Search

This article shows that post-Keynesian economics is more closely tied to the proposal of equality of place rather than that of equality of opportunity. More precisely, it advocates for the approach of utilizing equality of place as a means to attain equality of opportunity. These are two conceptions of social policy. Equality of opportunity distinguishes between poor and non-poor, and state intervention is focused on poor people. This mode of intervention promotes individuals' improvements in human capital, assuming that the poor can reach the position they want through a competitive process. In contrast, the idea of equality of place is intertwined with the concept of decommodification and supply-side subsidies. It envisions a scenario in which markets might not ensure that people can access fundamental rights. Consequently, it suggests an alternate role for state intervention. Because some heterodox and post-Keynesian authors have identified with the principle of equality of opportunity, it is important to clarify the nature of the relationship between social policy and post-Keynesian economics. The principle of equality of place can provide a framework of social policy that is consistent with the tenets of the post-Keynesian tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines Chapter 5 'Effective Demand and Employment' in Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations by Marc Lavoie. This chapter covers one of the most distinctive contributions of the post-Keynesians, and one of its most profound insights. Analysis of effective demand and employment is a crucial and distinct foundation of post-Keynesian economics. Identifying the determinants of the level of employment and output represent one of the most significant contributions of post-Keynesian analysis. This is in total contrast to mainstream theory, according to which the level of output and employment are determined in the labour market, with labour seen as just another commodity, and the wage rate playing the role of the price equating supply and demand for labour. For post-Keynesians, the main determinant of the level of output and employment is the level of effective demand rather than the wage rate. Their views on the labour markets, taking into account segmented labour markets and efficiency wages, are considered. The determinants of profits and the profit share play important roles in the determination of employment and output. It is argued that fiscal policy plays a vital role in economic stabilisation, and that the typical arguments regarding its limitations are incorrect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper celebrates the contributions to Keynesian theory of the late Brazilian economist Fernando Cardim de Carvalho (1953–2018). We use Carvalho's 12 refereed English-language papers on Keynesian theory — the first published in 1983, the last in 2016 — as a point of departure for reflecting on two questions confronting macroeconomists today. First, what is the work of the economist — in what does economic analysis consist? Second, in this post-crisis era, how might macroeconomics — and specifically Keynesian macroeconomics — be rebuilt? Carvalho's writings show that the work of the economist can be as much about understanding the raw elements of human behavior in the real world — what we will call the foundational level of analysis — as about constructing models depicting the momentum of economic systems incorporating these behaviors. Adopting this approach to the practice of theory leads to insights and frameworks that would be lost if macroeconomic theorizing were equated with formal model building: it will enrich exchanges among economists, deepen the conceptual roots of Post Keynesian macroeconomics, and facilitate interdisciplinary exchange. [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]