Search

The monetary analysis of some ecological economists currently appears to be mostly articulated around the following core: a stationary economy (and a fortiori a degrowth economy) is incompatible with a system in which money is created as interest-bearing debt. To question the relevance of the debt-money/positive interest rate/output growth nexus, this paper adopts a critical stance towards the currently emerging ecological monetary economics from the standpoint of another strand of heterodox economics – the post-Keynesian approach. In its current state, ecological monetary economics is at odds with post-Keynesian economics in its analysis of the money–growth relationship. This will be shown using the theory of endogenous money and a simple Cambridgian–Kaleckian model where debt-money and a positive interest rate are compatible with a full stationary economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Boulding's reconstruction of macroeconomics provides a ‘micro-foundation’ based on liquidity preference theory, a balance sheet approach, and a process of homeostasis. These microfoundations are consistent with his aggregate theory and avoid fallacies of composition—such as the paradox of thrift—as well as the ‘adding up’ problems of marginal productivity theory. His distribution theory links income shares to the determinants of employment and output and the conditions of equilibrium of saving and investment. His definitions provide clear alternatives to the NIPA definitions adopted in ‘Keynesian’ theory. He provides an alternative view of fiscal and monetary policies that will not prove to be impotent in the face of the ongoing conservative counterrevolution. Indeed, his theories are quite close to the modern Post-Keynesian understanding of ‘endogenous money,’ the deficit-growth relation, and the investment-saving connection, while his policy recommendations are often consistent with those of Post-Keynesians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]