Search

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...

The paper summarizes the discussion among Łaski's inner circle regarding the relevance of Kaleckian treatment of money under financial capitalism. The context of that debate was the project of a joint textbook in macroeconomics, the building blocks of which would be Kalecki's theory, and which would take into account the present-day financialization. With Łaski's death the opportunity of doing the project was gone. Of the two closely interlinked questions under debate, the first dealt with permissible simplifications regarding determinants of money supply and interest rates, and the second with how to extend Kaleckian theory to link the real economy sector more tightly with its financial sector. The paper argues that for an introductory textbook in macroeconomics Kalecki's and Łaski's simplifications are legitimate. On the second issue the paper finds the introduction of two financial subsectors and the discussion of their interlinks with the real economy sector to be an important and possible way of investigating macroeconomic crises and instability within the Kaleckian macroeconomic framework. Another way would be the expansion and modification of Kalecki's investment decision function, which would continue to generate an automatic business cycle due to changes in fixed capital investment but also in combination with factors determining financial investment.

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 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.

As a consequence of the Financial Crisis 2007–2009, the prevailing paradigm of neoliberalism is struggling for its survival. The Financial Crisis has shown that the market-system is not self-regulating. Without support from neoclassical theory central banks have been flooding liquidity into the financial markets, keeping interest rates historically low in an attempt to keep the engine of capitalism going. This has happened although Post-Keynesian alternatives in financial theory are on offer and could have saved the financial sector without such damaging effect for the real economy. Furthermore, with regard to a longer-run recovery of sustainable growth and development Post-Keynesian economics has potential. For this purpose, it is necessary to integrate digitization, IT automation and artificial intelligence in a constructive way to avoid new disruptions of the economy. This paper shows how the dynamic potential of innovative entrepreneurs, according to the ideas originally formulated by Schumpeter, could be integrated into a progressive Post-Keynesian model to support sustainable growth theory. Such an extension would give Post-Keynesian growth models a needed relevance for the challenges of the future.

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.

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.

The 2007 economic and financial crisis is by many measures the most serious since the 1930s. It cannot, however, be analysed as an isolated event separate from the series of crises that has characterized the capitalist system. Indeed, even though the current crisis shows some specific characteristics, its main causes are similar to those that triggered previous crises. In this study, we argue that we are experiencing a generalized economic crisis, as opposed to a financial crisis whose impact is felt on the real side via the traditional Keynesian transmission mechanism. As such, we identify the development of a number of both real and financial factors, whose combination should be recognized by any astute observer as a recipe for financial turmoil and recessions. In particular, we consider two parallel and ongoing practices that have transformed the entrepreneurial capitalist system and rendered it much more fragile and prone to crisis: (i) the financial deregulations-cum-innovations since the late 1970s have fundamentally changed the basic role of banks and financial institutions and created the possibility for financiers to (artificially) increase their wealth independently of the real production sector – thus resulting in financial bubbles; and (ii) at the same time, prolonged austerity measures in most advanced capitalist economies have kept the productive capacity of these economies below full employment and therefore directly contributed to engineering recessions. We conclude that there is a need to rethink not only the type of economic policies in place but also the economic model.

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)

Hartmut Elsenhans's Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists presents an intriguing argument: capitalist elites have induced unsustainable capitalism to the disadvantage of labor and the system as a whole. The author proposes a fairly unconventional solution. He suggests that democratic socialism can be the necessary political complement to our capitalist system. By drawing on the socialist capacity to empower labor and increase mass consumption, we could achieve a more balanced and sustainable capitalism. The book is ideally suited for readers of Keynesian and post Keynesian analysis on contemporary capitalism and it fits in the discourse on problems of low income growth, declining demand, and investment opportunities in major world economies.

Despite its professed emphasis on the real world, the post Keynesian literature lacks a history of business cycle fluctuations in a particular economy. This is an extremely important oversight. Not only might such a study be useful to researchers, but students are anxious to acquire practical as well as theoretical knowledge and to see historical applications of theory. This article fills that gap by offering both theory and evidence regarding U.S. cycles from 1950 through the Great Recession. The theory is derived from Keynes's General Theory, while the evidence is composed of a simple statistical analysis along with a narrative covering each expansion and recession. It will be argued that, despite mainstream descriptions of capitalism as a relatively stable system occasionally interrupted by exogenous shocks, business cycles are systemic and a manifestation of the instability inherent to the capitalist system. The complete story cannot be told without reference to fiscal and monetary policy, oil shocks,...

The purpose of this paper is to provide an exposition of Veblen’s and Minsky’s views on the financial markets and to explore the possibility of any common denominators. I stress that they both bring forward the importance of leverage as a path-breaking insight, as well as of liquidity and solvency in the real-world financial markets characterized by uncertainty, innovations and evolving institutions. I remark that Veblenian and Minskian financial markets are naturally and endogenously unstable, nonneutral and influence ‘real’ economic performance. I argue that if Veblen’s institutional logic in his business enterprise system became integrated with Minsky’s financial processes of creation and destruction, it could set up a realistic framework to analyse the evolution of financial markets in capitalism. © 2013 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

‘Finance’ has been at the core of many, old and new, theoretical developments outside the mainstreams of macroeconomics. The focus here will be on circuitism, concentrating on finance for production and on the financial instability hypothesis put forward by Minsky. In the second and third sections of the paper I give a general picture of the ‘monetary circuit’. In the fourth section I discuss the old circuit theory of money of Wicksell, Schumpeter and Keynes (the Keynes before the General Theory). In the fifth section I make some comments on the Mises–Hayek line, also grounded in Wicksell's circuitism. In the sixth section I present an alternative path to the circuit and Keynesian-like conclusions, the path leading from Marx to Luxemburg to Kalecki: here the debate on finance underlines the presence of a radical problem of effective demand. In the seventh section I introduce Minsky's ‘financial Keynesianism’, where finance is related to investment demand and financial instability. I see Minsky as complementary rather than opposed to the circuitist line of thought. I argue in the conclusions that these traditions are relevant to understanding the recurring changes in capitalism and the current crisis. Indeed, the term ‘financial Keynesianism’ has taken a more concrete meaning, converging with what some authors prefer to define as ‘privatized Keynesianinsm’. In my view, some of Minsky's – and also Parguez's – views about economic policy are not only in accord, they also provide a way out from the blind alley of mainstreams and the limits of Keynesianism.

In the last few years, many financial analysts and heterodox economists (but even some ‘dissenters’ among orthodox economists) have referred to the contribution of Hyman P. Minsky as fundamental to understanding the current crisis. However, it is well-known that the traditional formulation of Minsky’s ‘financial instability hypothesis’ shows serious internal logical problems. Furthermore, Minsky’s analysis of capitalism must be updated on the basis of the deep changes which, during the last three decades, have concerned the world economy. In order to overcome these theoretical and empirical troubles, this paper, first, introduces the reader to the ‘mechanics’ of the financial instability theory, according to the formulation of the traditional Minskian literature (section 2). Second, it shows ‘why’ Minsky’s theory cannot be regarded as a general theory of the business cycle (section 3). Third, the paper attempts to supply a simplified, but consistent, re-formulation of Minsky’s theory by inter-breeding it with inputs coming from the ‘New Cambridge’ theories and the current ‘formal Minskian literature’. The aim of this is to analyze the impact of both capital-asset inflation and consumer credit on the financial ‘soundness’ of the non-financial business sector (sections 4-7). Some concluding remarks are provided in the last part of the paper (section 8).

This paper is focused on Post Keynesian economics as an alternative perspective on the modern Russian economy. Neoclassical foundations of the radical market reforms in the former USSR are analyzed, and their perilous effects on economy and population are demonstrated. Post Keynesianism is treated as a viable and coherent alternative to neoclassical orthodoxy. The contribution to this body of thought of Keynes, Kalecki, Robinson, Sraffa, and some others is recognized. The historical, cultural, and socioeconomic conditions specific to Russia are considered as insurmountable obstacles for any neoclassical reforms agenda. The paper discusses ten Post Keynesian models that fit to Russian conditions, particularly when they are synthesized with some insights of economists from this country. Taken as a whole, Russian experience in building capitalism is viewed as a unique experiment testing the validity of neoclassical economics with disastrous results that vindicate the Post Keynesian alternative.

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.

Henri de Man is the author of the dissenting “Au-delà du Marxisme” (1926) and of the Belgian Plan du Travail ( Labor Plan) of 1933. Later he became a Belgian social-democratic leader. He published between 1931 and 1935 18 economic articles in the Bulletin d’Information et de Documentation of the National Bank of Belgium. It is shown that the articles, partly inspired by Keynes’s writings up to 1931, are rather reflecting early Keynesian economic ideas relating to government intervention and public works, and do not contain any reference to the multiplier mechanism. A number of arguments in the articles are, however, advocating a Marxist inspired underconsumption theory. Based on further analysis of these articles, it is concluded that they contain also other important characteristics in common with the post-Keynesian neo-Marxist economic theories developed after the Second World War, such as the importance attached to the external markets of capitalism and a rejection of the labor theory of value, as well as a neglect of the Marxian law of the falling rate of profits. Their economic ideas are rooted in Marxism and the analysis of new economic phenomena, including the early Keynesianism of John Maynard Keynes. Therefore, they should be considered as an early version of these theories.

The current crisis is one of the great crises punctuating the long history of capitalism, and to be properly understood it is vital to take into account its ongoing structural transformation. This book offers plural perspectives on the Great Recession, placing the analysis of finance, class and gender at the center of the debate. It begins with a comprehensive insight into the crisis, before moving on to focus on debt, asset inflation and financial fragility. Following chapters discuss global imbalances, structural monetary reform and the management of public finance, including a investigation of the Italian experience. The book concludes with novel contributions on the gender dimension of the crisis and the analogies between a nuclear and financial chain reaction.

The current crisis is one of the great crises punctuating the long history of capitalism, and to be properly understood it is vital to take into account its ongoing structural transformation. This book offers plural perspectives on the Great Recession, placing the analysis of finance, class and gender at the center of the debate. It begins with a comprehensive insight into the crisis, before moving on to focus on debt, asset inflation and financial fragility. Following chapters discuss global imbalances, structural monetary reform and the management of public finance, including a investigation of the Italian experience. The book concludes with novel contributions on the gender dimension of the crisis and the analogies between a nuclear and financial chain reaction.

Contents: Introduction Riccardo Bellofiore and Giovanna Vertova 1. The Great Recession and the Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalism Riccardo Bellofiore 2. The Crisis of the Early 21st Century: Marxian Perspective Gerard Dumenil and Dominique Levy 3. Marx, Keynes and Hayek and the Great Recession of 2008 Meghnad Desai 4. Fictitious Capital in the Context of Global Over-accumulation and Changing International Economic Power Relationship Francois Chesnais 5. Conventions and Disruptions Christian Marazzi 6. Debt, Class and Asset Inflation Jan Toporowski 7. Speculation, Financial Fragility and Stock-flow Consistency Jo Michell 8. A Structural Monetary Reform to Reduce Global Imbalances: Keynes' Plan Revisited to Avert International Payment Deficits Sergio Rossi 9. The True Rules of a Good Management of Public Finance. An Implication of the Fatal Euro-zone Crisis. Alain Parguez 10. Growth and Crisis in the Italian Economy Vittorio Valli 11. What's Gender got to do with the Great Recession? The Italian Case. Giovanna Vertova 12. Financial and Nuclear Meltdowns: the Fragility of Chain-reaction Critical Processes Alessandro Vercelli Index

The current crisis is one of the great crises punctuating the long history of capitalism, and to be properly understood it is vital to take into account its ongoing structural transformation. This book offers plural perspectives on the Great Recession, placing the analysis of finance, class and gender at the center of the debate. It begins with a comprehensive insight into the crisis, before moving on to focus on debt, asset inflation and financial fragility. Following chapters discuss global imbalances, structural monetary reform and the management of public finance, including a investigation of the Italian experience. The book concludes with novel contributions on the gender dimension of the crisis and the analogies between a nuclear and financial chain reaction.

The transition from centrally administered socialism to market capitalism was dominated by the orthodox model, in both the economic literature and economic policy. The IMF, World Bank, and mature market economies, the representatives of the orthodox thought, ensured that the conservative policies were introduced in transition economies. The provision of financial aid was tightened to the implementation of the shock therapy model. The results were a substantial fall in outputs, double-digit rates of unemployment and inflation, sizable depreciation of the exchange rates and current account deficits and the development of a Mafia economy. The aim of this paper is to offer an alternative goal for transition economies, based on Post Keynesian propositions. The goal of transition should be the development of a civilized market capitalist society. In what follows is a set of ideas about the desirable economic system proposed by Post Keynesian economists. The view of a good society expressed is a construction based on the Post Keynesian values, which most Post Keynesian economists subscribe to. The model developed is a stylized version of a view of a good society suggested by Post Keynesian economists. The foundation of a good society can be traced to Keynes, since "he indulged in an agreeable vision of a world where economics has ceased to be important and our grandchildren can begin to lead a civilised life" (Robinson, 1974, p. 10).

John Maynard Keynes was, probably, the political economist most acutely aware of the inadequacies of unfettered capitalism and of Soviet-style socialism. His social philosophy, to be most appropriately called social liberalism, does not form a tight system but is scattered over the whole of his work. The economic theory associated with the doctrine of social liberalism is classical-Keynesian political economy, the synthesis of post-Keynesian economics at the level of principles and, as such, the alternative to (liberal) neoclassical-Walrasian economics. This chapter explores the classical-Keynesian political economy, its genesis, its present state, and its implications for political philosophy and economic policy. It examines the making of classical-Keynesian political economy, the classical-Keynesian system of political economy, the role of finance and the interactions between the real and the financial sector, and classical-Keynesian political economy in the wider context of political philosophy and socioeconomic policies. The chapter concludes by considering some issues of transition from capitalism to social liberalism.

Translated from the Italian by Antoine Godin. The article gives an appraisal of Augusto Graziani's thought as a heterodox structural Keynesian. Graziani has always challenged the basic assumptions of orthodox theory by rejecting the initial definition of the economic and social world as being populated by identical individuals, where consumers are sovereign, technology is exogenous and money is neutral. Since the 1970s, Graziani's efforts have aimed at rebuilding on solid foundations the line of inquiry that sees capitalism as a ‘monetary economy of production’. Authors such as Schumpeter and Keynes, and before them Wicksell and Marx, were all key influences on Graziani's work. This theoretical attitude shaped Graziani's studies on the Italian economy within the European and the global landscapes. We are confronted here with an idea of state intervention where demand policies are not separated from supply-side policies, and are indeed embodied in a structural design to redefine the composition of production with great attention to the quality of labour. He reminds us that economic theory has to put at the heart of its discourse not the ‘imperfections’ of the market, but rather the ‘normality’ of power and conflict, not only between labour and capital, but also between fractions of capital, and between capitalisms.

This paper explores the similarities between post-Keynesian Economics (PKE) and Regulation Theory (RT). It is argued that, despite important differences between these traditions, the analytical contents of PKE and RT display broad similarities with respect to their treatments of the income-generating process, the crisis-prone nature of capitalism, and the institutional contingency of capitalist growth and development. This thesis is then exemplified and substantiated with reference to the 2007—2009 financial crisis and “Great Recession”. Specifically, it is shown that important strands of both PKE and RT characterize and were successful in anticipating the crisis as resulting from the exhaustion of a financialized growth process. Ce papier explore les similarités entre l’approche post-keynésienne (PKE) et la théorie de la régulation (TR). Malgré des différences importantes entre ces traditions, il apparaît que les contenus analytiques entre PKE et TR possèdent d’importantes similarités dans leur traitement de la production/répartition des revenus, la tendance intrinsèque du capitalisme à l’instabilité, les spécificités nationales des régimes de croissance et l’importance du rôle des institutions dans la croissance et le développement économique. Cette thèse peut être illustrée par l’épisode de la crise financière de 2007-2009 et la grande récession qui en a suivi. Particulièrement, les deux approches ont eu en commun de caractériser et d’anticiper très tôt la crise comme le résultat de la financiarisation du régime de croissance. Este artículo explora las similitudes entre el enfoque post-keynesiano (PKE) y la teoría de la regulación (TR). A pesar de las importantes diferencias entre esas tradiciones, se pone en evidencia que los contenidos analíticos entre PKE y TR tienen importantes similitudes en el análisis de la producción/distribución del ingreso, la tendencia intrínseca del capitalismo a la inestabilidad, las especificidades nacionales de los regímenes de crecimiento y la importancia del papel de las instituciones en el crecimiento y en el desarrollo económico. Esta tesis puede ser ilustrada por el episodio de la crisis financiera de 2007-2009 y de la gran recesión que le siguió. Particularmente, los dos enfoques han tenido en común la virtud de caracterizar y anticipar de manera temprana la crisis como el resultado de la financiarizacion del régimen de crecimiento.