Search

This paper conducts a systematic comparison of two main textbook variants within the Kaleckian tradition of post-Keynesian conflict inflation and distribution theory: the Blecker and Setterfield (2019) and Lavoie (1992; 2022) (BSL) model based on Dutt (1987), and the Hein (2023a) and Hein and Stockhammer (2011) (HS) model founded on Rowthorn (1977). Focusing on a basic closed economy framework sans government, we explore various iterations of each approach. Our analysis reveals that disparities chiefly centre around the treatment of price inflation expectations (‘indexation’) and the incorporation of bargaining power in wage- and price-inflation equations. BSL variants generally yield stable price Phillips curves, stable distribution and employment curves, and hence stable equilibria. Only the BSL-3 variant with complete indexation and complete pass-through generates shifting Phillips and employment curves, implying instability. It is thus similar to the HS-0 approach, which has bargaining power and complete indexation representing adaptive expectations in wage inflation and incomplete pass-through in price inflation. Introducing a workers’ wage share target directly into the wage-inflation equation, but keeping full indexation/adaptive expectations in wage inflation and incomplete pass-through in price inflation, allows for stable and even flat Phillips curves, stable distribution and employment curves, and hence stable equilibria in the HS approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a simple closed-economy model that is driven by the growth of two autonomous components of demand, namely government spending and rentiers’ consumption out of interest income. Using this model, it seeks to make two contributions. First, by focusing on the financial dynamics that arise from debt-financed government spending, we show that an underlying stock-flow interaction provides an endogenous mechanism which, under certain conditions, aligns the two autonomous growth rates in the long run. Hence, an economy can be driven by two autonomous components of demand, without one dominating the other in the long-run nor without policy changes being required to align the two growth drivers. Second, we prove that if two autonomous demand components are dynamically interdependent, then the relative size of their growth contributions may be misleading as a guide to classify growth regimes, both in the long-run equilibrium as well as during the traverse towards this equilibrium. Furthermore, we show that the relative growth contributions are economic policy contingent. We thus argue that interdependencies between autonomous growth components arising from financial stock-flow interactions should not be ignored in Sraffian supermultiplier growth decomposition exercises that aim to identify underlying growth drivers. [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]