima's economics and highlight some important characteristics common to them. Since the author has already made a detailed argument on Okishio in a previous essay, this paper puts focus on Morishima's economics. Morishima regarded theories as a set of tools which should be selected depending on features of the economy to be investigated. Thus his economics has no universal "principle". While making substantial contributions to the elaboration of the general equilibrium theory, he was well aware that adherence to strict generality would be theoretically barren. In his view the scope of analysis based on optimization is limited also by the fact that "sociological factors" play crucial roles in labor market. He showed keen interest in concrete processes of market transactions and emphasized the necessity to analyze the movement of temporary equilibrium prices over periods. Morishima's theoretical transition in late 1960's was twofold. In terms of analytical method he adopted von Neumann's framework. More importantly, in terms of the basic understanding of capitalism, he embraced Keynes. Morishima indicated that equalization of the return rates of durable goods is incompatible with full employment of factors unless the Say's Law is assumed. In connection with this, he sought to construct a price theory which could explain both prices determined by auction and prices set by firms based on the full-cost principle. In Capital and Credit Morishima tried to incorporate into his theory the roles of entrepreneurs and bankers as co-creators of "production possibility set". Okishio and Morishima were outstanding internal critics of the theories upon which they themselves had relied. Okishio's reformulation of Marx's economics contains fundamental criticism against it. Morishima's early works include pertinent insight into the limits of Walrasian-Hicksian approach. hey saw economy as a time-consuming circular process accompanied with complicated interrelations between its various agents and sectors. One of the reasons why they were not impressed with Sraffa might be that they had already established circulation-based view of economy. On Marxian value and exploitation theory, there were no substantial disagreement between them. Rejecting the Say's Law clearly, Okishio and Morishima built their theory on the principle of effective demand. They regard the movement of capital stocks as one of basic factors determining the dynamics of capitalist economy. However, advocacy of Keynes brought disharmony into their theoretical systems. Okishio's Keynesian short-term theory is not consistently connected with Marxian longterm theory. There remained a large gap between Morishima's vision of "the anti-Say's Law system" and his formalized Neumann-type model. Clarification of these common features would be significant as a preparation for more comprehensive comparison of their economics.

View full abstract

In the period of industrial revolutions in advanced industrial countries, in the expansion of large-scale industry with machinery, factories were built one after another in every region in each country and the factory system was established. It is well known that under the factory system laborers were deprived of their control over the quality and quantity of their own labor and their dependence on production by means of the machine system grows rapidly. Why is production by means of the machine system so restrictive on the behavior of an individual laborer? To put it another way, in this type of production technology, why can't each laborer carry out his free decision? In this paper we examine the properties of the productive organization that is the cooperative relations among laborers which are formed on production by means of the machine system. Yet, before examining the feasibility of free decisionmaking by laborers, we must make clear what exactly it is in advance. So in this paper we explore, regardless of whether it is feasible or not, what the free decision-making by laborers is like in production by means of the machine system. First, each worker actually gets a portion of social product in exchange for his own labor and he will, making his free decision, take this fact into account very well. Suppose that productive organization manufacturing products by means of the machine system is self-sufficient, then, each worker can't choose his own desirable working hours and consumption goods without expecting the performances of other workers in his productive organization. In other words in production by means of the machine system, the free decision-makings by all the members of productive organization are interdependent and, in this sense, each worker is confronted with a game-theoretic situation. We have demonstrated that free decision-making by workers in production by means of the machine system forms a Nash equilibrium point in the productive organization adopting this production technology; the free decision-making by workers can be characterized as a Nash equilibrium point of the productive organization. Second, we have examined the economic welfare of Nash equilibria in a few productive organizations. When each worker holds exactly the same portion of total product as his own contribution to production in the simple cooperation of labor, a Nash equilibrium point in the productive organization is Pareto optimal. On the other hand, a Nash equilibrium point in the productive organization in production by means of the machine system is, in so far as labor input of each worker is positive, not Pareto optimal. In his free decision-making, each worker is constrained by nothing but technical conditions of production; surely no contract will be made to restrict his behavior. Without making contract to enforce certain cooperative conducts between all the workers engaged in production by means of the machine system, no one can expect a further improvement of his utility at a Nash equilibrium point of the productive organization. With certain agreement, however, with enforcement between them, each of them can expect a rise in his utility level. This suggests that, in terms of economic welfare, cooperation between workers instead of their independent decision-makings, more exactly an ex-ante coordination of productive activities between workers, therefore an advance production planning is desirable in production by means of the machine system.

View full abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze the process of the financialization of the American economy in 1980s, focusing on the relationship between corporations and financial institutions. In part I, I survey the literature of the financialization approach. One approach is to focus on the increase of financial investment by non-financial corporations. This approach points out that non-financial corporations invest internal funds to financial assets to avoid the downward tendency of profitrates. This approach is limited by scholars understanding that corporations invest in financial assets solely aiming at financial profits. The other approach is to focus on the growing influence of the capital market and the increase of financial payments by non-financial corporations. This approach emphasizes the creation of the "market for corporate control", driven by the rise of institutional investors, information economics and the formation of junk-bond market. This approach has the limitation that the actions of industrial corporations are not included. Based on these literatures, the approach of this paper is to regard investing equity as the way to control another corporation and include corporate actions which pursue profits. This approach is to focus on the transformation of "finance capital". Originally, "finance capital" had a viewpoint of finance related with industry. However, these days, "finance capital" is used in a sense that financial institutions seek financial and speculative profits. In this paper, I focus on the process of the transformation of "finance capital" from the classical type to casino type. In part II, I trace the transformation of the American economy after World War II, and corporate restructuring in 1980s. In the post-war era, the American economy was characterized by the administered price system. Administered price was the price which added reasonable profit to cost. Because of this, corporations could get stable profit. Under this system, corporate actions were characterized by avoidance of price competition, demand of protective policies, and investment in former type equipment. In the depression in early 1980s, many corporations fell into the red Most of them changed the action pattern. They restructured business formations by mergers and acquisitions(M&A). For examples, U. S. Steel acquired Marathon Oil in 1982 to change its main business from steel to oil production. Financial institutions took part in the M&A boom. Investment banks acted as M&A advisor. In merger mania, they treated bridge loan financing, and invested LBO equity funds. Commercial banks acted as loan lender. In merger mania, they acted as M&A advisor. In part III, I explain the consequences of merger boom in 1980s and examine the transformation of the relationship between corporations and financial institutions. Financial institutions expanded profits from M&A related businesses because such businesses were very profitable. In the process of merger boom, the relationship between corporations and financial institutions had transformed from "relationship oriented" to "arms-length oriented". As for investment banks, large corporations had maintained the continuous relationship with specific investment banks over a long period of time. However, in 1980s, most corporations came to use the investment banks which presented the most advantageous conditions. This was because there were many chances for corporations to change investment banks in the merger boom. The conclusion of this paper is as follows: 1) American corporations moved their capital to advantageous industries by using financial markets. 2) Financial institutions could expand profits by helping corporations which needed M & A to overcome the difficulties in that days. 3) In the process of merger booms, the relationship between

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract