著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, no.1, pp.66-76, 2007-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Post Keynesian endogenous money supply theory appeared as one of the modern theory of credit money some twenty years ago. In recent years, while it keeping close relationship with French and Italian monetary circuit theory, the domain of the theory has expanded gradually. With regard to the role of government or state, the theory of endogenous money pays attention to the central bank which offers the means of settlement between commercial banks and plays the role of lender of last resort, but actually the state establishes money, and practices the control of money. In this respect Chartalism or state theory of money revive in the context of Post Keynesian in recent years. The relationship between the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism comes into question, because in the theory of endogenous money money supply is endogenous, while in Chartalism at a first glance exogenous money supply by the state is assumed. The two theories have not only a background of Post Keynesian, but also both theories have complementarities. That is, the theory of endogenous money deals the money of private level, and Chartalism argues the money of state level. However, both theories share nominalism especially in the theory of nature of money. In Chartalism the nature of money is regarded as establishment of money by the state, and Chartalistic money is a nominal one which has basically no relation to the real value, in the theory of endogenous money bank money also does not presuppose the relation to the real value of money. In this way, both theories share common ground, but there are differences. First, in the theory of nature of money the definition of money and various points are different. Second, both theories diverge in the role of the state. In the theory of endogenous money although the role of the state is generally assumed in relation to the function of central bank, the relationship between money and state, and the problem of Chartalism is not thoroughly examined. The placement of the state in Chartalism is unique and different from the theory of endogenous money. In this paper, aiming at clarifying what relationship both theories have, two points are examined. First, we compare both theories in the theory of nature of money, and we consider in what significance money in the real world is Chartalistic. Second, we investigate the role of the state, especially the function of the central bank respectively. The conclusions are three-fold. First, the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism share nominalism in the theory of nature of money. Nominalism is important in that it is a basis of the view against commodity theory of money. Second, two theories are different except nominalism of money in the theory of nature of money. In the theory of endogenous money the state plays important role in that it designate money as means of final settlement, this is the significance of Chartalism in the theory of endogenous money. Third, the role of the state in the theory of endogenous money moreover emerges as a function of central bank. The function of lender of last resort which is emphasized especially in Post Keynesian theory plays important role which maintains monetary and financial system, while in Chartalism central bank plays the role of bank of government, and does not conflict with central bank in the theory of endogenous money, but it has complementary function. Particularly both theories adopt the operation of short term interest rate as a measure of policy, which plays important role in the control of money.

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, no.4, pp.18, 2019 (Released:2021-01-15)

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, no.1, pp.66-76, 2007

---

Post Keynesian endogenous money supply theory appeared as one of the modern theory of credit money some twenty years ago. In recent years, while it keeping close relationship with French and Italian monetary circuit theory, the domain of the theory has expanded gradually. With regard to the role of government or state, the theory of endogenous money pays attention to the central bank which offers the means of settlement between commercial banks and plays the role of lender of last resort, but actually the state establishes money, and practices the control of money. In this respect Chartalism or state theory of money revive in the context of Post Keynesian in recent years. The relationship between the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism comes into question, because in the theory of endogenous money money supply is endogenous, while in Chartalism at a first glance exogenous money supply by the state is assumed. The two theories have not only a background of Post Keynesian, but also both theories have complementarities. That is, the theory of endogenous money deals the money of private level, and Chartalism argues the money of state level. However, both theories share nominalism especially in the theory of nature of money. In Chartalism the nature of money is regarded as establishment of money by the state, and Chartalistic money is a nominal one which has basically no relation to the real value, in the theory of endogenous money bank money also does not presuppose the relation to the real value of money. In this way, both theories share common ground, but there are differences. First, in the theory of nature of money the definition of money and various points are different. Second, both theories diverge in the role of the state. In the theory of endogenous money although the role of the state is generally assumed in relation to the function of central bank, the relationship between money and state, and the problem of Chartalism is not thoroughly examined. The placement of the state in Chartalism is unique and different from the theory of endogenous money. In this paper, aiming at clarifying what relationship both theories have, two points are examined. First, we compare both theories in the theory of nature of money, and we consider in what significance money in the real world is Chartalistic. Second, we investigate the role of the state, especially the function of the central bank respectively. The conclusions are three-fold. First, the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism share nominalism in the theory of nature of money. Nominalism is important in that it is a basis of the view against commodity theory of money. Second, two theories are different except nominalism of money in the theory of nature of money. In the theory of endogenous money the state plays important role in that it designate money as means of final settlement, this is the significance of Chartalism in the theory of endogenous money. Third, the role of the state in the theory of endogenous money moreover emerges as a function of central bank. The function of lender of last resort which is emphasized especially in Post Keynesian theory plays important role which maintains monetary and financial system, while in Chartalism central bank plays the role of bank of government, and does not conflict with central bank in the theory of endogenous money, but it has complementary function. Particularly both theories adopt the operation of short term interest rate as a measure of policy, which plays important role in the control of money.

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.46, no.46, pp.48-61, 2004 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

43

---

R. G. Hawtrey was an economist and officer of the Treasury and a contemporary of J. M. Keynes. He made notable contributions to various fields, and particularly to those of money and finance. He is largely a forgotten economist, though since the 1980s some studies of his theory have been undertaken by authors in various fields. The evaluations of his thought are diverse, though most authors agree that he developed a theory focused on money and credit. There are three types of studies that attribute to Hawtrey a critical tendency toward criticizing the quantity theory of money, denying the commodity theory of money, and emphasizing money as credit money. First, there are studies that evaluate his theory as one of the monetary theories of Cambridge School. Second, there are studies that stress his relation to Keynes. Third, there are studies that evaluate his theory from the viewpoint of modern theories of credit money; that is, from a Post Keynesian and Circulationist viewpoint.However, there are at least three points that are not well argued in those studies. First, there is the theory of credit money based on Hawtrey's monetary economics. Second, although the theory of trade cycle has received attention as his macroeconomics, there is the process of monetary circulation as the basis of trade cycle theory. Third, that is to emphasize the role of bank. Formerly, although studies have emphasized the “dealer” as an original factor of Hawtrey's theory of macroeconomics, the relation between the “dealer” and the theory of credit money was not emphasized. On the contrary, in the studies that emphasize money and credit, the place of the dealer was not clear. Therefore, to integrate the two positions we focus on the bank, which is defined as the “dealer in debts.” The bank is defined in the theory of credit money, and it is important to clarify the relation between the theory of credit money and Hawtrey's macroeconomic theory. The bank as well as the dealer plays not only the role of a sector in his macroeconomics, but also because of its dominance over the dealer the bank plays a central role in macroeconomic theory.To clarify these three points is the aim of this paper, and the conclusions are threefold. First, Hawtrey developed the theory of substance of money based on the credit money theory. His theory of substance of money could cope with the neoclassical argument that defines money as a medium of exchange and is grounded on commodity money. Second, there is the process of monetary circulation in his macroeconomic theory. This is a kind of stationary state in which the economy does not fluctuate, and a benchmark of the theory. Third, the bank plays an important role. The bank is defined in the theory of credit money, and links the theory of credit money to macroeconomic theory. The bank is defined as a kind of dealer, which is Hawtrey's original concept. His macroeconomic theory can be understood as the four sector model consisting of producer, consumer, bank, and dealer.

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

一橋大学

雑誌

一橋論叢 (ISSN:00182818)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.122, no.6, pp.787-801, 1999-12-01

被引用文献数

2

---

論文タイプ||論説

著者

内藤 敦之 池田 毅 野崎 道哉 石倉 雅男

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.60, no.1, pp.141-163, 2018 (Released:2019-09-03)

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.58, no.2, pp.37-39, 2017 (Released:2019-11-30)

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, no.1, pp.126-127, 2013 (Released:2019-11-28)

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.2, pp.130-131, 2006-12-20 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.38, no.38, pp.146-157, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

28

---

After publishing the General Theory, Keynes introduced a fourth motive of holding money called the ‘finance motive.’ There are not many studies on Keynes's articles after 1937 by historians of economic thought, but there are by comparison many papers by Post Keynesians. First, in this paper I investigate the process of formation of the finance motive according to Ohlin's critiques. Second, I explore the controversy between Keynes and Robertson. Third, I consider the relationship of Post Keynesian interpretation to the controversy between Keynes and Robertson, and last, I examine the position of the finance motive.The conclusions of this paper are: First, the finance motive is introduced by responding to Ohlin's critiques and is considered to be a concession to Ohlin, but the core of liquidity preference theory is not revised. Second, Robertson's critique shows that the banking system can be illiquid, but the reason for Keynes's neglect of Robertson's critique is that Keynes implicitly considered the case of endogenous money supply. Third, the view of regarding the finance motive as a fourth motive is more close to Keynes's aim than is the view of connecting the finance motive and the transactions motive.

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

啓文社書房 ; 2018-

雑誌

クライテリオン = Criterion : 表現者 : 「危機」と対峙する保守思想誌

巻号頁・発行日

no.8, pp.78-84, 2019-09

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済理論学会事務局 ; 2004-

雑誌

季刊経済理論 = Political economy quarterly (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.55, no.4, pp.18-27, 2019-01

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.3, pp.66-74, 2004-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Theory of liquidity preference has been a point of debate in Post Keynesian endogenous money supply theory. Formally in endogenous money framework money is an endogenous variable and interest rate is an exogenous variable, while in liquidity preference theory interest rate is endogenous. In this debate holizontalists deny liquidity preference as determining factor of interest rate and contend exogenous interest rate, while structuralists try to place liquidity preference positively in endogenous money supply theory. In recent years French-Italian circulationists take part in this debate. There are many similarities between circulationists and holizontalists, and theory of monetary circulation has been introduced into Post Keynesian monetary theory. In the debate on liquidity preference focus of discussion is mainly on liquidity preference as theory of interest rate determination, and there are few studies which examine in detail how liquidity preference as demand of money works. Accordingly in this paper from a standpoint of Post Keynesian theory we investigate theory of monetary circulation, and clarify how liquidity preference and investment decision act in the framework of monetary circulation. In section II of this paper we survey the dealings of liquidity preference theory in Post Keynesian literature, and examine the debate in endogenous money supply theory. In section III we investigate the position of liquidity preference in the framework of monetary circulation theory by carefully distinguishing liquidity preference and portfolio selection. In the last section as a conclusion we consider the position of liquidity preference theory in this framework, and clarify the possibility of this framework. Conclusions of this paper are: (i) First, in liquidity preference theory there are two sides of determination theory of interest rate and theory of demand for money. Liquidity preference theory as determination theory of interest rate is not consistent with endogenous money supply theory, and liquidity preference as theory of demand for money plays important role in monetary circulation theory. (ii) Secondly, in the theory of endogenous money supply liquidity preference theory is not determination theory of interest rate, but it is integrated. Because transaction motive and finance motive in the classification of motive for holding money by Keynes are treated in endogenous money supply theory. Speculative motive which is demand as a stock is rather problematic. In the process of monetary circulation this motive does not occur until money comes in the hand of workers. Workers do not consume all the money they receive, and the part they do not consume is saving. If liquidity preference of workers increases, effective demand decreases. That is, liquidity preference of workers leads to leakage of money from the system, determine the level of effective demand, and affect the level of activity. The central bank basically determines short term rate of interest, nevertheless liquidity preference of bank has some influence on lending rates and deposit rates, and liquidity preference of participants of financial market affect long term rate of interest. Finance motive is demand for finance which is necessary for investment in advance, and this is the starting point of monetary circulation theory. (iii) Thirdly, in the framework of monetary circulation principle of effective demand has also play important role. Because liquidity preference of workers affects consumption by deciding saving, as a result it determines effective demand. Effective demand determines revenue of firm, and affect action of next step of bank and firm. In this sense principle of effective demand place central in this framework. (iv) Fourthly, the place of portfolio selection in this framework is the problem to be solved. In this framework financial market plays only complementary role. The role is that bank and(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

大月短期大学

雑誌

基盤研究(C)

巻号頁・発行日

2017-04-01

---

本年度は基本的な文献のサーベイを中心に研究を行った。第一に金融化論に関する文献の検討を行った。ポスト・ケインジアンによるものを中心に、金融化論において政策がどのような役割を果たし、どのような作用を及ぼしているかという点を検討した。第二に、マクロ経済レジーム論の検討を行った。ここでは、近年のボワイエなどによって展開されているレギュラシオン理論の金融主導型レジームと認知資本主義論のレジーム論を対象にサーベイを行い、政策がどのような機能を果たし、マクロ経済連関にどのような影響を与えているかを検討した。第三に、認知資本主義論の検討を行った。認知資本主義論はネグリ、ハートの影響の下、労働の変容とIT化が政治、社会に及ぼす影響だけでなく、経済に与える影響に関しても分析を行っている。ここでは、経済学的な分析におけるネオ・リベラリズム論への言及を中心にサーベイを行い、金融主導型レジームとネオ・リベラリズム政策の関係を考察した。第四にネオ・リベラリズム関係の文献の検討を行った。金融を重視した文献も含めてネオ・リベラリズムの概念を明らかにした上で、ネオ・リベラリズム政策の概要とその役割についてサーベイを行い、金融(化)との関係を中心に検討した。第五に、先駆的なネオ・リベラリズム研究であるフーコーの『生政治の誕生』を中心に、フーコーのネオ・リベラリズム観についての検討を行った。成果としては第一に、一般向けではあるが、「経済政策の哲学―ネオリベラリズムのフーコーによる分析―」(県民コミュニティーカレッジ、2017年10月25日、大月短期大学)という題で講演を行い、フーコーがネオ・リベラリズムをどのように捉えているかという点を検討した。第二に、ミンスキーにおける流動性選好説を検討した論文「ミンスキーと流動性選好」(『大月短大論集』第49号)を発表した

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

大月短期大学

雑誌

大月短大論集 (ISSN:02853779)

巻号頁・発行日

no.44, pp.23-47, 2013-03

著者

内藤 敦之

出版者

大月短期大学

雑誌

大月短大論集 (ISSN:02853779)

巻号頁・発行日

no.40, pp.37-64, 2009-03