Search

This paper is an answer to the question: What is new, what is good and what is relevant for Eurozone countries in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)? The answer is organized under six questions: (1) What is MMT? (2) What is the definition of a sovereign currency — an important concept for MMT authors? (3) Does the institutional setup play any role in assessing monetary sovereignty? (4) Is the euro a foreign currency for eurozone countries, that is, are eurozone countries currency users or currency issuers? (5) Why could there be a eurozone financial crisis and was it a balance-of-payment crisis, as a number of authors have claimed? (6) And as a conclusion, what is the future of the Eurozone? It is argued that MMT is part of the Institutionalist branch of post-Keynesian economics; that the current definition of a sovereign currency is insufficient; that the Eurozone crisis arose from the combination of Maastricht-like rules and the convention that the European Central Bank would not act as a purchaser of last resort; and that this crisis can only be taken to be a balance-of-payment crisis when considering that bond investors thought some countries would leave the Eurozone and face currency depreciation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global financial crisis and ensuing weak growth have increased interest in macroeconomic issues within comparative political economy (CPE). CPE, particularly the dominant Varieties of Capitalism approach, has based its analyses on mainstream economics, which limits analysis of the relation between distribution and growth and neglects the role finance plays in modern economies. It overstates the stability of the capitalist growth process and understates the potential effectiveness of government interventions. Baccaro and Pontusson have suggested a post-Keynesian (PK) theory of distribution and growth as an alternative. This article generalizes their point. PK theory highlights the instability of the growth process and lends itself to an analysis of income distribution and power relations. The article identifies the analysis of financialization and financial cycles, the understanding of neoliberal growth models, and the political economy of central banks as areas where PK economics provides specific insights for CPE. It also highlights that these arguments have important implications for government policy in an era of secular stagnation with ongoing social, distributional, and economic crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 has recently given rise to some interesting claims regarding differentiation and shifts of demand and growth regimes. However, we find some difficulties in the way PK approaches have been interpreted and integrated in modern CPE approaches. Therefore, we first provide a theoretically consistent and empirically applicable classification of demand and growth regimes under the conditions of finance-dominated capitalism, as it recently has been proposed by PK authors. Second, instead of using the traditional VoC dual classification, we focus on a more differentiated welfare model classification, which can be seen as different socio-institutional responses towards the challenges of globalisation and financialisation. For the period before the 2007-9 crisis, we link the PK demand and growth regimes with five socio-economic models identified by Hay and Wincott (2012), and thus provide an alternative approach. Third, going beyond the current debate, we examine the regime shifts after the 2007-9 global crisis with respect to the demand and growth regimes, and we also examine the changes within the welfare models. Whereas we find a clear pattern for the shift of demand and growth regimes, the changes in the welfare models are not as clear-cut. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we show that the economic crisis commencing in 2007 had different impacts across US Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and seek to understand why differences occurred. The hypothesis of interest is that differences in industrial structure are a cause of variations in response to the crisis. Our approach uses a state-of-the art dynamic spatial panel model to obtain counterfactual predictions of Metropolitan Statistical Area employment levels from 2008 to 2014. The counterfactual employment series are compared with actual employment paths in order to obtain Metropolitan Statistical Area-specific measures of crisis impact, which then are analysed with a view to testing the hypothesis that resilience to the crisis was dependent on Metropolitan Statistical Area industrial structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses the hypothesis that the functional distribution of income is not necessary stable along the growth path of a capitalist economy. We reviewed Pasinetti and Foley models showing that if we use the traditional definition of capital, i.e., capital as the value of productive resources (i) r > g is a necessary condition for the existence of balanced growth, and it will not lead to an explosive process of income concentration and (ii) r > i is a necessary condition for a financially robust growth path. Thus we conclude that from a post-Keynesian perspective, Piketty's argument that the root of the increase of inequality in capitalism is that the capital return rate is higher than the growth rate of the economy is wrong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the economic imbalances that caused the present crisis should be thought of as the outcome of the interaction of the effects of financial deregulation with the macroeconomic effects of rising inequality. In this sense rising inequality should be regarded as a root cause of the present crisis. I identify four channels by which it has contributed to the crisis. First, rising inequality creates a downwards pressure on aggregate demand since poorer income groups have high marginal propensities to consume. Second, international financial deregulation has allowed countries to run larger current account deficits and for longer time periods. Thus, in reaction to potentially stagnant demand, two growth models have emerged: a debt-led model and an export-led model. Third, (in the debt-led growth models) higher inequality has led to higher household debt as working-class families have tried to keep up with social consumption norms despite stagnating or falling real wages. Fourth, rising inequality has increased the propensity to speculate as richer households tend to hold riskier financial assets than other groups. The rise of hedge funds and of subprime derivatives in particular has been linked to rise of the super-rich. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]