Search

We contribute to the recent debates on demand and growth regimes in modern finance-dominated capitalism linking them to the post-Keynesian research on macroeconomic policy regimes. We examine the demand and growth regimes, as well as the macroeconomic policy regimes for the big four Eurozone countries, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, for the periods 2001–2009 and 2010–2019. First, our approach supports the usefulness of the identification of demand and growth regimes according to growth contributions of the main demand components and financial balances of the macroeconomic sectors. This allows for an understanding of the demand sources of growth, or stagnation, if there is a lack of demand, of how these sources are financed and of potential financial instabilities and fragilities. Second, when it comes to the macroeconomic policy drivers of demand and growth regimes, as well as their respective changes, we show that the exclusive focus on fiscal policies, as in the previous literature, is too limited and that it is the macroeconomic policy regime which matters here, i.e. the combination of monetary, fiscal and wage policies, as well as the open economy conditions.

Connecting comparative political economy (CPE) approaches, as the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) theory, with post-Keynesian (PK) research on different demand and growth regimes in modern capitalism...

If Piketty's main theoretical prediction (r > g leads to rising wealth inequality) is taken to its radical conclusion, then a small elite will own all wealth if capitalism is left to its own devices. We formulate and calibrate a Post-Keynesian model with an endogenous distribution of wealth between workers and capitalists which permits such a corner solution of all wealth held by capitalists. However, it also shows interior solutions with a stable, non-zero wealth share of workers, a stable wealth-to-income ratio, and a stable and positive gap between the profit and the growth rate determined by the Cambridge equation. More importantly, simulations show that the model conforms to Piketty's empirical findings during a transitional phase of increasing wealth inequality, which characterizes the current state of high-income countries: the wealth share of capitalists rises to over 60 per cent, the wealth-to-income ratio increases, and income inequality rises. Finally, we show that the introduction of a wealth tax as suggested by Piketty could neutralize this rise in wealth concentration predicted by our model.

The diversity of models of capitalism is evolving under the dynamics of capitalism itself, which imposes common trajectories to some institutional forms, such as the financial system or the employment relationship. This article argues that the analysis of the dynamic diversity and commonalities of capitalism can be made by focusing on four elements: the institutions defining the socio-economic model, the dominant social bloc that supports these institutional arrangements, the political actors and the strategy they have for uniting the dominant social bloc, and the public policies, in particular economic policies, implemented by the government.

The Companies Acts of the 1860s initiated a major structural transformation in capitalism. This was noted, but not developed into a theory of the capitalist economy, by Marx. That development subsequently came in the work of Veblen, Hilferding and his critics Lederer and (implicitly) Kalecki, Keynes, Steindl and Minsky. The paper argues that the Great Schism in economic theory is not between Keynes and ‘the Classics’, as argued by Keynes; or Keynes and the Neoclassical Synthesis, as contended by Joan Robinson and Richard Kahn; nor even between monetary production and barter exchange, as maintained by post-Keynesian writers; still less between political economists and apologetic theorists, as argued by Marxists. The key distinction in economic theory is between those who recognise the central role of long-term finance in the capitalist economy, and those theorists for whom finance is merely ‘savings’ or another form of credit.

The Cambridge controversies about the theory of capital were ultimately underpinned by a clash between two different visions of capitalism, the neoclassical view, according to which distribution depends on the supply and demand curves of capital and labor, and the post Keynesian view, according to which distribution depends on political and institutional factors instead. I shall argue that the distinction between “ meritocratic capitalism ” and “ patrimonial capitalism, ” which underpins the discussions surrounding Thomas Piketty ’ s Capital in the Twenty- First Century , is also connected to those two different visions of capitalism, which were behind the Cambridge controversies. These two visions of capitalism have important implications for our understanding of political power over workers, and also to our understanding of political power over land and its natural resources. The role of land and natural resources was not discussed in the Cambridge controversies, but is addressed in Piero Sraffa ’ s Production of Commodities , and is implied in Piketty’ s inclusion of land in his definition of capital, which brings in a geographical dimension to our understanding of capitalism and capitalist crises, as I shall argue.

The current debate on secular stagnation is suffering from some vagueness and several other shortcomings. The same is true for the economic policy implications. Therefore, I provide an alternative view on stagnation tendencies based on Josef Steindl's contributions. In particular Steindl's (1952) book can be viewed as a pioneering work in the area of stagnation in modern capitalism. I hold that this work is not prone to the problems detected in the current debate on secular stagnation: it does not rely on the dubious notion of an equilibrium real interest rate as the equilibrating force of saving and investment at full employment levels, in principle, with the adjustment process currently blocked by the unfeasibility of a very low or even negative equilibrium rate. On the contrary, Steindl's contribution is based on the notion that modern capitalist economies are facing aggregate demand constraints, and that saving adjusts to investment through changes in capacity utilisation and income growth in the long run. It allows for potential growth to become endogenous to actual demand-driven growth. And it seriously considers the role of institutions, power relationships and economic policies for long-run growth – and for stagnation.

Le sujet de la présente thèse est La soutenabilité de l’accumulation du capital et de ses régimes : une approche macroéconomique en termes de soutenabilité forte. Elle s’articule en deux parties. Deux chapitres composent la première : le chapitre 1 s’inscrit dans le débat sur la possibilité d’un capitalisme stationnaire. Il analyse l’absence des rapports sociaux spécifiques du capitalisme dans les travaux de certains économistes écologiques au moyen d’exemples historiques de crise écologique et des théories éco-marxistes. Le chapitre 2 discute les analyses monétaires de certains économistes écologiques selon lesquelles un état stationnaire est incompatible avec un système dans lequel la monnaie est créée comme une dette portant intérêt en adoptant un point de vue post-keynésien. La deuxième partie est plus empirique et se compose de trois chapitres. Le chapitre 3 examine la relation sociale à l’énergie au sein du régime d’accumulation fordiste et du capitalisme financiarisé et mondialisé. L’approche en termes d’exergie est intégrée à un cadre théorique régulationniste informé par l’approche en termes de démocratie carbone. L’objectif est d’identifier des ruptures dans les modalités d’usage de l’énergie qui accompagnent les transformations observées dans d’autres domaines. Le chapitre 4 prolonge le précédent au moyen d’une analyse économétrique de la relation PIB-CO2 pour la France de 1950 à 2013 en tenant compte de la rupture dans les régularités de l’accumulation du capital entre le régime d’accumulation fordiste et le régime d’accumulation néolibéral ainsi que des possibles asymétries. Le chapitre 5 analyse les ambitions nationales en matière de réduction de gaz à effet de serre, dénommées volontarisme carbone, replacées dans le contexte du capitalisme globalisé et financiarisé contemporain. The subject of my PhD is The sustainability of capital accumulation and its regimes: a strong sustainability macroeconomic approach. It is composed of two parts. The first one is composed of two chapters that review the literature on two aspects: The first chapter tackles the debate on stationary capitalism. It reviews the way capitalism is taken into account by ecological economists and analyzes it in light of historical examples of ecological crises and of insights from eco-marxist theories. Chapter 2 tackles the debate about the so-called monetary growth imperative analysed from a post-Keynesian point of view. The second part is a more empirical one and is composed of three chapters. Chapter 3 attempts at framing the exergy-useful work approach into a régulationnist theoretical framework informed with insights from the Carbon democracy approach. It investigates the social relationship to energy in the Fordist and Neoliberal accumulation regimes. The fourth chapter attempts at furthering the third chapter by investigating the CO2 - GDP relationship through econometric means taking into account structural breaks between accumulation regimes and possible asymmetries. Chapter 5 investigates the commitment of countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions within the context of globalized finance-led capitalism.

The re-distribution of income from labour to capital, from workers to top-managers and from low income households to the rich has been an important feature of finance-dominated capitalism since the early 1980s. After the Great Financial Crisis and the Great Recession in 2007−9, the recovery has been sluggish so far, and this has given rise to a renewed discussion about stagnation tendencies in capitalist economies. In orthodox approaches, income distribution only has a restricted role to play, if at all, but the interaction between distribution and growth is at the centre of Marxian and post-Keynesian/Kaleckian approaches when it comes to explaining medium- to long-run trends of economic growth—and stagnation. This contribution thus provides Marxian and Kaleckian assessments of the distribution and growth regimes under finance-dominated capitalism, both before and after the recent crisis. Finally, an interpretation of stagnation tendencies in a demand-led endogenous growth model with Kaleckian, Kaldorian and Marxian features is presented.

Post Keynesian economics has two complementary theories of crisis that were used to predict the 2007 crisis and diagnose its causes: Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis and Godley's Stock- Flow Consistent Approach. Both theories take a monetary perspective on capitalism and argue that the dynamics of private debt caused the crisis. As well as explaining the crisis and enabling its occurrence (though not precise timing) to be predicted, both theories imply that the current recovery will be short-lived because the underlying cause of the last crisis has not been addressed by subsequent economic policy. Before the economic crisis in 2007, neoclassical economists were trium- phant, confident that they had banished economic crises completely: Macroeconomics was born as a distinct field in the 1940's, as a part of the intellectual response to the Great Depression. The term then referred to the body of knowledge and expertise that we hoped would prevent the recurrence of that economic disaster. My thesis in this lecture is that macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades. (Lucas 2003: 1) (emphasis added)

1. Heterodox economics and the history of economic thought Carlo D'lppoliti and Alessandro Roncaglia 2. The Association for Heterodox Economics: past, present, and future Andrew Mearman and Bruce Philp 3. Heterodox economics, distribution and the class struggle Bruce Philp and Andrew Trigg 4. Qualitative data and grounded theory in heterodox economic research: insights from three Australian studies Therese Jefferson 5. Heterodox microeconomics and heterodox microfoundations Tae-Hee Jo 6. Beyond foundations: systemism in economic thinking Jakob Kapeller 7. Post Keynesian investment and pricing theory: contributions of Alfred S. Eichner and Frederic S. Lee Ruslan Dzarasov 8. Effects of competition upon profit margins from a Post Keynesian perspective Jordan Melmies 9. Inter- and intra-firm governance in heterodox microeconomics: the case of the US software industry Erik Dean 10. Analyzing actually-existing markets Lynne Chester 11. Advancing heterodox economics in the tradition of the surplus approach Nuno Martins 12. Consumption in the context of social provisioning and capitalism: beyond consumer choice and aggregates Zdravka Todorova 13. Social provisioning process, market instability, and managed competition Tuna Baskoy 14. The embedded state and social provisioning: insights from Norbert Elias Bruno Tinel 15. Analogies we suffer by: the case of the state as a household Huascar Pessali, Fabiano Dalto, and Ramon Garcia Fernandez 16. Technological-institutional foundations of the social economy: a framework for the analysis of change in the social provisioning process Henning Shwardt 17. Predestined to heterodoxy or how I became a heterodox economist Frederic S. Lee 18. Frederic Sterling Lee (1949-2014) John E. King 19. In memoriam: Frederic S. Lee, 1949-2014 Jan A. Kregel and L. Randall Wray 20. The Bibliography of Frederic S. Lee's Writings

This paper, first, distinguishes new developmentalism, a new theoretical system that is being created, from really existing developmentalism – a form of organizing capitalism. Second, it distinguishes new developmentalism from its antecedents, Development Economics or classical developmentalism and Keynesian Macroeconomics. Third, it discusses the false opposition that some economists have adopted between new developmentalism and social-developmentalism, which the author understands as a form of really existing developmentalism; as theory, it is just a version of classical developmentalism with a bias toward immediate consumption. Finally, it makes a summary of new developmentalism – of its main political economy, economic theory and economic policy claims

International audience; Long waves of economic activity, also known as ‘Kondratiev cycles,’ have been known to exist for nearly a century without having ever been given a proper theoretical context. In this paper we try to identify various contributions to shed light on this phenomenon, notably Schumpeter's notion of technological bursts and Minsky's notion of a super-cycle where ‘stability breeds instability’ to the point of systemic crisis. A more comprehensive and methodologically innovative approach to the periodization of capitalism is the French Régulation School. This heterodox approach has reframed the story of long waves in terms of period-specific ‘accumulation regimes’ and ‘modes of (self-)regulation.’ Here systemic crises, like the ones we experienced in 1873–1879, 1929–1939, 1973–1982 or 2007–2011, play the role of regime-transforming adjustments in the institutional make-up of the wage relation, forms of competition, state intervention, and money and banking, as well as international context. We apply the Regulationist approach to finance-led capitalism, the latest long-wave accumulation regime emerging around 1982 to find itself confronted with its own systemic crisis starting in 2007. How will that crisis, one of the most profound structural crises to date, change our economic system?

Over time the financial sector has gained greater relevance in the economy, a phenomenon that some call financialisation or finance-dominated capitalism. Contrary to the mainstream view, financialisation literature emphasises that risk management by financial corporations will not be socially efficient in a context of deregulated markets and will ultimately lead to an increase of aggregate risk and crises. To assess the validity of such claim, in this paper we review the literature on risk management during the Subprime crisis. These failures fall into three categories: technique and methodology, corporate governance and strategy, and regulation and external factors. We conclude that these failures can be interpreted in the light of the financialisation perspective, which is therefore a valuable approach when addressing regulatory changes in the financial system. info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

Our opinion is that the so-called sub-prime mortgage crisis has been a structural crisis of the US's financial capitalism. In analysing the complex combination of factors that led to those events, we try not to focus on the most contingent aspects but to clarify the underlying structure that made the crisis endogenously emerge from the US's economic system. To reach this goal, we base our analysis on existing economic theories. In particular, the combination of the Financial Instability Hypothesis by Hyman Minsky, the theory of Capital Market Inflation by Jan Toporowski, and the post-Keynesian literature on financialisation represent the foundation of our analysis. The results of our analysis will then be reproduced through a simulated stock-flow consistent model to test their logical coherence.

The object of the paper is to explore whether, or to what extent, a Marxian explanation of the current capitalist crisis is possible. The answer is that, although Marx's theory offers important insights to understanding the ultimate causes of capitalist crises, it is not able to provide a fully satisfactory explanation of typical crises of contemporary capitalism.In particular, Marx's analysis cannot account for the long periods of stagnation following the eruption of financial and economic crises. In Marx's analytical context, crises are followed by recovery and growth in a relatively short span of time. It is argued that the main reason for Marx's inability to explain crises of contemporary capitalism is that he developed his analysis by considering free-competitive economies, whereas modern economies are characterized by monopolistic competition. A more satisfactory explanation of the current crisis requires going beyond Marx's original contributions.