Many people view the outbreak of the severe financial crisis of 2007-8 as confirming Minsky's "financial instability hypothesis". Nevertheless, those who interpret this financial crisis as a "Minsky crisis" don't get a majority even among heterodox economists who believe that the capitalist growth process is inherently unstable. One of the reason is that there are still various theories of economic crisis in the strands of heterodox economics. Therefore, heterodox economists' assessments on Minsky's theory aren't also uniform. Some indicate the limitations of Minsky's perspective. For example, many Marxian economists often point out that Minsky finds the source of instability of a capitalist economy exclusively in the financial sector of the economy and he pays little attention to the contradictions and crises of capitalist economies that result from factors located in the real sector. But economic crises don't necessarily always occur by only one cause. In many case, crises occur because of the complex interaction of plural factors. Further, the form of a crisis may depend on the institutional structure of the economic system at a particular time and place. In order to grasp the nature of economic crises that occur taking various forms each time, we need a comprehensive theoretical framework that integrates perspectives of schools of heterodox economics. We will be able to construct such a framework for the first time by the animated cross-fertilization between various strands of heterodox economics. Since their advent in the late 1960s, American radical economists have done a lot of valuable attempts toward a synthesis of heterodox economics. They have inherited the intellectual capital of Marxian, Keynesian and American institutional schools, and sought to construct an alternative framework to the neoclassical orthodoxy through the integration of those ideas. In addition to the analysis of the real aspect of the economy, they have also achieved many rich results in the analysis of financial instability of a capitalist economy. This paper reviews American radical economists' critical assessments of Minsky's financial instability hypothesis, and examines their interpretations of the current crisis. With these considerations, I explore the possibility of a synthesis of heterodox theories of economic crisis.

抄録全体を表示

J. M. Keynes argued that money is not neutral both in the short-run and in the long-run, therefore it influences on real economic activities such as production and employment. Post Keynesian economists inherit his ideas, and try to develop his original theory. This paper clarifies the essence of Keynesian revolution, and explores the direction of an alternative economic theory and policy by reviewing recent developments in Post Keynesian monetary economics. The core of Keynesian economics lies in its nature of a "monetary theory of production". The theory suggests that money plays a part of it own and affects motives and decisions. Keynes made clear that aggregate demand sufficient to generate full employment is not guaranteed even in a competitive economy with perfectly flexible wages and prices. The cause of unemployment equilibrium in a monetary economy is the existence of money which is a nonproducible asset held for the purpose of liquidity. One of the main themes in Post Keynesian economics is the endogeneity of money supply. Following the pioneer study by N. Kaldor, many Post Keynesian economists have elaborated the theory of endogenous money supply. The theory has been a cornerstone of Post Keynesian economics until now. Although the "horizontalist" approach and the "structuralist" approach are different in their nature each other, together they provide a more general theory of endogenous money. Today, the "new consensus" in macroeconomics also accepts the view that the interest rate is exogenous and money is endogenous. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between Post Keynesian monetary theory and the new consensus. The latter still retains the axiom of the long-run neutrality of money and monetary policy. In contrast, Post Keynesians consider that aggregate demand not only determines the level of production and employment in the short-run, but also influences on the long-run growth path of the economy. Hence, they maintain that monetary policy can have permanent real effects.

抄録全体を表示

Nowadays, mainstream macroeconomics has evolved into a new framework, which is labeled "new consensus macroeconomics", by integrating research results both of new classicals and of new Keynesians. It is said that oppositions between schools of thought over the analytical framework have nearly disappeared within mainstream macroeconomics today. It is notable that the new consensus recognizes the exogeneity of the shortterm interest rate and the endogeneity of the money supply. Nevertheless, the new consensus model exhibits strong classical features. In the model, the longrun equilibrium of the economy is exclusively determined by the supply-side factors, and effective demand has no influence on it. Therefore, in the long-run, monetary policy only impacts on the rate of inflation and doesn't improve the levels of production and employment. Further, proponents of the new consensus accept Wicksell's concept of the "natural rate of interest", and they consider that the departure of the market rate of interest from the natural rate gives rise to the movement of the aggregate price level. In addition, they inherit Wicksell's idea that the natural rate of interest acts as a center of gravitation. In contrast, Post Keynesian economists argue that aggregate demand not only determines the short-run output, but also plays a crucial role in directing the long-run growth path of the economy. Hence government economic policies have lasting effects on the real economy. Furthermore, Post Keynesians deny the existence of a unique natural rate of interest, and they maintain that the interest rate determined by monetary factors constitutes a center of gravitation. We can regard the rivalry between the new consensus and the Post Keynesian views as a modern manifestation of the rivalry between "real analysis" and "monetary analysis" that has shaped the history of economics. Today, Post Keynesian economics makes great contributions to the theoretical foundation of monetary analysis that believes capitalist economies inherently contain monetary and financial instability.

抄録全体を表示

A brief yet hopefully exhaustive sketch of recent studies on Keynes brings us four concluding remarks. First, thanks to professionalisation of the history of economic thought, the 14 academic journals （their abbreviations are shown be-low）, at least, are ready to accept articles on historical and theoretical perspec-tives of Keynesʼs ideas. This directly leads to an increase in academic papers （in English） in quantity, and consequently, to better understandings of Keynes in quality. However, confining to narrow academic circles could also bring a fall of influential powers in the history of economic thought, despite of its role to bridge both among other disciplines one another and academia with ordinary people. 　　Second, one of the most conspicuous characteristics of the research trends is to emphasise Keynesʼs multiple phases of international relations in practice and in theory. These cover not only the international monetary system but also corporative designs to balance both among national and international interests and among just, fair world and economic efficiency towards a peaceful world. Third, Keynesʼs ideas provoke current economists to study on recent fashionable themes such as on happiness, behavioural economics, neuroscience, and psycho-logical economics. Among them, the relation between agents on a micro level and economic phenomena on a macro level is the most difficult theme to solve. Nevertheless, Keynesʼs insight into the organic whole in macroeconomics can serve as a clue. Fourth, strict interpretations of original texts are necessary, sometimes by way of unpublished primary sources, to extract the relevant usage of economics. The history of economic thought serves this end. In the near fu-ture, historians of economics can even apply a new method, such as text-mining and handling big data, to this academic area. 　　Judging from both the numerous articles mentioned above, and the Keynes Societies of Germany and Japan that were established in 2003 and in 2011 re-spectively, studies on Keynes seem to be more active than before. It is, neverthe-less, questionable whether the mere efforts by historians of economics could reach economic theorists along with general readers. 　　I would like to end this review article by citing OʼDonnell （2011）, which raises three fundamental questions: （i）Why is Keynes so different from ortho-dox economists?; （ii）Why is Keynes more difficult to understand than ortho-dox economists?; and （iii）Why is Keynes more appealing than orthodox econ-omists? Although OʼDonnell （2011, 10-11） answers these questions, it is now important to tackle the three knots, regardless of historians of economics, theo-retical economists, or even general readers. If I were asked to choose just two words to characterize Keynesʼs thought as a whole, they would be reason and humanity. （OʼDonnell 2011, 11）

抄録全体を表示

This article reargues my book, Kalecki's Politic l Economy, which was published in 2009 and a revised version of my doctoral dissertation submitted to Kyoto University in 2003. The book was reviewed at two academic meetings and two book reviews were published. Replying to them, this article summarizes the gist of my book and corrects some errors if necessary. My book consists of eight chapters. Apart from chapter 1 of "introduction of Kalecki," it may be divided into three parts: Kalecki's studies in capitalist economies, Kalecki's comparative economic studies, and Kalecki as a "Marxist." First, this article examines Kalecki's biographical problems. Kalecki's life may be divided into three parts: from his birth in 1899 until his leaving Poland in 1936, his exile days until his returning home in late 1954 or early 1955, and the rest of his life until his death in 1970. Although my book mainly used Kalecki's chronological personal history by Osiatynski in Collected Works of Michal Kalecki, it has been found not to be necessarily correct. So this article describes the true story as possible. Second, this article examines Kalecki's studies in capitalist economies, focusing Essay on the Business Cycle Theory (1933) in particular. Essay is very famous as the evidence of Kalecki's priority over Keynes's General Theory (1936). But it was written in Polish, and has been known through a shortened English version, which has led to rather limited understanding of the work. The publication of the English version of Collected Works of Michal Kalecki enabled the detailed examination of the full version of Essay. Here is the result. Third, this article examines Kalecki's comparative economic studies. Kalecki studied socialist and developing economies as well as capitalist economies. This article presents a perspective from which those three economic systems should be viewd. In addition to that, Kalecki's version of "the presuppositions of Harvey Road" is mentioned. Forth, this article examines Kalecki as a "Marxist." Although a lot of comparative studies on him with Keynes have been presented, ones with Marx were relatively rare. Kalecki had never been a member of the communist party, nor an orthodox and dogmatic Marxist. Nevertheless, this article tries to describe Kalecki as a Marxist in a sense, and claims that his interpretation of historical materialism enabled his non-dogmatic and realistic analysis of the transformation of capitalism. Finally, remaining themes are considered. I am going to pay attention to Post-Keynesian ecoomics, especially Kaleckian macroeconomics. I must admit that application to modern economy should not be forgotten.

抄録全体を表示

This paper attempts to evaluate the significance of wage-led economy of Post Keynesian economics. In order to achieve longterm sustainable economic growth under the low growth and the environmental constraints, the switch from profit-led economy to wage-led economy will be effective and also inevitable. The main points are as follows: 1) Our current economic crisis can not be resolved by simply resuming the Keynesian demand policies in face of environmental constraints, growing fiscal deficits and low birthrate and an aging population. What is important is that we have to consider both demand side and supply side simultaneously, which mutually interrelate in determining the output and employment levels. The supply side of Keynesian theory is the core of the issue, which is neglected for long because Keynes himself disregarded it. The main stream economics has picked up this point and criticized Keynes but falsely. 2) There are three ways to shift the supply curve downwards: (1) technical improvement, (2) cutting labor cost and (3) cutting profit margin. The ways employed by neo-liberals which are theoretically based on the main stream economics since eighties are the first and the second ones, whose effectiveness has shown to be restrictive because they shift the demand curve downwards as well as supply curve. In this sense the supply side policies are rebelled against by demand side; consumption demand is sharply depressed by deteriorating expectation in future wages and employment insecurity. On the other hand, the wage-led economy is to pursue the third way of downwards shift of supply curve. 3) The possibility of wage-led economy depends on both characteristics of investment and saving functions. We can say firstly that under the condition of low economic growth the characteristics of saving function become more important compared with those in investment function, secondly that a lower saving rate of laborers leads to greater possibility of wage-led economy, and thirdly that a more progressive tax system makes wage-led economy more possible. These Post Keynesian claims are of importance in face of recent regressive tax reforms and the relatively higher saving rate in Asian countries. 4) Blecker (1989) and Bhaduri and Marglin (1990) argued that the increasing international price competition prevents the potential of wage-led economy even if the domestic economy is wage-led. In this paper we discussed that this claim is not confined to wage-led economy: the profit-led economy is also not sustainable under the severe international competition. Therefore a domestic price increase can not be maintained regardless of whether it is wage-led or profit-led domestically under global competition. In other words, in face of international competition we need to improve the supply condition. Here we must consider again by which way we realize the shift of supply curve. 5) We discussed four cases of two-country economy composed of two-by-two combinations: wage-led or profit-led and domestic country or foreign country. An increase in wage share in domestic country with profitled foreign country has positive effects to both countries: the domestic production as well as foreign production increase. The effects of an increase in the wage share in wage-led domestic country become ambiguous, however, when the foreign country is also wage-led, but it affects favorably to domestic country compared to foreign country. 6) Finally we examine the necessary conditions of sustainable economic growth from longer run perspectives. If we maintain both the inside equilibrium condition and the outside equilibrium condition at the same time, how can the wage rate increase in the long run? By inside we consider the labor market and by outside we mean the trade balance. Then we argue that the wage rate increase depends on the natural growth rates of domestic and foreign economies, the elasticity of trade,

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

20世紀の危機の時代を生きた,ポランニー,ケインズ,ペヴァリッジ,ラーナー,ミーゼス,ノイラート,ハイエク,ロビンズらにとって,大恐慌やファシズムや世界戦争といった自由主義の危機と資本主義システムの持つ悪弊(通貨の不安定化,緊縮財政,増大する格差,大量失業,不安定な就労形態)の諸問題に正面から向き合う課題は,共通していた。これらの点を踏まえて本稿では,20世紀が経験した平和と自由と民主主義の危機の解釈をめぐって争点となる,ポランニーの「社会的保護」の考え方を明らかにする。そして,市場社会における制約された社会的保護とその可能性に照明を当てることによって,二重運動の思想的次元を問う。最後に1920年代の社会民主党市政下のウィーンに思想的起源があるポランニーの「社会的自由」の概念に立ち返りつつ,『大転換』最終章「複雑な社会における自由」の諸論点を検討し,「福祉国家と自由」の問題圏を考察する。

抄録全体を表示