著者

松嶋 敦茂

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.31, no.31, pp.34-46, 1993 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

32

---

The writer examines ideas on the interpersonal comparison of utility (ICU) conceived by economists ranging over the period from the mid-19th c. through 1940. These ideas may be classified into three types: (1) one which shows more or less negative attitude to the possibility of ICU as a basis for economic policy, (2) one which appreciates ICU as the foundation of economic policy, (3) one which, sharing the appreciation with type (2), restricts the mode and scope of its application. And the choice of a particular type out of these alternatives involves what problems to set up as a subject matter and what kind of epistemological criteria to adopt. It may be characterised as a sort of paradigm choice.

著者

御崎 加代子

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.30, no.30, pp.55-62, 1992 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

13

---

Léon Walras founded his Political Economy on the idea of “equality” of the French Revolution. He concluded the economic inequality principally resulted from the landownership, and the solution he gave to this problem was the nationalization of land.Concerning the equality between the capitalist and working classes, Walras belived the free competition would realize that in a double sense. First, it would cause the assimilation of the two classes, which means “the equality in fact”. And secondly, the free competition would play the role of the imparitial and transcendental judge in the determination of the rate of wage and interest, which would bring “the equality in right” of the two classes.But Walras's concept of free competition was not only an “ideal type ” based on an obsevation of the real economic order but also a norm which was to be realized universally.His “économie politique appliquée” was given the role of organizing the free competition in a society on the basis of the conclusion of his “économie politique pure”, but regarding the labour market, he could not show concretely how to organize the free competition.Moreover, Walras's entrepreneur, which the state should take on in the real world, was expected to realize the idea of equality by observing the just output so that no “bénéfice” could be gained.

著者

服部 茂幸

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.37, no.37, pp.95-106, 1999 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

35

---

Although it is often said that Kalecki discovered the General Theory independently, his economics seems to ignore monetary factors. But monetary economics in Keynes's sense does not depend on whether there is so-called money in an economic theory. Keynes shows that, when contracts of debt are circulated socially, they will become money. Kalecki also remarked this endogeneity of money. In the actual economy, however, contracts of debts will be restricted because of uncertainty. Kalecki insisted that a firm's investment may be restricted by their own savings because of increasing risk. Monetary economics must address this kind of decision-making under the condition of an uncertain economy. In this area, Kalecki has made important contributions.Kalecki emphasised that “Capitalists earn what they spend, and workers spend what they earn.” We show that Kalecki's asymmetry is based on differences in financial constraints between capitalists and workers. Because of their more relaxed financial constraints, capitalists can spend without earning, while because of their tight financial constraints, workers' consumption restricted by their wages. We can develop a Kaleckian economics through integrating monetary factors. Kalecki's asymmetry also suggests that, in the monetary economy, economic agents with relatively relaxed financial constraints can play an active role. Therefore, monetary economics in terms of Kalecki's economics must include class distinctions.

著者

奧田 敬

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.43, no.43, pp.87-103, 2003 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

123

---

“Economics was primarily an Italian science until the last quarter of the eighteenth century”. Thus, an oracle of Schumpeter has inspired a few Japanese scholars to investigate Italian precursors of modern economic theory, with special regard to F. Galiani. But the cynical Galiani was also, as Ajello points out, a machinist of ‘illuminated’ absolutism by which Queen Maria Carolina corrupted every serious effort of Neapolitan Philosophes and transformed them into a ‘mimic’ of reform.The aim of this paper is to verify, under such circumstances, the Fortuna of the socalled Genovesian tradition (by Di Battista), which had been celebrated by the ‘first’ chair of political economy in the world (1754).In the European-wide circulation of economic thought, Antonio Genovesi had chosen Great Britain as a model of civilized commercial society, though he criticized its tendency toward imperialism and foretold a postcolonial crisis. His Economia civile was an idealization of England in which property rights should be ensured by the equity of justice and everyone's industry can be stimulated by the domestic free trade, so that the development of a balanced national economy might be carefully protected by ‘mercantilist’ policies. Moreover, this idealization looked something like an Arcadia of virtuous gentries and independent free-holders. The reality of Southern Italy, however, did not permit such an eclogue. Therefore, the quest for a missing middle class (ordine mezzano) became the primary theme of the Genovesian tradition.Among Genovesi's followers, young G. Filangieri expected a utopia of ‘American Liberty, ’ while old G. Palmieri, as president of the Supreme Council of Finances, pursued the transformation of feudal nobilities into modern landowners. His scheme, however, resulted in a kind of ‘cynic economy’ that imposed abstinence on the poor people.Why the precocious ‘institutionalization of economics’ was ultimately fruitless (see the tragedy of 1799) remains mysterious. Soon after Genovesi's death in 1769, the Neapolitan Enlightenment had become gloomy, and there we may find in F. Grimaldi another example of exalting the Diogenean lifestyle, which sheltered freemasons and canalized them into the Italian Jacobinism. Regardless, further research is required with regard to the vast economic literature produced by the contemporaries of Genovesi and by the first generation of his disciples: G. B. M. Jannucci, N. Fortunato, F. Villano, F. Longano, M. Torcia, and so on.During the Napoleonic era we finally encounter the solitary exception among the mediocre successors of Genovesian professorship: L. d. S. Cagnazzi was considered to be a pioneer of Smithianism in the Kingdom of Naples and a founder of the Italian school of statistics. However, Cagnazzi's substantive liberalism with regard to the macroeconomy was coexistent with his insistence on the minutest interventionism in the microeconomy, and “the role of a entrouvable [sic] bourgeoisie came to be occupied by a new class of bureaucratic-intellectuals” within such ‘administrativism’ (Salvemini). We therefore cannot easily conclude that there was a significant break nor a seamless continuity with the Genovesian tradition.According to Robertson, who emphasizes the Venturian concept of the Enlightenment ‘above national context’, the Scottish and Neapolitan economists were exemplars “of the achievements of the political economy of Enlightenment.” Free trade and protectionism were two different but complementary alternatives that derived from a common intellectual framework of the cosmopolitan century. However, it must also be considered that the 19th century economic theories were influenced by the international diffusion of a classical political economy. As the honeymoon of cosmopolitanism

著者

江頭 進

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.37, no.37, pp.82-94, 1999 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

22

---

The purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between F. A. Hayek's theory and his observation on the real economy. His early works, written in German, did not wholly reflect on his monetary business cycle theory; some critical gap lies between them, and his disregard for several important factors led him to formulate a faulty theory.We are concerned not with pointing out the limitations of Hayek's theory, but with considering the reason why his theory appears to have taken precedence over his previous observations. The first section is an introduction. In the second section, we survey his works, which were mainly composed in his Austrian days. The third section shows the outline of his business cycle theory, then, in the fourth section, we consider a possible explanation for the gap between his theory and observations, and conclude that it resulted from the influence of Mises.

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

鍋島 直樹

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.31, no.31, pp.67-79, 1993 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

26

---

This paper examines some problems in Keynes's social philosophy. Especially, we consider what economic system Keynes envisioned by focusing on themes of freedom, planning and socialism.In The Economic Consequence of the Peace (1919), Keynes recognized that the foundation of existing social order was fragile. From this perspective, he turned to reject laissez-faire capitalism. Nevertheless freedom continued to be the essential principle for his thought. In short, he thought that freedom was to be defended, although laissez-faire could not do this task. Therefore Keynes advocated introducing some elements of planning to defend freedom. Namely laissez-faire was not a sacred element of liberalism for him.Keynes was opposed to national socialism. It was not because he did not sympathize with socialistic intentions and purposes, but because he considered that Marxism was an old-fashioned doctrine and it could not overcome the distress of Britain in those days. Keynes called his own political belief ‘liberal socialism’ or ‘new liberalism’. It meant the system which was based on private ownership of the means of production and was characterised by active interventions of the state. The policy for this vision was a ‘socialization of the investment’. Keynes attached importance to the freedom of individuals and the diversity of life above all. Hence he finally prefered to defend the free enterprise system, and tried to reform it.

著者

鍋島 直樹

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.36, no.36, pp.77-89, 1998 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

49

---

At present, many heterodox economists are concerned with the economics of Michal Kalecki. However, their vision of the historical development of capitalist economies is somewhat different from that of Kalecki himself. This paper makes clear the nature of Kalecki's theory of capitalist development by contrasting his theory with that of the Kaleckians', and considers its significance in the present.While Kalecki viewed capitalist economies as essentially oligopolistic systems, he did not hold that a rise in the degree of monopoly necessarily brought a stagnationist tendency into an economic system. He explained the slowing down in economic growth in the later stages of capitalist development by a semiexogenous factor, namely a decline in the intensity of innovations. Contrastingly, Kaleckians such as Steindl, Baran, Sweezy and Cowling argued that the secular stagnation in capitalist economies is generated endogenously by the concentration and centralization of capital.At present, in studying the process of capitalist development, we have to adopt the view that capitalism changes through the alternation of long-term growth and long-term crisis. In doing so, we should learn from Kalecki's viewpoint that economic growth depends on past economic, social and technological developments.

著者

田中 敏弘

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.45-51, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

19

---

This essay treats the author's study in the current of the studies of the history of American economic thought in the United States and Japan. First, the essay discusses why the history of American economic thought is regarded as exceptional, and what is ‘American-ness’ in the history of American economic thought. J. Dorfman's landmark 5-volume series, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 1606-1933 (1946-59) and the development of its study after that in the United States are briefly surveyed.Second, the main studies of it in Japan are evaluated in the following articles by the author: “Joseph Dorfman and the Studies in the History of American Economic Thought in Japan” (1994), “Thorstein Veblen Studies in Japan: A Bibliography” (1997), and “The Studies in American Institutional Economics in Japan” (1999).Third, the author's main works on American Neo-Classical economics, especially on J. B. Clark, and on Old Institutional Economics are placed in the current of the studies in the United States and Japan. This includes 16 articles on J. B. Clark, including “The Economic Thought of J. B. Clark: An Interpretation of ‘The Clark Problem’ ”in Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, ed. by D. E. Moggridge (1990); “The Correspondence of J. B. Clark Written to F. H. Giddings, 1886-1930” with an introductory essay, “The Development of J. B. Clark's Economic Thought and F. H. Giddings” in Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, ed. by W. J. Samuels, JAI Press, 2000; and A Study on the History of American Economics: Neo-Classical School and Institutional Economics (1993, written in Japanese).Fourth, the so-called institutionalization of the study and teaching of this field and the organization of the studies in Japan by the author are explained in, for example, an introduction to a lecture on the history of American economic thought as a regular subject at Kwansei Gakuin University; the founding of the Japanese Society for the History of American Economic Thought in 1995; and the publication of the first essays in this field in Japan- one year after the publication of the essay Economic Mind in America, ed. by M. Rutherford (1998), Economic Thought of the Americans: A Historical Development- ed. by the author (1999, written in Japanese), which contains 9 essays from Hamilton to Shumpeter with the editor's introduction, “The Development of Economic Thought in the United States”.

著者

服部 茂幸

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

no.37, pp.95-106, 1999-11

著者

太子堂 正称

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.43, no.43, pp.52-67, 2003 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

27

---

The purpose of this paper is to compare the arguments of D. Hume and A. Smith with those of F. A. Hayek, a representative of modern liberalism, based on analysis of the justice theory, and to explain common ideas and differences between them.While the thought of Hayek is based on a Kantian position, that of Hume and Smith is based on Scottish tradition. They share, however, a common viewpoint of “Empirical natural jurisprudence.” As such, although they differ in their ideological bases, there are ways in which Hayek paid close attention to Hume and Smith.Hayek names his liberalism “anti-rationalism” and believes Hume and Smith to be his pioneers. The arguments of these three philosophers have in common the concept of a negative justice theory based on the natural law tradition. Hayek inherited the idea of “the sense of justice” from Hume's notion of “a general sense of common interest” grounded on “conventions.” In addition, he succeeded in criticizing the “man of system” who will design or construct social order by a human's pure reason, and Smith's concept of a “great society.”While these three philosophers dismiss the notion of a human's pure reason (ex., Descartes), the foundation of reason from a theological perspective (ex., Hutcheson), and law positivism (ex., Kelsen), they ask for an historical and secular formation of the foundation of a natural law (or natural jurisprudence). The above constitutes their “Empirical natural jurisprudence”. The traditions of natural law before Hume were based entirely on teleology or Platonism. But Hume and Smith eliminated both teleology and Platonism from their notion of natural jurisprudence. Hayek inherited this perspective from both and combined it with his Kantian position. More specifically, Hayek's social theory belongs to a genealogy of natural jurisprudence that has historical and Kantian-transcendental character. “The sense of justice” that is historically formulated operates as a “Kantian-regulative idea.”The justice theories of Hayek, Hume, and Smith are all based on the “limited generosity” of humans, a “scarcity of a sufficient means of desire, ” and “self-interest.” For the three philosophers, general “law” appears to be a “reasonable expectation” formed over the long run throughout history.There are, however, differences among these three with regard to what they believed to be the appropriate role of government and to “cultural evolution.” Although Hayek believes in the idea of spontaneous order, in which evolution occurs as an unintended result of human action, Hume and Smith were deeply aware of the need for artificial roles in the evolution of various institutions.In Hayek's theory, there is no concept of “sympathy” or “virtue, ” as seen in Hume and Smith. This point greatly separates both Hume and Smith from Hayek. If we compare Hume and Smith, Smith respected virtue more than Hume, and Hume considered custom to be more important than did Smith. Such differences in their theory result from methodological differences, and they are important to their differences in their social theory, especially concerning the problems of government and the public sphere. Smith's concept of “sympathy” was more sophisticated than that of Hume, and he established the unique concept of an impartial spectator. In contrast, Hayek developed the idea of abstract knowledge (based on Kantian-apriorism).

著者

松尾 匡

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.45, no.45, pp.117-119, 2004 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

藤井 賢治

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.134-145, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

35

---

The Chicago School has changed since Knight's time. Though the modern Chicago School puts an emphasis solely on the positivistic aspect of economics, Knight emphasizes the ethical aspect of economics at the same time. This change corresponds to that of liberalism in Chicago.Putting evaluation of these changes aside, we try to understand why and how Knight thought ethics and economics are inseparable. We find his basic vision of a society to be consisting of problem-solvers. For a person trying to find out what he or she really wants, freedom is needed, not to get the best, but to have a chance to try. Therefore economic activities consist of two interrelated parts: seeking better values and satisfying wants. Correspondingly two kinds of freedom must clearly be distinguished. One is freedom as an end in itself, and the other is freedom as an instrument. Of course, freedom as an end in itself can only be defended on ethical grounds.Similarly, scientific activities can be understood as consisting of two parts: seeking “better truth” and getting useful results. According to Knight, defining truth is also a matter of value judgment.Thus, economics is value-loaded in two meanings. One is that the behavior of seeking better values, i. e., freedom as an end in itself, is value-loaded. The other is that truth, which economics as one branch of science explores, is value-loaded.

著者

安川 悦子

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.35, no.35, pp.141-149, 1997 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

28

著者

菱山 泉

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.32, no.32, pp.1-15, 1994 (Released:2010-08-05)

---

Leontief's input-output analysis and Sraffa's production model are, I think, founded on Quesnay's idea in the Tableau économique that is ‘the original picture of the system of production and consumption as a circular process’.This paper is intended as an attempt to rethink Quesnay's Tableau économique—centered in the «zig-zag» and the «formule»—through the looking glass of the intersectoral approach, with adequate reference to my old paper of the Tableau (1960), and in comparison with the recent Italian article: G. Candela and V. Denicolò, Coerenza statica ed incoerenza dinamica dei «Tableau Écomonique», Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Ecomonia, Anno XLI (Nuova Serie), 1984, pp. 605-637.Sections II, III and IV of the paper are devoted mainly to throwing light on the parallels and distinctions between the «zig-zag» and the «formule» in the static and dynamic context of the Tableau économique. Section V then explains the analytical relationship between Quesnay's Tableau économique and the Sraffian production model in which is attempted the modern formulation of the Ricardian theory of value and distribution in the framework of the Quesnay-type circular process of production with a surplus.

著者

水田 洋

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.24, no.24, pp.65, 1986 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

高 哲男

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.19, no.19, pp.9-17, 1981 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

安藤 隆穂

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

no.39, pp.20-27, 2001-05

著者

平井 俊顕

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.42, no.42, pp.18-31, 2002 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

35

---

The purpose of this paper is to examine Keynes as a philosopher in view of the relation among A Treatise on Probability (1921), Ramsey's criticism (1926), Keynes' acceptance of Ramsey's criticism (1931), “My Early Beliefs” (1938), and Keynes' criticism of Tinbergen (1939).The conclusion is as follows:(1) In his youth, Keynes firmly believed in human rationality, as described in his philosophical work, A Treatise on Probability and his memoir, “MyEarly Beliefs.” However, in the midst of the chaos of post-WW 1 Europe he became more and more skeptical of human rationality and showed a greater awareness of the emotional aspect of human nature, which is typically shown in his criticism of the market society and his advocacy of the New Liberalism in The End of Laissez-Faire (1926). As the years went by, Keynes' skepticism became deeper and deeper and came to stress the importance of custom and tradition, while he came to revalue the market society in face of the realities of the Soviet society.(2) Keynes abandoned the most essential part of his A Treatise on Probability, which regards probability as degrees of rational belief between propositions, and the justification of induction based on it, in the face of Ramsey's criticism. This is evidently recognizable in his obituary of Ramsey and “My Early Beliefs”. However, he did not abandon his theory of probability completely, which is shown in his critical review of Tinbergen (1939). In Part V (The Foundations of Statistical Inference) of A Treatise on Probability, Keynes had criticized the mathematical use of statistical frequencies (Methods of Laplace) and defended the inductive use of them (Methods of Lexis). Keynes' criticism of Tinbergen's method is mainly based on this stance. We have Keynes who accepted Ramsey's criticism on the one hand, and retained the Methods of Lexis on the other. A logical fissure seems to run between Part III (Induction and Analogy) and Part V.

著者

黒木 龍三

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.37, no.37, pp.28-43, 1999 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

33

---

In the General Theory, Keynes criticized the classical idea of the automatic adjustment of markets towards full employment, and emphasized the role of the demand side of the market in ensuring the possibility of an underemployment equilibrium. The roots of this criticism can be found already in A Tract on Monetary Reform and A Treatise on Money, though in these works Keynes still maintained the classical equilibrium methodology. After the publication of the Treatise, Keynes deepened the study of the role of money in transactions, and abandoned the classical idea concerning the relationship between savings and investment. In fact, he conceived the idea that savings are generated by investment. According to this new view he espoused, which emphasized the creditdriven nature of the economy, the rate of interest must be equal not to the natural rate of interest but to the monetary one.Professor Izumi Hishiyama proposed the interpretation that Keynes's new idea concerning the determination of the rate of interest could be traced back to the controversy between Hayek and Sraffa. Taking into account Hishiyama's view, in this paper we show that, in his 1937 papers, Keynes implied that the banking system can have only an indirect effect on the level of the long-term interest rate that governs investment, although it can affect, temporarily, the level of industrial activity through the endogenous creation of money and the control of the short-term interest rate.