Arestis 1996 Postkeynesian Economics...

Cambridge Journal of Economics 1996, 20, 111-135

CRITICAL SURVEYThis is the sixth of a series of Critical Survey articles. The aim of the series is to report on recentdevelopments, to provide an assessment of alternative and to suggest lines of future inquiry. It is intendedthat the articles will be accessible not only to other academic researchers but also to students and others morepractically involved in the economy. Future Survey articles will include Geoffrey Ingham on 'Economicsand Sociology'.

Post-Keynesian economics: towardscoherence

Philip Arestis*

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of post-Keynesian economics. It arguesthat post-Keynesian economics has passed through the important initial stage ofmounting a concerted critique of mainstream economics. The focus, however, is onthe stage reflected in current post-Keynesian research which, the paper argues, isconcerned with elaborating a distinctive coherent approach that takes precedenceover critique. Several traditions upon which post-Keynesian economics relies areidentified. Institutionalism is proposed as an additional contributing tradition, anovel aspect of the paper. It is recognised, however, that more research is necessaryto complete the post-Keynesian approach.

© 1996 Academic Press Limited

Introduction1

A growing international community of economists describe themselves as 'post-Keynesian'. For all the differences that exist between them, they hold strongly to the view

Manuscript received 30 November 1992; final version received 28 July 1994.

•University of East London. The author is extremely grateful to three anonymous referees and to thefollowing colleagues for their helpful comments: Paul Auerbach, Paul Davidson, John Davis, Johan Deprez,Alistair Dow, Sheila Dow, Ciaran Driver, Murray Glickman, Francis Green, Omar Hamouda, Jan Kregel,Will Milberg, Basil Moore, Panos Pantelides, Peter Reynolds, Malcolm Sawyer, Nina Shapiro, Peter Skott,and Adrian Winnett.

1 There are a number of surveys of post-Keynesian economics, which differ in emphasis and coveragefrom the current essay. There is the essay by Eichner and Kregel (1975) which demonstrates the emergenceof post-Keynesian economics as a paradigm capable of challenging neoclassical economics, and Arestis(1990) which is not as comprehensive as the current essay. Harcourt (1985) and Harcourt and Hamouda(1988) survey post-Keynesian economics from the point of view of contributors rather than themes as in thisessay (which is also more comprehensive). Three recent books, Arestis (1993), Carvalho (1993) and Lavoie(1993) differ not only amongst themselves but also from this essay in a substantial way. Arestis (1993)defines the Grand Neoclassical Synthesis model, criticises it in a major way before proceeding to analyse thebuilding blocs of a post-Keynesian model, put forward initially in Arestis (1989). Carvalho (1993)demonstrates that the notion of a monetary production economy is the unifying theme of post-Keynesianeconomics, and thereby showing that this economics provides a coherent research programme. Lavoie(1993) orchestrates his approach on a micro/macroeconomics division to show that post-Keynesianeconomics is best described as a 'post-Classical' economics.

0309-166X/96/010111+25818.00/0 © 1996 Academic Press Limited

at Universidad de B

urgos on April 17, 2012

http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/

112 P. Arestis

that neoclassical economics is unhelpful as a basis for analysis and share a common visionthat requires a particular approach to theorising. The elucidation of this approach is thepurpose of this paper.

The main aim of post-Keynesian economics is to provide a clear understanding of howthe economy works, by relating economic analysis to real economic problems.1 Themajor objective is to complete the unfinished Keynesian revolution, to generalise TheGeneral Theory (Eichner and Kregel, 1975, p. 1293; Robinson, 1956). The principle ofeffective demand is the backbone of its analysis as it was in Keynes's General Theory(1936).2 Effective demand in post-Keynesian analysis implies that it is scarcity ofdemand rather than scarcity of resources that is to be confronted in modem economics,so that output is ordinarily limited by effective demand, although it is recognised thatsupply constraints are present in modem capitalist economies.3 Individual choice isheavily influenced by income, class and the technical conditions of production, as well asby relative prices, so that income, not just substitution effects, along with incomedistribution amongst social classes, become the main objects of analysis. It is alsorecognised that individual behaviour is determined by social, conventional and institu-tional factors. These are the main contributions which the institutionalist tradition hasprovided for post-Keynesian thinking, as argued below.

The ideas which are classified as post-Keynesian have a long history and post-Keynesian economics reflects the Classical tradition and Marx as much as it does Keynesand Kalecki. It is possible to identify three traditions on which post-Keynesianeconomics draws.4

1 An important aspect of post-Keynesian economics is its implicit and explicit critique of mainstreamneoclassical economics. Indeed, it has been suggested that what unites post-Keynesians is their rejection ofmainstream economics (Dow, 1990). As post-Keynesian economics matures, though, the attention shifts toa more positive approach, one that emphasises developments within this school of thought, with lessreference to the critique of neoclassical economics. It is the intention in this paper to focus on the morepositive aspects of post-Keynesian economics, in an attempt to provide an alternative to orthodoxeconomics. In any case, space constraints prevent us from surveying fully the more critical side ofpost-Keynesianism, a task which has been undertaken recently in Arestis (1992, ch. 3).

2 The principle of 'effective demand' had been formulated before Keynes by Kalecki (Robinson, 1977;Targetti and Kinda-Hass, 1982; Harcourt, 1991). There are, of course, differences between the twoapproaches, but their common elements are substantial (Kalecki, 1971; Keynes, 1936). See Sawyer (1982A,1982B, 1985) for a comprehensive study of the similarities and differences between the approaches ofKeynes and Kalecki (see, also, Robinson, 1977; and Sardoni, 1987). Not all post-Keynesians agree thatKalecki and Keynes discovered 'effective demand' independently. Davidson (1992), for example, holds theview that they did not, and has argued that Kalecki is closer to the new-Keynesians's non-market clearingmodels than Keynes's non-neutral money and uncertainty analysis. It is clear from this survey that Kalecki'sanalysis is central to post-Keynesian economic.

3 Kalecki argued that scarcity of demand rather than scarcity of resources tends to characterise capitalistand not socialist economies. The latter experienced the opposite tendency, a scarcity of resources rather thanof demand.

4 Hamouda and Harcourt (1980) and Arestis (1990) suggest a different three strands which comprise ourfirst two traditions and a third based on Sraffa. The Sraffian school of thought emphasises the long term inits analysis of the levels of income and employment. Keynes's effective demand within a Sraffian (1960)long-period 'competitive' analysis restates die classical and Marxian theory of value and distribution in along-period setting where prices are at normal levels and the level and composition of output is adjusted tothe level and composition of demand. Classical political economy and Sraffa's restatement of its theory ofvalue and distribution are thus brought together with Keynes's economics (Garegnani, 1978, 1979;Roncagtia, 1978). The theory of output, prices and employment determines the normal or long-periodposition of the economic system (Eatwell, 1983). This strand which begins from Sraffa's production system,provides an analysis which has a number of common elements with post-Keynesian economics. But theassumption that there are persistent forces which drive the economy towards a normal or long-run periodposition when the world is characterised by uncertainties and nominal contracts, sits very uncomfortablywith post-Keynesian economics. Roncagna (1992) has put the point very well, The interpretation of Srafla's

footnote 4 continued on next pagt

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


Leonela G

Realce

Post-Keynesian economics: towards coherence 113

The first tradition stems from Marshall and is firmly rooted in the Treatise on Moneyand The General Theory. It stresses uncertainty, which is thought of as an inherent aspectof events viewed in historical time. The future is unknowable in advance and agentscannot construct objective probability distributions, because past distributions arenon-stationary even if they exist (i.e. economic events are ome-dependent). Because ofuncertainty, expectations can be frustrated thus leading to change in economic behav-iour. An endogenous theory of expectations needs to be developed, a requirement whichfuture research is likely to satisfy. A further implication of uncertainty is that money isnon-neutral, which demonstrates the active role money plays in economic fluctuations.Money is associated with the law of contracts (Davidson, 1978; Minsky, 1975; Kahn,1958; Robinson, 1970), with the money-wage assuming a very important role in theanalysis, not just because it is the fundamental determinant of the price level (Robinson,1969), but because the money-wage is the most widely utilised contract in theentrepreneurial system where money is used (Davidson, 1992). The money-wage hasalso been utilised in a diagrammatic apparatus, developed by Weintraub (1958), toelucidate the relationships of aggregate supply and aggregate demand, and theirinteraction just as proposed by Keynes (1936): 'the volume of employment is given bythe point of intersection between the aggregate demand function and the aggregatesupply function' (p. 25). This interaction is the basis of distribution, output andemployment theories (Tarshis, 1939, 1947). In this tradition, in addition to economicpolicies to control aggregate demand, incomes policies are at the forefront in view of theimportance the money wage plays in determining prices.

The second tradition encapsulates the contributions of Joan Robinson and herfollowers and is essentially Kaleckian. It emphasises the role of effective demand failure,with investment demand being the driving force. Its point of departure is a distinctionbetween social classes rather than the neoclassical classless and atomistic base. Socialrelations are thus essential to the analysis and the tradition is broadly Marxist in that itadapts his reproduction scheme to tackle the realisation problem. Clearly, the kernel ofthis analysis is, as in Keynes, the idea of effective demand. But it takes as its starting pointMarx's reproduction scheme, where the distribution of income plays a vital role. The'monetary circuit' school (Parguez, 1984; Graziani, 1989) have built up the same bodyof theory from the monetary side. It is rooted in the Treatise of Money and Kalecki, andit is a strong component of the endogenous money thesis. Control of aggregate demandand its composition, where the emphasis is on investment, is the fundamental economicpolicy prescription of this approach.

Third is the institutionalist tradition of Veblen (1898, 1899) and others (see, forexample, Tool, 1988A, 1988B). It is process and evolution oriented and emphasises thedynamic and power/class structure of economic systems. These institutional andorganisational structures provide the fundamental mechanism whereby resources areallocated. In Veblen's writings (1888, 1889) the concept of 'institutions' is a wide onewhich includes and emphasises the notion of habitual behaviour of firms, households,exhibiting what would now be called 'bounded rationality1. But other institutions areimportant, such as a banking system which permits investment to be financed, corporate

footnote 4 continued from previous pageoutputs as "long period centres of gravitation" . . . is therefore an obstacle to the integration of SrafEan andKeynesian analyses, and should be abandoned' (p. 17). Moreover, the fact that the analysis of this school ofthought is institution-free, is in marked contrast to the post-Keynesian thesis that one of the most importantinstitutions is that of money and contracts.

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


114 P. Arestis

capitalism and trade unions, along with the interventionist state with its ability to causepolitical cycles. Economic policy proposals in this approach are designed specifically toinfluence the performance of these institutions and they focus on 'social consensus'. Thistradition strengthens two weak elements in post-Keynesian analysis. The first relates tothe contention that in Keynes (1936) expectations are treated as exogenous. Althoughthere is a rich analysis of the effects of expectations on economic behaviour, there appearsto be very little on the determinants of these expectations. An endogenous theory ofexpectations formation based on a study of political and economic institutions is required(Hodgson, 1988). The second weak element that the institutionalist approach strength-ens is the under-developed nature of Kalecki's and Keynes's microeconomic analyses,despite attempts that have been made to overcome this weakness (for example, Eichner,1973; Harcourt and Kenyon, 1976).

The post-Keynesian character of the institutionalist tradition can be highlighted byreferring to the predominant role of institutions and culture in shaping economicbehaviour: 'The system reacts to the absence of the information the market cannotprovide by creating uncertainty-reducing institutions: wage contracts, debt contracts,supply agreements, administered prices, trading agreements' (Kregel, 1980, p. 46).Institutions and existing conventions, however, change and can always cause a break-down in established patterns, so that crises and structural breaks ensue. Thus, routineand habit can produce tension between regularity and crisis. Keynes emphasised the'precariousness' of 'conventions' and the possibility of violent change in 'mood' and'expectation' in a cumulative way (Keynes, 1936, ch.12). The economic system is not a'self-balancing5 but a 'cumulatively unfolding' process. This is a view shared by bothKeynes and Veblen (and other institutionaUsts), and provides the basis of the institu-tionalist tradition widiin post-Keynesian economics. The inclusion of institutionalism inthis way is a distinguishing and novel feature of this current paper.

There are differences amongst these three traditions, but at the same time there arecertain characteristics which are common to them. The emphasis on the relevance ofeconomic analysis to real economic problems and the insistence that the objective is 'tomake the world a better place for ordinary men and women, to produce a more just andequitable society' (Harcourt in Arestis and Sawyer, 1992, p. 239) are the most profound.Thus issues of class, power and distribution of income and wealth are at the heart of theanalysis. The economy operates subject to a historical process in an uncertain world,where expectations inevitably have significant effects on economic outcomes. Social,conventional, political and other institutions shape economic events, and their evolutionis studied carefully.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows: we begin with methodology and proceedto put together the main theoretical ingredients of post-Keynesian economics. A briefdiscussion of economic policy issues follows before the final section which summarisesthe argument and concludes.

Methodology in Post-Keynesian economics

Economics in the post-Keynesian mode of thought is no longer the study of how scarceresources arc allocated to infinite needs. It is, instead, the study of how actual economicsystems are able to expand their output over time by creating, producing, distributingand using the resulting social surplus. The expansion path is uneven and likely to changethe very nature of economic systems in unprecedented ways, so that economic processes

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



are viewed as erratic, characterised by 'circular and cumulative causation' (Myrdal,1957). Cumulative causation is a notion that operates at different levels. At the firm levelit is seen as the result of opportunities for reinvestment of profits and of dynamicincreasing returns (Kaldor, 1970). At the more aggregate level of regions, countries, andgroups of countries, the interplay of market forces is thought to increase rather thandecrease inequalities (Myrdal, 1957). There is also the more 'philosophical' point thatseveral dynamic processes always coexist in 'history5 and change occurs when theyreinforce each other in a Myrdal-type cumulative causation manner. Post-Keynesiananalysis is, therefore, concerned with an 'Economics without Equilibrium' (Kaldor,1985) and, viewed as an integral part of the social sciences, concerned with peopleorganised in groups to satisfy their needs. The behaviour of these groups in historicaltime, where the past is immutable and the future is uncertain and unknowable, is thefocus of the analysis.

The emergence of post-Keynesian economics in the way just described has beenhelped by the development of the system or cybernetic framework which views economicprocesses as non-ergodic, that is as 'path dependent' (Eichner, 1991). In this scheme, theeconomy is modelled as a group of dynamic subsystems. Each one of them interacts withall the other subsystems, influencing them and being influenced by them. The economicsystem is part of several social systems, each with its own particular dynamics. As such,post-Keynesian economics adopts an open systems approach. This aspect is highlightedin Dow (1985, 1990), where an attempt is made to theorise about a complex reality inan essentially open and structured system, and which suggests that the study of economicphenomena may require a variety of assumptions and modes of analysis and thus anumber of equally valid approaches to understanding the same phenomenon. This'Babylonian' (Dow, 1990) or 'horses for courses' (Hamouda and Harcourt, 1988)approach demonstrates that knowledge is endemically incomplete so that a large categoryof things exists which are 'believed to be known, subjea to uncertainty of various degreeswhich are generally non-quantifiable' (Dow, 1990, p. 148).

Critical realism and relevancePost-Keynesian methodology is critical realist, dealing with an open and structured system:'It is structured in the sense that underlying manifest phenomena at any one level aredeeper structures, powers, mechanisms and necessary relations and so on which governthem. It is open in the sense that manifest phenomena are typically governed by variouscountervailing mechanisms simultaneously, so that the deeper structures can rarely bedirectly "read off'' (Lawson, 1994, p. 30). The criterion for describing systems as openis the occurrence or not of constant conjunctions of actual events (Lawson, 1990). Themainstream position in economics is that constant conjunction of events is a normaloccurrence, in which case the underlying system is a closed one. Critical realism, bycontrast, argues that in an inherently dynamic and open social world, constantconjunction of events or empirical regularities are insignificant (in the natural world theyare usually the result of active human intervention essentially via experimental controlwhich closes the system). A further difference relates to policy analysis. Whilst themainstream position in economics is to fix certain events in order to control other events,critical realism emphasises the transformation of structures in order to broadenopportunities and realise human potential.

The method of inference in critical realism is neither induction or deduction, butretroduction or abduction. This method relies on moving from a set of 'stylised facts' which

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


116 P . Arestis

indicates the existence of a phenomenon that necessitates 'deeper' explanation, to atheory to analyse the underlying relations, structures, conditions and mechanisms whichare responsible for the given phenomenon. It is a movement from a 'surface phenom-enon' to some 'deeper' causal factor. The task of social science is the elaboration of thedeep structures and relations which underpin social phenomena.

Critical realism utilises, as its criterion of theory adequacy, the depth of explanatorypower of a range of empirical phenomena rather than predictive accuracy (Lawson,1989). We cannot predict because of uncertainty and the non-ergodic character of thereal world. Economic time series approximate random walks with drift (and they are noteven always quantifiable in a precise way). This does not mean that prediction iscompletely disregarded. It simply means it is prediction of the type 'whenever event Xthen event Y' (which implies constant conjunctions of events) that is rarely feasible.Predictions of trends in economic magnitudes are possible within critical realism, and aremade all the rime (one may refer to the successful predictions of UK economy trends bythe Cambridge Economic Policy Group within the context of a structural model whichaccounts for qualitative and institutional features of the economy).

The form econometrics should take is, like theory, diverse and context-specific (Lawson,1983). The realist view implies that 'econometric science' is possible but it mustbe explanatory rather than predictive, because the scope for prediction is limited(Lawson, 1989). The notion that the world is characterised by 'empirical regularities' isquestioned:

Economics is a science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models whichare relevant to the contemporary world. It is compelled to be this, because, unlike the typicalnatural science, the material to which it is applied is, in too many respects, not homogeneousthrough time. The object of a model is to segregate the semi-permanent or relatively constantfactors from those which are transitory or fluctuating so as to develop a logical way of thinkingabout the latter, and of understanding die time consequences to which they give rise in particularcases. (Keynes, 1973, pp. 296-297)

Theories should be relevant in that they should represent reality as accurately as possibleand should strive to explain the real world as observed empirically. Orthodox economictheory does not adhere to this basic premise, in that it is fonnalistic and makesinappropriate a priori assumptions. Post-Keynesian theory, by contrast, begins withobservation and proceeds to build upon 'realistic abstractions' rather than 'imaginarymodels' (Rogers, 1989, pp. 189-192). This premise has been influenced to a large extentby Kaldor's views on method (see, for example, 1985). Kaldor begins from 'stylised facts'and proceeds to theoretical explanations which account for the 'facts', 'independently ofwhether they fit into die general framework of received theory or not' (Kaldor, 1985,p. 8). They are 'stylised facts', 'because in the social sciences, unlike the natural sciences,it is impossible to establish facts that are precise and at the same time suggestive andintriguing in their implications, and that admit to no exception' (ibid., pp. 8-9).

Uncertainty and historyIndividuals arc not omniscient and are able to acquire information, but their capacity todo so is limited. The complexity of information, and the limited computational abilityof the mind, considerably restrict individuals' ability to deal with a vast number ofpossibilities (possibly conflicting) and their outcomes which are subject to uncertainty.Agents cannot optimise, since information is always inadequate. Consequently, under

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



such 'bounded rationality*, outcomes tend to be judged on the basis of being satisfactoryor unsatisfactory rather than measurable on a cardinal or ordinal scale. This is especiallytrue when individuals try to form conjectures about the future, which is uncertain. Thus,'bounded rationality3 and uncertainty are two closely related ingredients of post-Keynesian economic analysis, although 'bounded rationality' may not go far enough forpost-Keynesian economics (Davidson, 1988A). Be that as it may, the thrust of theargument is that optimisation is not the organising principle for post-Keynesianeconomics.

The essence of uncertainty in post-Keynesian economic theory is grounded in anon-ergodic, non-deterministic world understood as an open system. The future isunknown and unknowable so that economic agents' expectations can be easily frustrated.Market forces cannot deal with the unknowability and unpredictability of the future,and therefore can only disseminate incomplete, and even misleading, information.'Knowledge' of the future can be formed only indirectly from past events. Such'knowledge' of the future can be ascertained with probability. But the conditions underwhich such a probability can be quantified are rarely met in everyday life, so that ingeneral terms probabilities of this type cannot be arrived at (Keynes, 1973). In theabsence of knowledge about the future, individuals rely on their imagination andexpectations. But they 'do not rest upon anything solid, determinable, demonstrable'(Shackle, 1973, p. 516). Thus, in the presence of uncertainty as distinct from risk(quantifiable uncertainty), past and current events do not provide a statistical guide toknowledge about future outcomes (Hicks, 1982), so that individuals act with regard tothe extent of'potential surprise' (Shackle, 1988). Consequently, as the future unfoldsand becomes the present, continued adjustments are required to be made. This processproceeds indefinitely without equilibrium ever being achieved, let alone maintained;thus, history matters (Robinson, 1974). Economics is, therefore, more like history thanlike physics (Hicks, 1977).

Keynes, in addition to paying attention to the relationship between agents'expectations of uncertain events, emphasised individuals' expectations of each other'sbeliefs in the context of their mutual preoccupation with uncertainty (Davis, 1993; see,also, Harcourt, 1987; Carabelli, 1988; and O'Donnell, 1989). And to quote Keynes(1973): 'Knowing that our individual judgement is worthless, we endeavour to fall backon the judgement of the rest of the world which is perhaps better informed. That is, weendeavour to conform with the behaviour of the majority or the average' (p. 114).Uncertainty is not just the unknowability of the future but also the interrelationshipbetween belief expectations which have average expectation as their benchmark. Thisanalysis entails a dual character in terms of individuality and social relationships. That isto say, proper understanding of individuality presupposes understanding of sociality andproper understanding of social relationships means understanding of individuality.Individuals revise and change their beliefs when interacting with one another, whichproduces an identifiable system of interdependent belief expectation. The way in whichindividual expectations are made consistent with social relationships is through theinstitution of convention. This interpretation of Keynes's philosophy in The GeneralTheory demonstrates that uncertainty is better couched as a social relation. Whenuncertainty is portrayed in these terms, it may be considered as a different viewof 'bounded rationality'. In which case, the argument made earlier that 'boundedrationality' may not be well integrated with post-Keynesian economics loses some of its'weight'.

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


118 P. Arestis

This leads, conveniently, to the 'weight' of the argument aspect of Keynes'sphilosophy. Keynes (1936) suggests that '[i]t would be foolish, in forming ourexpectations, to attach great weight to matters which are very uncertain' (p. 148), whereby 'very uncertain' he does not mean 'very improbable' (see his footnote 1 on p. 148,where the reader is referred to A Treatise on Probability and to the chapter on 'The Weightof Argument'). He goes on to argue that 'It is reasonable, therefore, to be guided to aconsiderable degree by the facts about which we feel somewhat confident, even thoughthey may be less decisively relevant to the issue than other facts about which ourknowledge is vague and scanty' (ibid., p. 148). Weight, therefore, is regarded as theamount of relevant evidence embodied in the argument in hand, and, also, as 'the degreeof completeness of the information, or equivalently, as the balance of the relevantknowledge and the relevant ignorance on which a probability estimate is based' (Runde,1990, p. 276). When the weight of the argument is defined in this way there is aninteresting direct relationship between it and confidence, that is high weight is associatedwith high confidence and low weight with low confidence. Examples of this link can befound in Keynes's discussion of investment and liquidity, so that the importance of theweight of argument is its link to investor confidence, lack of which produces 'theprecarious nature of long-run expectations' (Runde, 1990, p. 290).

The methodological aspects explored in this section imply a number of theoreticalpropositions that we now explore.

Main theoretical constructs

Post-Keynesian economics is concerned with non-equilibrium, non-market clearinganalysis and change over time. Growth and dynamics are its central parts, so that theexplanation of the erratic nature of the expansion path of a capitalist economy becomesthe main focus of analysis. Unemployment is of special interest to post-Keynesianeconomic analysis as is the related issue of economic crises. The driving force of theeconomic system is seen to be effective demand, especially investment, so that capitalaccumulation along with expectations and distributional effects are at the heart of bothgrowth and business cycle theories. Investment is closely related to distribution andpricing which are linked to conflict (Marglin, 1984A). Money and finance are necessarilyintegrated with the 'real' economy from the start of the analysis. Particular attention ispaid to the institutional framework which is viewed as being of paramount importance,and to which we now turn.

InstitutionsGovernment is the institution which is vested with the power to pursue contracyclicalpolicies in an attempt to reduce the cyclical behaviour of capitalist economies. There isalso the international economy with its own institutions which interact with nationalinstitutions. There are two institutions distinctly important to our analysis: the largecorporation and the trade union.

The large corporation is the dominant institution in the production sphere of theeconomy. There is also die non-oligopolistic firm which, nonemeless, does not behave asa 'perfectly competitive' firm but is more akin to what Kalecki (1971) describes as 'pureimperfect competition'. The large corporation, and more importantly the recognition ofits market power and the 'stylised fact1 that firms are price-setters and quantity-takers, arehighlighted in post-Keynesian economic analysis. Pricing is linked to investment, with

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



prices set to provide enough retained earnings which, along with external financing, willenable large corporations to implement their planned investment. The extent to whichplanned investment takes place once sufficient funds are forthcoming, depends onlong-term expectations regarding product markets, and on short-term expectations thatrelate to the prices of financial assets. Institutional structure and industrial organisationare continuously evolving, influencing the historical development of economies in theprocess, and play a vital role in terms of the determination of the level and compositionof output, the generation of surplus and its distribution.

The prerogative to administer prices is obtained from the socio-political as much asfrom the economic power of the large corporations in product markets. In doing so, firmsare limited in their capacity to set prices at any level by a number of factors. Four factorssuggest themselves: (i) the substitution effect, that is the loss of market share tocompeting goods; (ii) the entry factor, the potential loss of the market share due to newentry following price changes; (iii) government intervention in the form of price controls,special taxes, nationalisation etc.; and (iv) the presence of powerful trade unions actingas a constraint on raising prices, the rationale being that as the markup is raised beyonda certain level it could very well trigger militant action by trade unions. Unions may feelthat since the firm is achieving high profit rates they, too, deserve a higher share.

The other important institution is the trade union which bargains with employers overconditions of employment in general, and wages in particular. There is a conflict ofinterest here: the distribution between wages and profits is determined to a large extentby the wage demands of labour and the profit objectives of firms. Workers bargain overmoney wages, determined by a real wage target, information on immediate past inflationand expectations as to future inflation. Workers are handicapped in this process becausethe achieved real wage can only be known after the event as a function of capitalist pricingdecisions. The key point in this analysis is that money wages are the result of bargainingprocesses in labour markets, while real wages are determined by labour productivity andfirm markup pricing relationships in product markets. An interesting implication of thisanalysis is that because a demand-for and supply-of labour framework for determiningreal wages is rejected, a lower real wage need not cause higher employment. If anything,a lower real wage, through its impact on aggregate demand, is expected to decreaseemployment.

Monetary institutions as they operate and evolve reflect fundamental characteristics ofmoney, and constitute an essential part of post-Keynesian monetary and financial theory.

Money and financeThe most important characteristic of post-Keynesian monetary and financial theory isthat money is a link between the past and the present and also between the present andthe future (Keynes, 1936, p. 294). The past is given and cannot change, whilst the futureis uncertain. Uncertainty, which is inherent in historical time, is seen as the necessary andsufficient condition for the existence of money, so that money is fully integrated into theanalysis. Institutions are as important, since in modern economies money is tightly linkedto the institution of banking (Minsky, 1986). Consequently, money can only be studiedin an historical and institutional context. A crucial institutional aspect of money is thatit is an endogenous and demand-determined magnitude. Money is not exogenous asin orthodox analysis, but the result of credit flows in a dynamic monetised produc-tion economy (Eichner and Kregel, 1975; Parguez, 1984; Moore, 1988; Graziani,1989), where the leading role is essentially played by entrepreneurs and their 'animal

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


Leonela G

Realce

120 P. Arestis

spirits.' Entrepreneurs must predict the pattern of effective demand and infer from thisthe cash outlays required to pay for the factors of production to be employed. Theymust also estimate the outlays required to finance investment. Once this is done, theirloan requirements from the banks can be ascertained and their demand for creditformulated.

The Central Bank administers the level of the discount rate and commercial banksadminister their lending and deposit rates (given banks' uncertain assessment of risk andvalue of collateral). At this level and structure of interest rates, banks stand ready toprovide whatever loans the entrepreneurs' requirements for credit entail, so long as theyare within their prearranged credit limits. An increase in the demand for credit leads toan increase in its supply, and thus to an increase in the existing money stock, withoutnecessitating a change in interest rates, unless the Central Bank varies its administeredrate, changes of which influence directly changes in administered interest rates via amarkup process. It is the rate of interest that is the control instrument of monetarypolicy.

In open economies interest rate changes can also be the result of events emanatingfrom abroad (witness, for example, the position of the UK in the European Union in thisregard). The level of short-term rates as administered by the domestic monetaryauthorities relative to that set by foreign monetary authorities affects the exchange rate.This link brings to the fore the foreign sector aspects of the economic system. Theseaspects are incorporated into the analysis through the current and capital accounts of thebalance of payments, where the exchange rate influences and is influenced by the stateof both accounts.1 The importance of the balance of payments as a constraint to growthhas been discussed extensively (see, for example, Thirlwall, 1980). The argument is thatcountries with high income elasticity of demand for imports, and low income elasticityof demand for exports, experience balance of payment difficulties which restrictgovernments in their attempt to expand aggregate demand.

There is the argument, however, that the supply of money may only be demand-determined up to a point (Dow and Dow, 1989; Wray, 1990). This view combinesliquidity preference theory and endogenous money supply theory to argue that, sincecommercial banks have a varied and complex set of portfolio choices to make, they havetheir own liquidity preference. They may, thus, not be willing to lend an infinite amounton given terms. Changes in banks' liquidity preference influence the amount of creditavailable and thus the money stock. Since banks' risk assessment is based on incompleteknowledge, their liquidity preference changes as their perceptions of risk alter (whenexpectations are not fulfilled and when confidence changes owing to new information).Also, periodic bank runs on liquidity which generate debt deflation imply that moneycould not be created unless liquidity premia are raised to induce expansion of balancesheets. Given the administered interest rate, commercial banks ration credit if theirliquidity preference dictates it.

In this process there is an inherent tendency for investors to increase the level of theirindebtedness, and in moments of optimism they do so rapidly. If lending institutionsshare this optimism and if their liquidity preference does not change, demand from theprivate sector would be accommodated. The ensuing vulnerability of both firms and

1 A novel feature of the imports element of the current account is the proposition that the marginalpropensities to import out of workers' income and out of the income of capitalists differ. Arestis and Driver(1987) explore this proposition along with empirical backing in the case of the UK. This is an extension ofthe idea of distinguishing income classes in consumption.

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


Post-Keyneslan economics: towards coherence 121

banks is heightened as a result, so that financial fragility increases, which can causedebt-deflation if it is accompanied by changes in expectations and consequent attemptsto re-establish liquidity positions. This is Minsky's (1982, 1986) 'financial instabilityhypothesis', which emphasises the interaction between financial and real variables anddemonstrates that crises are essentially caused by risky financial practices during periodsof financial fragility.

The 'financial instability hypothesis' may be related to the 'stages of banking' approach(Chick, 1986, 1989), viewed as a 'logical' reconstruction of the developments of bankingsystems. The capacity of banks to create credit depends crucially on their stage ofevolution. This capacity is enhanced with the degree of banking development whichenables banks to become more independent of reserve requirements, thereby making thesupply of credit, and of money, more responsive to demand. As the banking systemdevelops, the nature and degree of credit and money endogeneity change. Chick(1989) has suggested that a new stage has surfaced recently, with its main character-istic being securitisation, whereby commercial banks design loans that are marketable,so that the maturity mismatch between commercial bank assets and liabilities dimin-ishes. This process of securitisation enables commercial banks to avoid 'capitaladequacy' ratios, thus enhancing the endogeneity of money. As securitisation, takescredit off bank balance sheets altogether, however, it only increases the endogeneity ofmoney if money is defined as being broader than bank deposits. The globalisation offinancial markets has similar implications with regard to the endogeneity of money.These financial developments strengthen the link with Minsky's 'financial instabilityhypothesis' in that the ability of financial institutions to create more debt enhances thedegree of fragility of the system and thus the vulnerability of both banks and firms.Most important, though, the 'stages of banking' approach puts the two views ofmoney, the 'exogenous money" view and the 'endogenous credit5 view, in their properhistorical perspective.

Production, prices and pricingMoney and production are organically linked in post-Keynesian economics. Pricing, theprocess of price formation, and the determination of steady-state prices which gives riseto a theory of prices, are not the result of a market-clearing process, as in orthodoxeconomic analysis, but are determined by factors and conditions that prevail in theproduction sphere. They are also directly linked to investment and distribution. Theselinks are amplified and elucidated next.

The post-Keynesian production model is an input-output model that is characterisedby the assumption that inputs can be used only in fixed proportions with each other inproduction.1 Leontief (1951) formulated it in both theoretical and empirical terms, andit can be related to Sraffa's (1960) fixed-coefficient model and Pasinetti's (1981)input-output model, both of which highlight issues of distribution and growth. TheLeontief model consists of n industries (with n being greater than two), each producingintermediate and/or final output. This model can be solved for the vector of output (q)to give: q = ( I - A) ~ * x, where I is an n x n unit matrix, A is the matrix of the fixedtechnical coefficients, so that (I — A) ~ ' is the Leontief inverse and x is the vector of finaloutput. This equation determines the output of each of the industries that comprise the

1 The post-Keynesian production model belongs to the more general category o f fixed-coefficient' modelsof production which have their roots in the tableau economique of Francois Quesnay. Under thesecircumstances, the convexity property of the neoclassical production set and thus rising marginal costs, areassumptions which are not necessary for the purposes of post-Keynesian economic analysis.

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


122 P. Arestis

production system. The Leontief model can also be solved for the vector of prices (p):p = ( I - A) ~ ' V, where V is the matrix of input values, defined as V=tul+«, where w isa scalar (the wage rate), 1 and n are vectors of labour inputs and residual income earnedby each industry, both per unit of output produced. The P-equation provides thesolution for the set of relative prices that must be charged if the production system is tocover all the costs of production. It specifies a value condition that must hold in the longrun; it does not represent the set of prices that will actually prevail. To establish the latterit is necessary to supplement the long-period determination of prices with a short-periodmodel of pricing behaviour, as explained below.'

The Leontief model has been extended in a number of ways. There is Sraffa's (1960)reformulation which produces the important proposition that distribution of incomecannot be treated independently of prices.2 To move from the Leontief model to theSraffian model we first note that in the latter the residual income vector (n) is assumedunder a uniform rate of profit (WQ).across industries, which clearly identifies its roots inthe classical tradition. So that now in the expression: V=OJ1+W, we should have:V=tul+«opA. Substituting for V in the P-equation we arrive at: p=(I+»ro)pA+u>l,which is the standard Sraffian P-equation. It contains a very important feature in thatwages and profits are now competing claims on the economic surplus, although it isambiguous about the scale of production and the level of effective demand, given mat theexpression is scale-free. The wage rate and the profit rate depend heavily on the strugglebetween workers and capitalists. Robinson (1980) summed it all up as follows: 'Sraffa setup a multi-commodity input-output system and showed that, corresponding to any shareof wages, there is a particular pattern of normal prices that yields a particular uniformrate of profit on capital valued at those prices' (p. 81).

The generation of the surplus by each industry and its division between workers andcapitalists are explained within the model. The latter depends on noneconomic factorswhich determine the relative bargaining power of the two groups. Changes in thedistribution between u> and n0 lead to changes in the value added by each industry (V),and through it to changes in relative prices because p depends on V. Consequently,prices in the Sraffian model are closely related to the distribution of income via the profitrate relative to the wage rate. One important assumption in the analysis is that the rateof profit refers to the working capital requirements of each industry in advance ofproduction, and, thus, at the expense of wages. In the second part of his book, Sraffa(1960) accounts for fixed capital as well. He suggests that fixed capital should be viewedas an input that gives rise to one output which is the good or service produced by the

1 It is important to Hi»ringimh at this juncture between the terms 'run/term' and 'period', which areneither synonymous nor is there a direct correspondence between them. 'Period' refers to states of'equilibrium' while 'run' is about 'processes of motion'. Short-period and long-period 'equilibrium' can bedefined independently of short run and long run. Short run and long run refer to movements towards'equilibrium' which must take place in historical time. Robinson (1956) puts the difference in the followingway: 'Long-period changes are going on in short-period situations. Changes in output, employment andprices, taking place with a given stock of capital, are short-period changes; while changes in the stock ofcapital, the labour force and the techniques of production are long-term changes . . . A given short-periodsituation contains within itself a tendency to long-period change' (p. 180). In this view, long-period analysisis concerned with the examination of a sequence of short periods. Carvalho (1984/85, 1990) gives a numberof examples to clarify this difference, and in Carvalho (1990, p. 280, fii.l) Harcourr's insistence on theimportance of the distinction between 'run' and 'period' is acknowledged.

2 The Sraffian model is concerned with an economic system which is merely reproducing itself over time,and does not account for changes in the technique and expansion of the economic surplus. These twoaspects are dealt with by Von Neumann (1945-46). See Schefold for similarities and differences between thetwo models, and Eichner (1991) for a synthesis of the Sraffa and Von Neumann models.

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



fixed capital. It also provides another output, this being the fixed capital itself whichbecomes a capital input of a different type once it has produced one type of good orservice.

Another extension of Leontiefs model is Pasinetti's (1981) construction of a verticallyintegrated version with labour as the only input. Technical progress is included in themodel, thus making it possible to examine its impact on productivity, defined as outputper worker over time. Leontief et al. (1978) extended the model still further to accountfor natural resources, in addition to labour, as the inputs to production on a global scale.They are thus able to examine the terms of trade between primary producers andindustrial countries.

These models produce a price vector, or set of relative prices, which can be interpretedas a set of cost-of-production prices. This price solution requires that the wage rate andthe labour coefficients for each industry be specified, and depends on the residual incomeor the markup set in each industry. These are the prices which must prevail in the longperiod if the costs of production are to be covered. This configuration of prices whichsatisfies some economy-level, steady-state conditions, generates a theory of priceswithout being concerned with the process of price formation.

Concern with the process of price formation, or how prices are determined at the levelof firm or industry, gives rise to consideration of the mechanism for the setting of prices.One pricing theory is that the markup is determined by the financial needs of firmsrelative to the monopoly power they can exercise (Eichner, 1973, 1976; Wood, 1975;Harcourt and Kenyon, 1976).* This and other post-Keynesian pricing theories (Steindl,1952, 1979; Asimakopulos, 1975; Cowling and Waterson, 1976), are based on Kalecki(1954) in that they recognise that all markets are not perfectly competitive and that thereis a distinction between sectors where price changes are 'cost-determined' and wherethey are 'demand-determined'. Furthermore, they all postulate that prices of finishedgoods are determined by a markup on some measure of unit costs. The markup isdetermined by the need to finance investment (Eichner, 1976),2 so that pricing may belinked to the theory of investment and class conflict.

Investment, distribution and class struggleInvestment in the post-Keynesian tradition is determined by, inter alia, expectedprofitability. But it is recognised that whilst it is expected profitability that induces capitalaccumulation, realised investment creates the profitability which makes investmentpossible, partly through internally generated funds (Robinson, 1962). Expected profit-ability is essentially influenced by two sets of factors. The expected rate of return oninvestment, or in other words the marginal efficiency of investment (MEI), which givesrise to an investment relationship that is sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates and tothe expected growth of sales.

These propositions are based on both Keynes's (1936) and Kalecki's (1971) theoriesof investment. It can be argued that Kalecki's theory is an improvement over Keynes'sMEI theory in that Kalecki identifies the factors which cause the MEI relationship toshift. Kalecki's basic premise is that investment depends on the level of profits relative to

1 Whilst both Eichner's and Wood's contributions are 'Golden Age', logical time, type of models, theanalysis of Harcourt and Kenyon (1976) is conducted in historical time. In this sense, the Harcourt andKenyon (1976) model is much more within the spirit of post-Keynesian analysis in general, and pricing inparticular.

1 There are important differences amongst post-Keynesians on pricing (see Sawyer, 1990, for an extensivediscussion of these differences).

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


124 P. Aresds

capital as well as on the rate of interest. This is not a very different proposition fromKeynes's, once we recognise that the rate of return in Kalecki is calculated at theaggregate level rather than at Keynes's firm level, and that the size of capital stock isrelevant to investment decisions in a way that it is not in Keynes's model (see, however,Davidson, 1978). There is, nonetheless, an important difference in method betweenKalecki's and Keynes's treatment of investment. Keynes assumes as given the state ofexpectations of returns in determining the level of investment (although when Keynesmoves to the chapter on cycles this assumption is no longer maintained; see Kregel,1976). By contrast, in Kalecki's investment analysis the state of expectations is affectedby changes in investment. When the state of expectations is affected in this way, it causeschanges in the price of investment goods and interest rates, so diat a new level ofinvestment ensues (see Targetti and Kinda-Hass, 1982; also, Robinson, 1962; andAsimakopulos, 1977).

There are now two different ways in which the level of profits affects investment. First,profits are seen as a source of funds that would enable investment to be undertaken.Obviously, then, retained profits along with funds set aside for depreciation purposesassume a very significant role in the investment decision process. The larger the retainedprofits and depreciation allowances, the greater the ability of firms to proceed with thecapital expenditure programmes. External sources of funds are also viewed as beingimportant, but because of the principle of increasing risk (Kalecki, 1954) the level ofinvestment is still, to an extent, constrained by available internal funds. Both Kalecki andKeynes put a lot of emphasis on the importance of finance in permitting the rate ofinvestment to take place.'

The second way in which profits affect investment is in terms of whether firms'expectations about the future are likely to materialise: rising profits signal healthy futureeconomic conditions, which are likely to make firms adopt a more optimistic stance andthus proceed with their investment plans. Falling profits indicate deteriorating economicconditions to firms, so that they become pessimistic and are more reluctant to go aheadwith planned investment. Therefore, changes in the level of profits are the main cause ofshifts in the MEL

The calculation of the MEI depends crucially on the values assigned to the stream ofexpected net returns of investment. These values, however, are highly uncertain. Keynes(1936) argues that little can be said a priori about the state of confidence. Convention ishighlighted in The General Theory, where it is viewed as relying on the assumption that the'existing state of affairs' does not change (see, also, Kregel, 1976, 1987). Investment,then, is the result of the 'animal spirits' of entrepreneurs, what Keynes labelled as profitexpectations of the business community (Keynes, 1936, pp. 161-162), a purely subjec-tive concept which is not susceptible to probabilistic manipulation. The pervasive natureof expectations under uncertainty which influences entrepreneurs' 'animal spirits' is ofvital importance in the capital accumulation process, so much so that the volatility ofexpectations under uncertainty is thought to lead potentially to structural breaks andcrises. Uncertainty leads to volatility in the sense that the stability, which emerges from

1 Asimakopulos (1983) argues that the theoretical positions taken by both Kalecki and Keynes onfinanring investment entail certain weaknesses in that: They both underestimated the time required beforethe initial liquidity position of the banking system could be restored after banks increased their loans tofinance an increase in investment . . . There was also insufficient attention given to the requirement forlong-term finance (or at least confidence about its availability) in order for firms to proceed with theirinvestment plant' (p. 232). The response to this charge has been substantially supportive of Keynes andKalecki: see, for example, Kregel (1984-1986), Davidson (1986, 1992), and Shapiro (1992), amongst others.

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



the creation of appropriate institutions and conventions to help deal with uncertainty, issubject to periodic, unpredictable and discrete shifts. These institutions and conventions,however, generate much more stability than would be offered by the continuous andsimultaneous market-clearing mechanism. An important implication of this analysis isthat Keynes's unemployment 'equilibrium' is not based on imperfections in the operationof the price mechanism, but on 'the imperfection of agents' knowledge causinguncertainty over the propositions determining the return of investment projects' (Kregel,1987, p. 531).

An interesting development of the views just summarised, but relying more onKalecki's investment theory, is Steindl's (1952, 1979) 'maturity thesis'. Steindl'sargument is that increases in concentration lead to higher markups and, with profitsdetermined by past investment decisions, a slow down in capacity utilisation ensueswhich increases excess capacity. This process affects investment decisions adversely sincefirms are fearful of increasing excess capacity, with the economy having the tendency tostagnate. The growth of concentration, therefore, reduces the incentive to invest andexacerbates stagnation tendencies. Hence, the degree of concentration has far reachingimplications for macroeconomic performance. One further implication is that Steindlprovides in this way an analysis which endogenises concentration.

Investment in its turn is the most important variable in distribution theory. Post-Keynesian economics demonstrates that markets distribute income according to relativepower (Nell, 1980). The output produced by one class of society (the wage earners) isplanned, directed and managed by another class of society that does not participatedirectly in production (the recipients of residual income profit). In this power relation-ship, capital's objectives are in conflict with labour's objectives so that 'conflict' is at theheart of the analysis. Marginal propensities to consume out of wages and profits differ,hence on a steady-state growth path the shares of profits and wages are related to themarginal propensities to consume and to the ratio of investment to income. Pasinetti(1974, p. 113) has shown that control over the rate of investment implies control overdistribution and the rate of profit.

The 'conflict' element of post-Keynesian economics is highlighted in the wagedetermination dieory where bargaining in the labour market is the kernel of this analysis.Workers have aspirations as well as economic and political power which are described interms of a 'target real wage'. Deviations of actual real wages from die desired level affectthe level of money wage demands, thereby causing an upward pressure on money wagesif the desired level is greater than die actual. Similarly, there would be a downwardpressure on money wages when the real wage exceeds the target real wage. Expectationsof price inflation over die contract period, the rate of change of unemployment seen asa proxy for the speed of expansion or contraction of 'the reserve army of unemployed',and the position of workers in the income distribution relative to certain reference groupsare further variables that are thought to be important determinants of nominal wages(Arestis, 1992; Arestis and Skott, 1993; Marglin, 1984B; Rowthom, 1977; Harcourt,1965). Wages, therefore, emerge as the result of a 'conflict' between employers andemployees. Wage determination is crucially influenced not just by economics but also bya host of odier factors, including political, historical, sociological and psychologicalforces, in which case it is conceivable diat higher real wages are accompanied byadditional demand for labour, not less (as in orthodox analysis). The markup hypothesisis invoked, so that real wages are determined in both labour and product markets(Kalecki, 1969; Robinson, 1977).

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


126 P. Arestis

The rate of wage inflation relative to productivity along with that of prices of importsand raw materials are taken to be the most vital determinants of price inflation. There is,thus, a mutually reinforcing process of price changes and wage changes built into theeconomic system. Hence, if workers succeed in pushing up money wages, these wagerises will be passed on in higher prices. Faced with firms operating in an oligopolistic andmonopolistic environment, labour will find it difficult to raise its wage share at theexpense of profits. The result of the struggle will therefore be an inexorable tendency ofthe price level to rise. This is not to say that wage pressure is the cause of inflation per se.Wage and price increases are inextricably linked and are merely symptoms of anunderlying structural problem, so that the theory of inflation alluded to by post-Keynesians belongs squarely to the 'conflict theory' framework.

Investment and distribution are fundamental determinants of growth and cycles inpost-Keynesian economics, and it is to these aspects that we turn our attention next.

Growth and cyclical dynamicsGrowth dynamics emanates from the concern of post-Keynesian economics with aneconomy that is growing over time in the context of history. The formula for the rate ofgrowth of national income, G=s/v, where G is the rate of growth, s is the averagepropensity to save and v the capital to output ratio, is the starting point. This expression,which extends Keynes's economic analysis in The General Theory to the case of a 'growingeconomy', is modified to take account of the contention that the average propensity tosave is affected by income distribution whereby the marginal propensities to save out ofprofits and wages differ. The proposition then follows that steady-state growth at fullemployment is crucially linked to distribution and capital accumulation. The ratio ofprofits to income ensures that the average propensity to save (itself a function of themarginal propensity to save out of capitalist income and the share of profits) is such thatequality between the natural and warranted growth rates are brought into equality. It isthought that changes in the income distribution can produce and maintain fullemployment in the long run.

Robinson (1956, 1962) and Kalecki (1971) believed that long-run steady-statesituations had no independent existence except as imaginary states of affairs which couldonly be utilised as convenient theoretical benchmarks. In this view, it is not so muchdistribution that determines growth but investment and technical progress, especiallyinvestment which is the 'engine of growth'. Rowthorn (1981) has investment based onprofitability generating savings in the form of retained profits which finance investment;the process of profit-creation can only be understood by reference to pricing, so thatgrowth, distribution, capital accumulation and pricing are all linked in this model. Amore recent study within the spirit of this analysis which incorporates the case of openeconomies is Bhaduri and Marglin (1990) (see also Marglin, 1984A; and Marglin andBhaduri, 1991). This model demonstrates that under certain circumstances wage-ledgrowth rather than profit-led growth policies stand a better chance of moving theeconomy to full-employment, along with a fairer distribution of income.

The treatment of technical progress in post-Keynesian growth economics followsRobinson (1956) who argues that it is entirely endogenous. Technical change is seen asthe result of entrepreneurial initiative and drive to search for cheaper and more efficientmethods of production. But there is a two-way relationship here. On the one hand,technical change stimulates net investment. On the other hand, the implementation oftechnical change requires gross investment so that the new capital equipment would

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



facilitate the application of new technology. Consequently, faster technical change canonly come about if a higher rate of investment expenditure, and thus growth, isforthcoming. Kaldor (1960, 1966) also argues that technical progress is both the causeand the result of economic growth. This analysis is based on the notion of circularcausation so that a faster rate of growth leads to a higher rate of technical progress whichin turn influences the rate of growth.

The theory of'circular and cumulative causation' (Myrdal, 1939, 1957) is essentiallybased on the dynamic interplay between investment and productivity growth and islinked to the discussion of inequalities and regional disparities in economic developmentIn this view, industrial development is explained by endogenous factors in a dynamiccontext rather than by the exogenous 'resource endowment' (Kaldor, 1970, p. 343).Recent developments in growth theory (Romer, 1986; Baldwin, 1989) emphasise therole of economies of scale in the growth process. The basic assumption made is that ofincreasing returns which are largely caused by technological progress. There are certainimplications of this assumption in terms of steady state properties: when the outputelasticity of capital is unity, exogenous changes in the output/capital ratio will have animpact on the growth rate, and the savings ratio will influence the growth rate. Savings,therefore, assume an important role in the growth process, though there is still thequestion of whether economies of scale are important at the economy-wide level(Baldwin, 1989, p. 257).

Post-Keynesian business cycle theory starts from the fundamental assumption thatcycles are inherent in capitalist economies. Business cycles are thus depicted asendogenous phenomena caused by the normal functioning of the capitalist economicsystem (Kaldor, 1940; Kalecki, 1971, ch.ll; Goodwin, 1967), with exogenous shocks,oil price changes for example, viewed as accentuating an endogenously embeddedinstability. This instability arises from the motive of producers and financial investorsalike to accumulate wealth for its own sake. It is, merefore, not surprising to find thatinvestment, expectations and distribution are at the heart of post-Keynesian businesscycle theory.

Kaldor's (1940) model has been influential in post-Keynesian business cycle analysis.This model depends on the intersection of non-linear savings and investment relation-ships and on dieir shifts caused by changes in capital stock. These create both stable andunstable 'equilibria' which are responsible for the cyclical movements. The model suffersfrom its neglect of the labour market. As it is built around the product market only, thebargaining position and strength of labour are ignored. This is an aspect which ispredominant in Goodwin's (1967) theory of business cycles which relies on thedistributive shares of capital and labour to explain the economy's cyclical behaviour.Class struggle over distribution is confined exclusively to the labour market. There areno aggregate demand problems to worry about, since investment always adjustsautomatically to clear the product market. Both investment and output are passive andaccommodating variables. Control over production and investment decisions, which is apowerful weapon in the hands of capital in the class struggle, is entirely absent. Morerecently, however, Goodwin and Punzo (1987) have integrated effective demand into themodel and Skott (1989) extends Goodwin's model by incorporating Keynesian elements.The underlying cyclical mechanism of this model implies significant differences fromGoodwin's original.

By contrast, Kalecki's (1971) model of business cycles is based on the notion thatit is the cyclical behaviour of investment expenditures which is the major cause of

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


128 P. Arestis

macroeconomic fluctuations. The simplifying assumption of a closed economy ismaintained along with the standard Kaleckian assumption that the marginal propensityto save out of wages is zero. Kalecki's model relies heavily on the real sector to explaincycles, just as Goodwin's model emphasises the workings of the labour market. Bothignore monetary forces, and Minsky (1982, 1986) accounts for them in a business cyclesmodel, which is based on the interaction between financial and real factors (see, also,Hudson, 1957).

Economic policies

Post-Keynesian economics emphasises non-ergodic uncertainty, historical time, criticalrealism and relevance. Advanced capitalist economies are inherently cyclical andunstable. Left to themselves, they cannot achieve and maintain full-employment ofresources. These economies are also marred by inequalities in the distribution of marketpower and, therefore, income and wealth. Unfettered market forces, rather thanreducing, tend to exacerbate these instabilities and disparities. Forces of cumulativecausation are very much operative (Myrdal, 1939, 1957; Kaldor, 1970). Theseinstabilities are attributed to the behaviour of private investment as a result of volatileexpectations and unpredictable business moods. There is, thus, enormous potential andneed for governments to initiate, pursue and implement economic policies.

Government intervention to stimulate aggregate demand is required in principle tohelp the economy achieve and maintain full-employment. However, this may enhancethe power of trade unions and workers at full-employment and generate inflationarypressures. Reducing if not eliminating these pressures would require policies on incomes.Social consensus on incomes shares, and workers' participation, are a sine qua non forsuccessful 'planning of incomes' policies. Balance-of-payments problems can arise atfull-employment or even well before it is achieved (Thirlwall, 1980). Poor research anddevelopment leading to an absence of sufficient innovation and investment, lack of atrained and skilled labour force, insufficient and inadequate capacity or, indeed,unbalanced supply are further potential constraints. This implies that some form ofcontrol of investment be introduced to remove these constraints. This can take the formof socialisation of investment as in Keynes (1980):

If two-thirds or three-quarters of total investment is carried out or can be influenced by public orsemi-public bodies, a long-term programme of a stable character should be capable of reducing thepotential range of fluctuations to much narrower limits than formerly, when a smaller volume ofinvestment was under public control and when even this part tended to follow, rather than correct,fluctuations of investment in the strictly private sector, (p. 322)

Socialisation of investment is thus potentially able to fill the gap left by private investmentowing to the pervasive uncertainties investors are faced with concerning future economicperformance. In this way, socialisation of investment is seen as a means of reducinguncertainty through the creation of a more stable economic environment. Even so,though, control of investment by itself may not be effective if co-operation from the tradeunion movement is not forthcoming. Indeed, trade unions would only be willing toco-operate if they were to be involved in the decision-making process. It follows that thetype of socialisation of investment envisaged would give an active role not just togovernments but also to the workforce and trade unions (Harcourt, 1977, 1986, 1992;Arestis, 1992, ch. 10).

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



There are a number of constraints associated with these economic policy prescriptions.There is the operation of transnational corporations and international financial centreswhich can impose considerable constraints on the implementation of the type ofeconomic policies post-Keynesian economic analysis alludes to (the UK post-World WarII experience is an excellent example in this context). It is, then, very important forgovernments to establish control over the operations of transnational and financialcentres. Financial market deregulation and the IMF-style stabilisation policies haveproduced an environment where what matters is deflationary policies to keep the'confidence' of financial markets. Inevitably, high levels of unemployment and undesir-able distributional effects especially in the LDCs (Arestis and Demetriades, 1993), havematerialised without any signs of financial deregulation, or of IMF policies beingremotely successful in terms of producing sustainable high growth rates. Policy-makersshould attempt to affect directly the sphere of regulation of international capital as wellas trade flows. Such endeavour could also alleviate the balance-of-payments constraint(Christodoulakis and Godley, 1987). Keynes (1980) proposed permanent capitalcontrols, both inward and outward, to deal with situations when the internationalfinanciers become untamable. He also insisted that the entire financial system shouldcome under permanent control, and propounded the idea of planning to encapsulate theentire international system (see also, Hicks, 1985). In this sense, international economicpolicy coordination, especially among the major industrialised countries, becomes ofparamount importance.

Another potentially serious constraint on this type of economic policy is its heavyreliance on social co-operation and social consensus between labour, industry and thestate. Such a consensus may be difficult to achieve in view of recent labour marketderegulation. There are examples of countries where attempts at consensus have notalways been successful (for example the UK); equally, there are economies that havebeen more fortunate with such endeavours (Austria and the Scandinavian countries aregood examples in this context). The experience and institutional arrangements of thelatter countries are worth serious consideration for they provide some evidence thatconsensus is, potentially at least, feasible. Additional evidence suggests that increasedworker participation in decision-making is an important determinant of increases inproductivity. So that firms that adopt 'workers participation' as a conscious policy,experience better performance (in terms of sales, growth, profitability as well as overalleffectiveness) than similar firms that do not pursue these policies (Hodgson, 1984).

Finally, intemationalisation and globalisation of both financial and industrial capitalhave imposed on individual countries further constraints in the implementation ofeconomic policies. These kind of developments, however, indicate that economicpolicies should have a better chance of success when they are explicitly and firmly'internationalist' (Radice, 1989). A very good example in this regard is the proposedcloser collaboration and co-ordination of macroeconomic policies amongst the membercountries of the European Union.

Summary and conclusions

This paper has attempted to identify the main methodological and theoretical ingredientsof post-Keynesian economics. It has tried to show that this way of thinking about howthe economy works draws on a body of method and theory which represents a consistentway of analysing economic phenomena. Indeed, we should like to end this paper by

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


130 P. Arestis

suggesting that post-Keynesian economics has reached a stage in its development whichentitles it to lay claims to internal coherence (see, also, Arestis, 1992; Botris, 1986).

There are, however, areas that either remain underdeveloped or need to be developed.Consumer choice and human behaviour in general is perhaps the most glaring example.Recent contributions by Eichner (1991) and Lavoie (1994), which have identified anumber of principles upon which relevant work can be built, are a significant step inthe right direction. Further research is urgently needed on how aggregate supplyshould be modelled if profit maximisation is rejected (see, however, Eichner, 1976,1991). International economics and the economics of developing countries should bementioned in this context, although it must be said that in these areas some progress hasbeen made: Arestis and Milberg (1993/4) and Cowling and Sugden (1994) are goodexamples in the case of international economics, and Dutt (1990) in the case of theeconomics of developing countries. A related area where more research effort is neededis the international dimension of demand management arising from North/Southinteraction affecting primary commodity prices, following the start made by Kalecki(1971) and Kaldor (1976) and continued by Thirlwall (1980)—see, also, Beckermanand Jenkinson, 1986. Somewhat surprising is the fact that, although post-Keynesianmonetary economics has been researched quite substantially, finance theory remainsconsiderably underdeveloped. There are pointers, however, to directions which mightfruitfully be followed (see, for example, Davidson, 1988B; and Findlay and Williams,1985). Also surprising is the absence of developments within monetary economics on therole of monetary versus fiscal policy in deregulated international financial markets, anarea where research needs to be undertaken urgently.

These are a few examples which highlight the point that there are still many areaswhich pose major problems for post-Keynesian theory. But the considerable progressthat has been made in recent years amply justifies the claim that post-Keynesianeconomics has progressed beyond merely offering a critique of mainstream economicsand, as this contribution has endeavoured to demonstrate, has now reached the stage ofconstituting a positive approach characterised by internal coherence.

Bibliography

Arestis, P. 1989. On the post Keynesian challenge to neoclassical economics: a completequantitative macro model for the UK economy, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, vol. 11,no. 2, Summer

Arestis, P. 1990. Post-Keynesianism: a new approach to economics, Review of Social Economy, FallArestis, P. 1992. The Post-Keynesian Approach to Economics: An Alternative Analysis of Economic

Theory and Policy, Aldershot, Edward ElgarArestis, P. and Driver, C. 1980. Consumption out of different types of income in the UK, Bulletin

of Economic Research, NovemberArestis, P. and Sawyer, M. C. 1992. A Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists, Aldershot,

Edward ElgarArestis, P. and Demetriades, P. 1993. Financial liberalisation and economic development, in

Arestis, P (ed.), Money and Banking: Issues for the Twenty-First Century, Macmillan, LondonArestis, P. and Skott, P. 1993. Conflict, wage relativities and hysteresis in UK wage determination,

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, SpringArestis, P. and Milberg, W. 1993/4. Degree of monopoly, pricing and flexible exchange rates,

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, WinterAsimakopulos, A. 1975. A Kaleckian theory of income distribution, Canadian Journal of Economics,

AugustAsimakopulos, A. 1977. Profits and investment: a Kaleckian approach, in Harcourt, G. C. (ed.),

The Microeconomic Foundations of Macroeconomics, London, Macmillan

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



Asimakopulos, A. 1983. Kalecki and Keynes on finance, investment and saving, Cambridge Journalof Economics, September/December

Baldwin, R. 1989. The growth effects of 1992, Economic Policy, OctoberBeckerman, W. and Jenkinson, T. 1986. What stopped the inflation? Unemployment or commod-

ity prices? Econosmic Journal, DecemberBhaduri, A. and Marglin, S. A. 1990. Unemployment and the real wage: the economic basis for

contesting political ideologies, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 14Bortis, H. 1986. An Essay on Post-Keynesian Economics, Fribourg, Switzerland, mimeoCarabelli, A. M. 1988. On Keynes's Method, London, MacmillanCarvalho, F. 1984/85. Alternative analyses of short and long run in post Keynesian economics,

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, WinterCarvalho, F. 1990. Keynes and the long period, Cambridge Economic Journal, vol. 14Carvalho, F. 1993. Mr Keynes and the Post Keynesians, Aldershot, Edward ElgarChick, V. 1983. Macroeconomics After Keynes: A Reconsideration of The General Theory, Cambridge

MA, MIT PressChick, V. 1986. The evolution of the banking system and the theory of saving, investment and

interest, Economies et Societes, Cahiers de 1'ISMEA, Serie Monnaie et Production, no. 3Chick, V. 1989. The Evolution of the banking system and the theory of monetary policy, University

College London Discussion Papers in Economics, No. 89/03. Forthcoming in S. F. Frowen (ed.)Monetary Theory and Monetary Policy: New Trends for the 1990s, London, Macmillan

Christodoulakis, N. and Godley, W. A. H. 1987. A Dynamic model for the analysis of trade policyoptions, Journal of Policy Modelling, no. 9

Cowling, K. and Sugden, R. 1994. Beyond Capitalism, London, Francis PinterCowling, K. and Waterson, M. 1976. Price-cost margins and market structure, Economica, AugustDavidson, P. 1978. Money in the Real World, Second Edition, London, MacmillanDavidson, P. 1986. Finance, funding, saving, and investment, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,

Fall, vol. 9, no. 1Davidson, P. 1988A. A technical definition of uncertainty and die long-run non-neutrality of

money, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 12Davidson, P. 1988B. Financial markets, investment and employment, in Kregel, J. A., Matzner, E.

and Roncaglia, A. (eds.), Barriers to Full Employment, London, MacmillanDavidson, P. 1992. 'The Asimakopulos View of Keynes's General Theory5, paper read at die

conference on Employment, Distribution, and Markets, Levy Institute, Bard College, New York,September 24-26, 1992

Davis, J. B. 1993. Keynes's Philosophical Development, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressDow, A. C. and Dow, S. C. 1989. Endogenous money creation and idle balances, in Pheby, J.

(ed.), New Directions in Post-Keynesian Economics, Aldershot, Edward Elgar Publishing LimitedDow, S. C. 1985. Macroeconomic Thought: A Methodological Approach, Oxford, Basil BlackwellDow, S. C. 1990. Beyond Dualism, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 14Dutt, A. K. 1990. Growth, Distribution, and Uneven Development, Cambridge, Cambridge

University PressEatwell, J. 1983. Theories of value, output and employment, in Eatwell, J. and Milgate. M. (eds),

Keynes's Economics and the Theory of Value and Distribution, London, DuckworthEichner, A. S. 1973. A theory of the determination of the markup under oligopoly, Economic

Journal, DecemberEichner, A. S. 1976. The Megacorp and Oligopoly: Micro Foundations of Macro Dynamics,

Cambridge, Cambridge University PressEichner, A. S. 1991. The Macrodynamics of Advanced Market Economies, Armonk, New York, M. E.

Sharpe, IncEichner, A. S. and Kregel, J. A. 1975. An essay on post-Keynesian dieory: a new paradigm in

economics, Journal of Economic Luerature, DecemberFindlay, M. C. and Williams, E. E. 1985. A post-Keynesian view of modern financial economics:

in search of alternative paradigms, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, SpringGaregnani, P. 1978. Notes on consumption, investment and effective Demand: I, Cambridge

Journal of Economics, vol. 2Garegnani, P. 1979. Notes on consumption, investment and effective demand: II, Cambridge

Journal of Economics, vol. 3

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


132 P. Arestis

Goodwin, R. M. 1967. A growth cycle, in Feinstein, C. H. (ed.), Capitalism and Economic Growth,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Goodwin, R. M. and Punzo, L. F. 1987. The Dynamics of a Capitalist Economy, Oxford, BasilBlackwell

Graziani, A. 1989. The theory of the monetary circuit, Thames Papers in Political Economy, SpringHamouda, O. F. and Harcourt, G. C. 1988. Post-Keynesianism: from criticism to coherence?,

Bulletin of Economic Research, January. Reprinted in Pheby. J. (ed.), New Directions in Post-Keynesian Economics, Aldershot, Edward Elgar

Harcourt, G. C. 1965. A two-sector model of the distribution of income and the level ofemployment in the short-run, Economic Record, March. Reprinted in Harcourt, 1982

Harcourt, G. C. 1977. The theoretical and social significance of the Cambridge controversies in thetheory of capital, Revue D'economie Politique, vol. 87. Reprinted in Harcourt, 1982

Harcourt, G. C. 1982. The Social Science Imperialists: Selected Essays, Kerr, P. (ed.), London,Routledge & Kegan Paul

Harcourt, G. C. 1985. Post-Keynesianism: Quite wrong and/or nothing new, in Arestis, P. andSkouras. T. (eds), Post-Keynesian Theory: A Challenge to Neo-Classical Economics, Brighton,Harvester Wheatsheaf

Harcourt, G. C. 1986. Making socialism in your own country, in Hamouda, O. F. (ed.),Controversies in Political Economy: Selected Essays by G. C. Harcourt, Brighton, Wheatsheaf Books

Harcourt, G. C. 1987. Theoretical methods and unfinished business, in Reese, D. A. (ed.), 77KLegacy of Keynes, London, Harper and Row

Harcourt, G. C. 1991. Review of Collected Works by Michal Kalecki, Volume I: Capitalism: BusinessCycles and Full Employment. Osiatynski, J. (ed.), Economic Journal, November

Harcourt, G. C. 1992. 'Markets, Madness and a Middle Way5, The Second Donald Home Address,National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University

Harcourt, G. C. and Kenyon, P. 1976. Pricing and the investment decision, Kyklos, Vol. 29,Fasc. 3

Hicks, J. R. 1977. Economics Perspectives: Further Essays on Money and Growth, Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press

Hicks, J. R. 1982. Money, Interest and Wages, Collected Essays on Economic Theory, Vol. 2, Oxford,Oxford University Press

Hicks, J. R. 1985. Keynes and the World Economy, in F. Vicarelli (ed.), Keynes's Relevance Today,London, Macmillan

Hodgson, G. M. 1984. The Democratic Economy, Harmondsworth, PenguinHodgson, G. M. 1988. Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional Economics,

Cambridge, Polity PressHudson, H. R 1957. A Model of the trade cycle, Economic Record, DecemberKahn, R. F. 1958. Memorandum of evidence, submitted to the Radcliffe Committee on the

Working of the Monetary System, Principal Memoranda of Evidence. Reprinted in Kahn, R. F.,1972. Selected Essays on Employment and Growth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Kaldor, N. 1940. A model of the trade cycle, Economic Journal, MarchKaldor, N. 1960. Essays on Economic Stability and Growth, London, DuckworthKaldor, N. 1966. Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom, Cambridge,

Cambridge University PressKaldor, N. 1970. The case for regional policies, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, NovemberKaldor, N. 1976. Inflation and recession in the world economy. Economic Journal, DecemberKaldor, N. 1985. Economics without Equilibrium, Cardiff, University College Cardiff PressKalecki, M. 1954. Theory of Economic Dynamics: An Essay on Cyclical and Long-Run Changes in

Capitalist Economy, London, Unwin University BooksKalecki, M. 1969. Studies in the Theory of Business Cycles: 1933-1939, London, Basil BlackwellKalecki, M. 1971. Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933-1970, Cambridge,

Cambridge University PressKeynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, London, MacmillanKeynes, J. M. 1973. 77* General Theory and After, Collected Writings, Vol. XTV, London,

MacmillanKeynes, J. M. 1980. Activities, 1940-46: Shaping the Post-War World- Employment, Collected

Writings, Vol. XXVH, London, Macmillan

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



Kregel, J. A. 1976. Economic methodology in the iace of uncertainty: the modelling methods ofKeynes and the post Keynesians, Economic Journal, June

Kregelj J. A. 1980. Market* and institutions as features of a capitalist production system, Journalof Post Keynesian Economics, Fall

Kregelj J. A. 1984/85. Constraints on output and employment, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,Winter, vol. 7, no. 2

Kregel, J. A. 1986. A note on finance, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Fall, vol. 9, no. 1Kregel, J. A. 1987. Rational spirits and the Post Keynesian macrotheory of microeconomics,

De Economist, vol. 135, no. 4Lavoie, M. 1993. Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, Aldershot, Edward ElgarLavoie, M. 1994. A post Keynesian approach to consumer choice, Journal of Post Keynesian

Economics, Summer, vol. 16, no. 4Lawson, T. 1983. Different approaches to economic modelling, Cambridge Journal of Economics,

MarchLawson, T. 1989. Realism and instrumentalism in the development of econometrics, Oxford

Economic Papers, January. Reprinted in De Marchi, N. and Gilbert, C. (eds), The History andMethodology of Econometrics, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Lawson, T. 1990. Realism, closed systems and expectations, mimeoLawson, T. 1994. Methodology, in Hodgson, G., Tool, M. and Samuels, W. J. (eds), Handbook of

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics, Aldershot, Edward Elgar Publishing CompanyLeontief, W. 1951. The Structure of American Economy 1919-1939, Second Edition, New York,

Oxford University PressLeontief, W. Carter, A. P. and Petri, P. A. 1978. The Future of the World Economy: A United Nations

Study, Oxford University Press: OxfordMarglin, S. A. 1984A. Growth, Distribution and Prices, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University PressMarglin, S. A. 1984B. Growth, distribution, and inflation: a centennial synthesis, Cambridge

Journal of Economics, vol. 8Marglin, S. A. and Bhaduri, A. 1991. Profit squeeze and Keynesian theory, in Nell and Semmler

(1991)Minsky, H. P. 1975. John Maynard Keynes, London, MacmillanMinsky, H. P. 1982. Can 'It' Happen Again? Essays on Instability and Finance, Armonk, New York,

M. E. SharpeMinsky, H. P. 1986. Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, New Haven and London, Yale University

PressMoore, B. J. 1988. Horizontalists and Verticalists: The Macroeconomics of Credit Money, Cambridge,

Cambridge University PressMyrdal, G. 1939. Monetary Equilibrium, London, William HodgeMyrdal, G. 1957. Economic Theory and the Underdeveloped Regions, London, DuckworthNell, E. J. 1980. The Revival of Political Economy, in E. J. Nell (ed.), Growth, Profits and Property:

Essays in the Revival of Political Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressNell, E. J. and Semmler, W. 1991. Nicholas Kaldor and Mainstream Economics: Confrontation or

Convergence}, London, MacmillanO'Donnell, R. M. 1989. Keynes: Philosophy, Economics and Politics, London, MacmillanParguez, A. 1984. La dynamique de la monnaie, Economies a Societes, Serie Monnaie et Production,

no. 1Pasinetti, L. L. 1974. Growth and Income Distribution: Essays in Economic Theory, Cambridge,

Cambridge University PressPasinetti, L. L. 1981. Structural Change and Economic Growth: A Theoretical Essay on the Dynamics

of the Wealth of Nations, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressRadice, H. 1989. British capitalism in a changing global economy, in MacEwan, A. and Tabb,

N. T. (eds), Instability and Change in the World Economy, New York, Monthly ReviewRobinson, J. 1956. The Accumulation of Capital, London, MacmillanRobinson, J. 1962. Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, London, MacmillanRobinson, J. 1969. Introduction, in Kalecki (1969)Robinson, J. 1970. Quantity theories old and new: a comment, Journal of Money, Credit and

Banking, NovemberRobinson, J. 1974. History versus equilibrium, Thames Papers in Political Economy, Autumn

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


134 P . Arestis

Robinson, J. 1977. Michal Kalecki on the economics of capitalism, Oxford Bulletin of Economics andStatistics, vol. 39

Robinson, J. 1980. Further Contributions to Modern Economics, Oxford, Basil BlackwellRogers, C. 1989. Money, Interest and Capital A Study in the Foundations of Monetary Theory,

Cambridge, Cambridge University PressRomer, P. 1986. Increasing returns and long-run growth, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 94,

no. 5Roncaglia, A. 1978. Sraffa and the Theory of Prices, New York, John WileyRoncaglia, A. 1992. On the compatibility between Keynes's and Sraffa's viewpoints on output

levels, paper given to a conference in memory of A. Asimakopulos at die Levy Institute in BardCollege, New York, September

Rowdiom, R. 1977. Conflict, inflation and money, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 1.Reprinted in Rowdiorn, R. 1980. Capitalism, Conflict and Inflation, London, Lawrence andWishart

Rowdiorn, R 1981. Demand, real wages and economic growdi, Thames Papers in Political Economy,Autumn

Runde, J. 1990. Keynesian uncertainty and the weight of arguments, Economics and Philosophy,vol. 6

Sardoni, C. 1987. Marx and Keynes on Economic Recession: The Theory of Unemployment and EffectiveDemand, Brighton, Wheatsheaf Books

Sawyer, M. C. 1982A. Macroeconomics in Question: The Keynesian-Monctarist Orthodoxies and theKaleckian Alternative, Brighton, Wheatsheaf Books

Sawyer, M. C. 1982B. Towards a Post-Kaleckian macroeconomics, Thames Papers in PoliticalEconomy, Autumn. Reprinted in Arestis, P. and Skouras, T. (eds), Post-Keynesian EconomicTheory: A Challenge to Neo-Classical Economics, Brighton, Wheatsheaf Books

Sawyer, M. C. 1985. The Economics of Michal Kalecki, London, MacmillanSawyer, M. C. 1990. On die post-Keynesian tradition and industrial economics, Review of Political

Economy, vol. 2, no. 1Schefold, B. 1980. Von Newmann and Sraffa: madiematical equivalence and conceptual differ-

ence, Economic Journal, MarchShackle, G. L. S. 1973. Keynes and today's establishment in economic dieory: a view, Journal of

Economic Literature, JuneShackle, G. L. S. 1988. Elasticities of surprise in the concept of policy, in Arestis, P. (ed.),

Contemporary Issues in Money and Banking, London, MacmillanShapiro, N. 1992. Saving and investment: a review of Asimakopulos's investment, employment

and income distribution, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, vol. 10Skott, P. 1989. Conflict and Effective Demand in Economic Growth, Cambridge, Cambridge

University PressSraffa, P. 1960. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic

Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressSteindl, J. 1952. Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism, Oxford, Oxford University PressSteindl, J. 1979. Stagnation theory and stagnation policy, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 3Targetti, F. and Kinda-Hass, B. 1982. Kalecki's review of Keynes's general dieory, Australian

Economic Papers, vol. 21Tarshis, L. 1939. The Determination of Labour Income, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Cambridge

UniversityTarshis, L, 1947. The Elements of Economics: An Introduction to the Theory of Price and Employment,

Boston, Mass., Houghton MifflinThirlwall, A. P. 1980. Balance of Payments Theory and the United Kingdom Experience, London,

MnrmiiinnTool, M. R. 1988A. Evolutionary Economics, Volume I: Foundations of Institutional Thought, Armonk,

New York, M. E. SharpeTool, M. R. 1988B. Evolutionary Economics, Volume II: Institutional Theory and Policy, Armonk,

New York, M. E. SharpeVeblen, T. 1898. Why is economics not an evolutionary science?, Quarterly Journal of Economics,

Jury. Reprinted in Veblen, T., The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation, Huebsch, 1919Veblen, T. 1899. Theory of the Leisure Class, Modem Library Edition, 1961

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from



Von Newmann, J. 1945—46. A model of general equilibrium, Review of Economic Studies, no. 1Weintraub, S. 1958. An Approach to the Theory of Income Distribution, Philadelphia, ChiltonWood, A. 1975. A Theory of Profits, Cambridge, Cambridge University PressWray, L. R. 1990. Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies: The Endogenous Money Approach,

Aldershot, Edward Elgar Publishing limited

at Universidad de B



ownloaded from


Arestis 1996 Postkeynesian Economics...

Documents

Transcript of Arestis 1996 Postkeynesian Economics...