著者
吉田 暁
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.45, no.2, pp.15-25, 2008-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

I have advocated the endogeneity of money supply following the views of M. Nishikawa and J. Itakura as well as those of N. Kalldor and B. J. Moor. As Moor appropriately wrote, "Currently the standard paradigm, especially in the United States, treats the central bank as determining the money base and thence the money stock. / Modern monetary theory has inherited an approach to money that was more appropriate in a world where money was a commodity, usually gold or silver, without fully recognizing the fundamental differences between commodity and credit money." These views, however, have not been widely accepted, especially among Japanese Marxian economists. Some of them have criticized the endogenous money supply theory. This article is a counter-criticism of some most criticizing arguments, mainly those of professor H. Noda and professor T. Itoh Marxian economists quite often express their views based on what Marx said, especially in "The Capital". Marx introduced capitalistic money through the logical developments of the value form, and said that gold would become the main material of money due to its physical characteristics. Then, it is not strange that their views on credit money are based on gold. They have regarded that the gold convertibility is the essence of credit money. They do not attach greater importance to the causes of issuance or withdrawal of credit money, that is, the connection between the supply of credit and the supply of money. In the modern world gold as money does not exist. But they tacitly regard fiat money as a replacement of gold, in other word, exogenous money. Another point I stressed in this article is that those who are severely critical to the endogenous money supply theory misunderstand Marx's logical way of writing. In "The Capital" vol. 1 and 2, there are no credit systems, no credit money. There is only commodity money (gold) introduced at the money theory (vol. 1). At the reproduction charts (vol. 2), his premise is each capitalist has a certain amount of money which is needed for the purchase of materials and the payment of wages etc. Credit system and credit money are the problems of vol. 3, and unfortunately Marx could not complete the credit theory. But some of those who criticize the endogenous money supply theory quote from vol. 1 or 2 where, actually, only commodity money (gold) exists. I also stressed that Phillips-type credit creation theory (multiplier theory)is not valid, especially in the world of credit money. Revival of Macleod or Hahn=Schumpeter type theory is very important. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are not money supply control, but money market interest rates control that affects the public demand of funds. The starting points of the credit creation are loans of banks to firms and household by crediting to their deposit accounts. At this point banks do not need surplus money. Monies are created by the action of banks, that is Macleod-type credit creation. When the cash demand increases, central banks should accommodate. If a central bank worries about the level of the economic expansion and the increase of prices, it can affect demand of funds and then affect prices by interest rates control policy. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are money market interest rates control. Lastly, I stressed the importance of the independence of central banks. Some people might question that the central bank independence is against the democratic procedures of policy determination. But, in my opinion, there is a big difference between the monetary policy and other policies of the governments. While monetary policies are executed through financial transactions in the market, other governmental policies are executed as an exercise of administrative powers.
著者
伊藤 誠
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.49, no.2, pp.6-15, 2012-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

This essay examines contemporary arguments for basic income in view of Marxian theories of political economy. In the first section, it begins with a general definition of basic income as a regular income publicly supplied to all individual social members without means test. This idea has gathered academic and social attention in Western Europe since the 1980s. It reflected a deadlock of traditional welfare policies, as individualistic life style (such as single mothers and elderly singles) became widespread, as well as increasing irregular workers with unstable jobs. It has been supported not just by social democrats among other various ideologists but also by influential Marxian theorists as a policy device possibly to guarantee real freedom for all in a future society via social democracy against the Soviet model. When the idea is introduced into Japan after two decades, however, it is argued mainly within a framework of reformation of the existing social security system in a capitalist society. The possible academic contributions from the view of Japanese Marxian political economy to this contemporary issue still remain to be explored. In the second section, a history of this idea is briefly reviewed. Two types of social thoughts which flowed into the contemporary arguments for basic income are discernible. The first type originates from T. Pain, asserting social need and legitimacy of basic income redistribution upon the premise of capitalist market economy. The second type assumes either centrally planned or market socialist society where some sorts of basic income for social members as communal owners of means of production are easily and duly to be realized. However, full basic income, which is sufficient to maintain an ordinary economic life for individual persons by itself, would not be realizable theoretically even in models of market socialism, not to mention capitalist societies, so long as it would seriously damage functions of labour market and incentive for market labour. In the third section, affinities between ideas of basic income and Marxian political economy are investigated. For instance, Marx's own image of future society beyond capitalism as 'association of free individuals' is clearly closer to the contemporary socialist idea of basic income to achieve real freedom for all individuals rather than to the Soviet model of society. Marxian analysis of contemporary capitalism must serve to clarify the historical necessity and feasibility of basic income as an advanced form of social welfare policy, better and deeper than any other economic schools. On the other hand, contemporary arguments for basic income request reconsideration on some of Marxian thoughts and theories. For example, although Marx formulated that an ideal rule of redistribution 'from each according to one's ability, to each according to his need' is realizable only at the second higher phase of communist society, contemporary Marxian economists began to be aware that redistribution according to one's necessity could be at least gradually and partially realizable already in the form of advanced social security system or its reform program as basic income. Further, if Marx's theoretical treatment of skilled or complex labour is reconsidered as suggested in this essay, Marxian labour theory of value would easily gain affinity with the idea of basic income demanding fundamentally egalitarian redistribution of income. Thus this essay attempts to show that Marxian basic theories of value, surplus-value and economic crisis can serve well as a basic frame of reference also for examining the historical significance of contemporary arguments on basic income.
著者
大野 隆 西 洋
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.47, no.4, pp.6-18, 2011-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

Recently, there are many papers using the framework of the Stock-Flow Consistent model (hereafter SFC) in the refereed journals. However, no studied has ever been attempted in Japan. While there is one textbook, a Japanese translation of Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics, it explains the balance- sheet matrix and the transactions flow matrix only. Therefore, we endeavor to explain the intuitive framework of SFC, and give a way to construct this model in Japanese. One of the characteristics of the SFC model is the stock and flows are integrated into an analysis; all sectors and financial assets are included in the model so that there is no black box in the economic transactions in the accounting sense. In this paper, first, we survey the developments of the Kaleckian model and the Minskian model to consider the significance of the SFC model. SFC model plays an important role to integrate implications derived from these models. Second, we construct a simple SFC model based on Doss Santos and Zezza (2008), and find the following results from simulations. The SFC model can explain not only the wage-led growth regime but also the profit-led growth regime. In addition, this model can also explain the normal regime and puzzling regime that the Minskian model has presented so far. In many cases, these results depend on the values of various parameters. Thus, we show that the SFC model can generate various regimes concerning income distribution-growth regime and debt-growth regime.
著者
鍋島 直樹
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.48, no.4, pp.75-85, 2012-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

Nowadays, mainstream macroeconomics has evolved into a new framework, which is labeled "new consensus macroeconomics", by integrating research results both of new classicals and of new Keynesians. It is said that oppositions between schools of thought over the analytical framework have nearly disappeared within mainstream macroeconomics today. It is notable that the new consensus recognizes the exogeneity of the shortterm interest rate and the endogeneity of the money supply. Nevertheless, the new consensus model exhibits strong classical features. In the model, the longrun equilibrium of the economy is exclusively determined by the supply-side factors, and effective demand has no influence on it. Therefore, in the long-run, monetary policy only impacts on the rate of inflation and doesn't improve the levels of production and employment. Further, proponents of the new consensus accept Wicksell's concept of the "natural rate of interest", and they consider that the departure of the market rate of interest from the natural rate gives rise to the movement of the aggregate price level. In addition, they inherit Wicksell's idea that the natural rate of interest acts as a center of gravitation. In contrast, Post Keynesian economists argue that aggregate demand not only determines the short-run output, but also plays a crucial role in directing the long-run growth path of the economy. Hence government economic policies have lasting effects on the real economy. Furthermore, Post Keynesians deny the existence of a unique natural rate of interest, and they maintain that the interest rate determined by monetary factors constitutes a center of gravitation. We can regard the rivalry between the new consensus and the Post Keynesian views as a modern manifestation of the rivalry between "real analysis" and "monetary analysis" that has shaped the history of economics. Today, Post Keynesian economics makes great contributions to the theoretical foundation of monetary analysis that believes capitalist economies inherently contain monetary and financial instability.
著者
大野 隆 西 洋
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.47, no.4, pp.6-18, 2011-01-20

Recently, there are many papers using the framework of the Stock-Flow Consistent model (hereafter SFC) in the refereed journals. However, no studied has ever been attempted in Japan. While there is one textbook, a Japanese translation of Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics, it explains the balance- sheet matrix and the transactions flow matrix only. Therefore, we endeavor to explain the intuitive framework of SFC, and give a way to construct this model in Japanese. One of the characteristics of the SFC model is the stock and flows are integrated into an analysis; all sectors and financial assets are included in the model so that there is no black box in the economic transactions in the accounting sense. In this paper, first, we survey the developments of the Kaleckian model and the Minskian model to consider the significance of the SFC model. SFC model plays an important role to integrate implications derived from these models. Second, we construct a simple SFC model based on Doss Santos and Zezza (2008), and find the following results from simulations. The SFC model can explain not only the wage-led growth regime but also the profit-led growth regime. In addition, this model can also explain the normal regime and puzzling regime that the Minskian model has presented so far. In many cases, these results depend on the values of various parameters. Thus, we show that the SFC model can generate various regimes concerning income distribution-growth regime and debt-growth regime.
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
小林 陽介
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.50, no.4, pp.84-95, 2014-01-20

The aim of this paper is to analyze the process of the financialization of the American economy in 1980s, focusing on the relationship between corporations and financial institutions. In part I, I survey the literature of the financialization approach. One approach is to focus on the increase of financial investment by non-financial corporations. This approach points out that non-financial corporations invest internal funds to financial assets to avoid the downward tendency of profitrates. This approach is limited by scholars understanding that corporations invest in financial assets solely aiming at financial profits. The other approach is to focus on the growing influence of the capital market and the increase of financial payments by non-financial corporations. This approach emphasizes the creation of the "market for corporate control", driven by the rise of institutional investors, information economics and the formation of junk-bond market. This approach has the limitation that the actions of industrial corporations are not included. Based on these literatures, the approach of this paper is to regard investing equity as the way to control another corporation and include corporate actions which pursue profits. This approach is to focus on the transformation of "finance capital". Originally, "finance capital" had a viewpoint of finance related with industry. However, these days, "finance capital" is used in a sense that financial institutions seek financial and speculative profits. In this paper, I focus on the process of the transformation of "finance capital" from the classical type to casino type. In part II, I trace the transformation of the American economy after World War II, and corporate restructuring in 1980s. In the post-war era, the American economy was characterized by the administered price system. Administered price was the price which added reasonable profit to cost. Because of this, corporations could get stable profit. Under this system, corporate actions were characterized by avoidance of price competition, demand of protective policies, and investment in former type equipment. In the depression in early 1980s, many corporations fell into the red Most of them changed the action pattern. They restructured business formations by mergers and acquisitions(M&A). For examples, U. S. Steel acquired Marathon Oil in 1982 to change its main business from steel to oil production. Financial institutions took part in the M&A boom. Investment banks acted as M&A advisor. In merger mania, they treated bridge loan financing, and invested LBO equity funds. Commercial banks acted as loan lender. In merger mania, they acted as M&A advisor. In part III, I explain the consequences of merger boom in 1980s and examine the transformation of the relationship between corporations and financial institutions. Financial institutions expanded profits from M&A related businesses because such businesses were very profitable. In the process of merger boom, the relationship between corporations and financial institutions had transformed from "relationship oriented" to "arms-length oriented". As for investment banks, large corporations had maintained the continuous relationship with specific investment banks over a long period of time. However, in 1980s, most corporations came to use the investment banks which presented the most advantageous conditions. This was because there were many chances for corporations to change investment banks in the merger boom. The conclusion of this paper is as follows: 1) American corporations moved their capital to advantageous industries by using financial markets. 2) Financial institutions could expand profits by helping corporations which needed M & A to overcome the difficulties in that days. 3) In the process of merger booms, the relationship between corporations and financial institutions had transformed from "relationship oriented" to "arms-length oriented".
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

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
山本 英司
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.47, no.4, pp.42-52, 2011-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

This article reargues my book, Kalecki's Politic l Economy, which was published in 2009 and a revised version of my doctoral dissertation submitted to Kyoto University in 2003. The book was reviewed at two academic meetings and two book reviews were published. Replying to them, this article summarizes the gist of my book and corrects some errors if necessary. My book consists of eight chapters. Apart from chapter 1 of "introduction of Kalecki," it may be divided into three parts: Kalecki's studies in capitalist economies, Kalecki's comparative economic studies, and Kalecki as a "Marxist." First, this article examines Kalecki's biographical problems. Kalecki's life may be divided into three parts: from his birth in 1899 until his leaving Poland in 1936, his exile days until his returning home in late 1954 or early 1955, and the rest of his life until his death in 1970. Although my book mainly used Kalecki's chronological personal history by Osiatynski in Collected Works of Michal Kalecki, it has been found not to be necessarily correct. So this article describes the true story as possible. Second, this article examines Kalecki's studies in capitalist economies, focusing Essay on the Business Cycle Theory (1933) in particular. Essay is very famous as the evidence of Kalecki's priority over Keynes's General Theory (1936). But it was written in Polish, and has been known through a shortened English version, which has led to rather limited understanding of the work. The publication of the English version of Collected Works of Michal Kalecki enabled the detailed examination of the full version of Essay. Here is the result. Third, this article examines Kalecki's comparative economic studies. Kalecki studied socialist and developing economies as well as capitalist economies. This article presents a perspective from which those three economic systems should be viewd. In addition to that, Kalecki's version of "the presuppositions of Harvey Road" is mentioned. Forth, this article examines Kalecki as a "Marxist." Although a lot of comparative studies on him with Keynes have been presented, ones with Marx were relatively rare. Kalecki had never been a member of the communist party, nor an orthodox and dogmatic Marxist. Nevertheless, this article tries to describe Kalecki as a Marxist in a sense, and claims that his interpretation of historical materialism enabled his non-dogmatic and realistic analysis of the transformation of capitalism. Finally, remaining themes are considered. I am going to pay attention to Post-Keynesian ecoomics, especially Kaleckian macroeconomics. I must admit that application to modern economy should not be forgotten.
著者
馬渡 尚憲
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.50, no.1, pp.55-67, 2013-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

This paper proposes a set of two theories of wages induced from recent Japanese and American data. The first theory is that the demand and supply of labor will determine money wages, instead of real wages. To explain this money wage determination, this paper uses not only a labor demand curve of a representative firm, but also a labor supply curve of a representative household. The former is, not so differently from usual, reasoned from its profit maximization behavior: a firm will determine quantity of demand for labor so as to equalize the value of marginal product with the wage rate plus unit material cost. The latter is, as the worker's indifference preference between his real wage and leisure doesn't hold, deducted from the household's income earning behavior: a household will increase and determine the quantity of supply of employed labor so that its earned income would cover its cost of living. It replaces its useful and necessary unpaid domestic labor with external paid labor in order to earn money wages, which in turn causes additional living expenses as the domestic labor decreases. The supply curve of labor will be usually J-shaped while the demand curve is down-sloped. In the labor market, the equalization of demand for and supply of labor often involves 'the imperfect employment equilibrium', the equilibrium with involuntary unemployment. The second theory is that real wages are determined by three real-term factors: the labor productivity of consumers' goods industry, the household average propensity to consume, and the proportion of number of employees between producers' and consumers' goods industries. This proportion will vary mainly according to the rate of fixed capital investment. Therefore real wages will depend upon both of the two market equilibrium, those of labor market and consumers' goods. In order to demonstrate validity of these theories, besides briefly analyzing the recent Japanese labor market-its persistent trends of money wage decrease and high rate of unemployment, this paper applies the money wage theories to clarifying causes of wages differences among workers of different industries, among workers' various jobs and between male and female workers. Further it is shown that the real wage theory make it possible to explain endogenously the real wages level the existing doctrines of 'exploitation' presuppose as given. The positivist position adopted methodologically in this paper does not mean mere 'falsificationism' but 'verificationism', or rather 'confirmationism', of a theory.
著者
北川 亘太
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.48, no.3, pp.69-74, 2011-10-20

A basic framework of the varieties of capitalism (VOC) approach was introduced in Japan when Hall and Soskices' (2001) work was translated into Japanese. In the last 10 years, the study of the VOC approach for institutional change in advanced political economies has gained momentum, but it has not yet been introduced in Japan. Through this paper, we aim to get an overview of the study of the VOC approach from 2001 to 2009, particularly with regard to the treatment of institutional change. We focus on four studies on institutional change, all of which have the common theme of theoretical development. Streeck and Thelen (2005) and Deeg (2005) highlighted the limitations of the VOC approach, specifically, with the concepts of institution and institutional complementarity, in the treatment of institutional change. Hall and Thelen (2009) and Becker (2007) modified the two concepts and tried to address the problems: Hall and Thelen came up with a new concept of "institution as resource." Becker, on the other hand, amended the concept of institutional complementarity fundamentally and focused on the functional relationship between each part of political economy and reference frames. By analyzing these studies, we confirmed a research trend observed in recent years with regard to the theoretical development of the VOC approach. First, in the course of addressing the issue of treating institutional change, the problems with the basic concepts of the VOC approach-institution and institutional complementarity-were pointed out. Second, an attempt was made to modify these basic concepts in order to address the problems.
著者
クチンスキー トーマス 大谷 禎之介
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.51, no.2, pp.18-30, 2014-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

The author shows why the historical-critical editions of Capital Volume I in the MEGA2 make it necessary to revisit former German text editions of this fundamental work. He makes clear that the complete set of these editions is the indispensable starting point for a new(German)text edition. The following topics are treated in the paper: 1. Engels'inevitable misinterpretation of the entries Marx made in his personal copies of Capital Vol. I; opposite evaluations of the French edition by Marx and Engels; Marx's changing ideas about future translations as a combination of two editions, i. e., the second German one and the French one. 2. Previous discussions about Engels' fourth German edition; plans for its revision, esp. by Valerie(Wally) Kropp and Kurt Nixdorf, and their stoppage. 3. Advantages and disadvantages of the French edition compared with the second German edition. 4. Some consequences of the fact that Marx quoted rather often from memory; how Engels treated the problem differently in his English translation and his fourth German edition. 5. The different features of the planned text edition in comparison with the historical-critical editions in MEGA^2. The exposition includes many quotations and some illustrative examples.
著者
鍋島 直樹
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.46, no.4, pp.15-24, 2010-01-20

J. M. Keynes argued that money is not neutral both in the short-run and in the long-run, therefore it influences on real economic activities such as production and employment. Post Keynesian economists inherit his ideas, and try to develop his original theory. This paper clarifies the essence of Keynesian revolution, and explores the direction of an alternative economic theory and policy by reviewing recent developments in Post Keynesian monetary economics. The core of Keynesian economics lies in its nature of a "monetary theory of production". The theory suggests that money plays a part of it own and affects motives and decisions. Keynes made clear that aggregate demand sufficient to generate full employment is not guaranteed even in a competitive economy with perfectly flexible wages and prices. The cause of unemployment equilibrium in a monetary economy is the existence of money which is a nonproducible asset held for the purpose of liquidity. One of the main themes in Post Keynesian economics is the endogeneity of money supply. Following the pioneer study by N. Kaldor, many Post Keynesian economists have elaborated the theory of endogenous money supply. The theory has been a cornerstone of Post Keynesian economics until now. Although the "horizontalist" approach and the "structuralist" approach are different in their nature each other, together they provide a more general theory of endogenous money. Today, the "new consensus" in macroeconomics also accepts the view that the interest rate is exogenous and money is endogenous. Nevertheless, there are significant differences between Post Keynesian monetary theory and the new consensus. The latter still retains the axiom of the long-run neutrality of money and monetary policy. In contrast, Post Keynesians consider that aggregate demand not only determines the level of production and employment in the short-run, but also influences on the long-run growth path of the economy. Hence, they maintain that monetary policy can have permanent real effects.
著者
田上 孝一
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.48, no.2, pp.40-49, 2011-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

The aim of this paper is to compare Wataru Hiromatsu's theory of reification with Karl Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu insists that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. So I examine Hiromatsu's remark. In this paper, I mainly concern the rightness of Hiromatsu's interpretation of Marx. I do not concern the validity of Hiromatsu's theory on the contemporary society. In section one, I doubt the Japanese translation of reification. In original German word, reification is Versachlichung. In ordinary Japanese translation, Versachlichung is "Butsushoka". Butsusho means phenomenal thing. Ka means transformation. So Butsushoka means something is transformed to phenomenal thing. But this meaning cannot tell the conceptual content of Versachlichung. The stem of Versachlichung is Sache. Sache is the counter word of Person. So Versachlicung means that Person is transformed to Sache, in English, personality is transformed to thing. It means not epistemological aspect but ontological situation. So Butsushoka is not correct. "Butsukenka" is correct. Because "butsuken" correctly means Sache. That is why I insist that Versachlichung should be translated into not Butsushoka but Butsukenka. In section two, I explain the core concept of Marx's theory of reification. The basic usage of reification by Marx is "reification of personality and personalization of thing". The conceptual dimension of reification in Marx's case is not epistemological but ontological. By the theory of reification Marx tries to clarify the real upside-down structure of capitalism. For Marx capitalism is the society in which labor's personality becomes a thing like goods. Capitalism is not slavery. But in fact, it is the wage-slave society. Marx charges this fact by the theory of reification. In short, for Marx reification is the essence of capitalism. Marx also charges the fetishism in capitalism. The concept of fetishism in Marx's case is expression of reification. It is also phenomenon of reification. The relationships of reification and fetishism are "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon". And reification is also alienation. It is one dimension of alienation. Marx insists that capitalist is arisen by alienated labor. The alienation of labor of workers from his/her own labor process is cause of capitalism. So alienation is cause of reification. That is why alienation and reification and fetishism are mutual "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon" relationships. In section three, I examine Hiromatsu's theory of reification. Hiromatsu tells about reification but he does not analyze Versachlichung. Only he analyses is not Versachlichung but Fetischismus. But fetishism is only a expression of reification. Owing to analyze fetishism we cannot clarify reification. Why has he this illusion? Because he thinks reification and fetishism as being the same. Through this reason he one-sidedly looks reification as epistemological concept. For Hiromatsu, reification as the real upside-down structure is "the vulgar reification". But Marx himself has this vulgar idea. Hiromatsu's reification is a very odd theory. Conclusion: Hiromatsu's theory of reification is a distortion of Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu himself thinks that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. But in fact, Hiromatsu's theory has nothing to do with Marx. So Hiromatsu's theory of reification is not Marxist one but his own philosophical fantasy.
著者
田上 孝一
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.48, no.2, pp.40-49, 2011-07-20

The aim of this paper is to compare Wataru Hiromatsu's theory of reification with Karl Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu insists that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. So I examine Hiromatsu's remark. In this paper, I mainly concern the rightness of Hiromatsu's interpretation of Marx. I do not concern the validity of Hiromatsu's theory on the contemporary society. In section one, I doubt the Japanese translation of reification. In original German word, reification is Versachlichung. In ordinary Japanese translation, Versachlichung is "Butsushoka". Butsusho means phenomenal thing. Ka means transformation. So Butsushoka means something is transformed to phenomenal thing. But this meaning cannot tell the conceptual content of Versachlichung. The stem of Versachlichung is Sache. Sache is the counter word of Person. So Versachlicung means that Person is transformed to Sache, in English, personality is transformed to thing. It means not epistemological aspect but ontological situation. So Butsushoka is not correct. "Butsukenka" is correct. Because "butsuken" correctly means Sache. That is why I insist that Versachlichung should be translated into not Butsushoka but Butsukenka. In section two, I explain the core concept of Marx's theory of reification. The basic usage of reification by Marx is "reification of personality and personalization of thing". The conceptual dimension of reification in Marx's case is not epistemological but ontological. By the theory of reification Marx tries to clarify the real upside-down structure of capitalism. For Marx capitalism is the society in which labor's personality becomes a thing like goods. Capitalism is not slavery. But in fact, it is the wage-slave society. Marx charges this fact by the theory of reification. In short, for Marx reification is the essence of capitalism. Marx also charges the fetishism in capitalism. The concept of fetishism in Marx's case is expression of reification. It is also phenomenon of reification. The relationships of reification and fetishism are "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon". And reification is also alienation. It is one dimension of alienation. Marx insists that capitalist is arisen by alienated labor. The alienation of labor of workers from his/her own labor process is cause of capitalism. So alienation is cause of reification. That is why alienation and reification and fetishism are mutual "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon" relationships. In section three, I examine Hiromatsu's theory of reification. Hiromatsu tells about reification but he does not analyze Versachlichung. Only he analyses is not Versachlichung but Fetischismus. But fetishism is only a expression of reification. Owing to analyze fetishism we cannot clarify reification. Why has he this illusion? Because he thinks reification and fetishism as being the same. Through this reason he one-sidedly looks reification as epistemological concept. For Hiromatsu, reification as the real upside-down structure is "the vulgar reification". But Marx himself has this vulgar idea. Hiromatsu's reification is a very odd theory. Conclusion: Hiromatsu's theory of reification is a distortion of Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu himself thinks that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. But in fact, Hiromatsu's theory has nothing to do with Marx. So Hiromatsu's theory of reification is not Marxist one but his own philosophical fantasy.
著者
小沢 佳史
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.49, no.4, pp.78-87, 2013

The aim of this paper is to show John Stuart Mill's first prospect for the stationary state. The stationary state is one of the famous terms in political economy, which means a state of human society where the wealth of a nation does not increase nor decrease. It is well known that Mill celebrates it in his treatise Principles of Political Economy. Our conclusion is that Mill's first prospect for the stationary state is one which does not suppose a realization of this state. Previous studies offer an interpretation that Mill regards a practice of associations as a process of realizing the ideal stationary state. For the 3rd and subsequent editions of Mill's Principles, we maintain that this interpretation is appropriate. However, this is only true with regard to these editions. The construction of this paper is as follows: First, it is shown that whereas he considers a progressive state of national wealth the best option for the time being, Mill thinks that an ideal of human society is the kind of stationary state in which people have no intention of increasing wealth. From this, a question arises as to how this ideal stationary state can be realized. Then we compare the theory of associations in the 1st and 2nd editions of Mill's Principles with that in the 3rd and subsequent editions. We conclude that in former editions, a prospect that the ideal stationary state can be realized through a practice of associations is not proposed; Mill judges a practice of associations not to be realistic at present and scarcely refers to changes in society to which it will give occasion. As described above, a realization of the ideal is not proposed in the 1st and 2nd editions of Mill's Principles. However, we can seek, even in these editions, the meaning of the theory of the stationary state: to change attitudes of legislators. Based on this theory, Mill proposes to legislators that they ought to put the greatest importance not on the mere increase of production but on the improvement of distribution, "as the true desideratum."
著者
若森 みどり
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.50, no.3, pp.41-52, 2013-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

In The Great Transformation, of which first-edition was published in the same year as Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (1944), Polanyi's opposition to neoliberal credo comes from his interpretation of the history of industrial society in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, when there occurred great crises and upheaval of market society; the Great Recession, unemployment problems in labor market, instabilities of financial market, crisis of democracy, economic nationalism, fascism, and great wars. This paper deals with controversial points between Polanyi's arguments and neoliberal projects from the view point of 21th century. Neoliberal credo is a term connected with an intellectual movement and new belief or ideology originating in the late 1930s that should be distinguished from the original laissez-faire liberalism. The former was born from the reflections of the dead lock of the latter. Unlike the latter, the former requires a strong state authority that has the capacity to resist "spontaneous" social protection movements in the product, labor, and financial markets. And therefore it can become openly anti-democratic in its defense and implementation of the will of the market. In other words, neoliberal credo orientates various projects of "planning for competitive market system" for creating an environment in which private interests can flourish. Neoliberal credo came to be associated mainly with the ideas of Walter Lippman, and such Austrian economists as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. It grew in oppositions not only to socialism but to the spirits of New Deal and political thinking or public opinions of Welfare States, and spread to the Unites States in the early postwar years. Hereafter 1950s it founds fertile ground initially at the University of Chicago, with Milton Freedman and his associates. The obvious consequences of neoliberal policies since 1970s are the increasing market instabilities reminiscent of the 1930s, as well as a growing loss of democratic control. According to Polanyi, completely unfettered markets lacking social control were destructive for the livelihood of common people and eventually generated social reactions that sought to intervene in market system more securely in the societal space. Polanyi'thesis is that neoliberal projects would be eventually never-ending and failed incomplete with social destructions. Also Polanyi paid strong attention to the survival of neoliberal credo in its deadlock. Without a deep understanding and analysis of neoliberal projects, as Polanyi did in his time, we cannot get over the wall.
著者
鍋島 直樹
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.52, no.3, pp.7-18, 2015-10-20 (Released:2017-09-19)

Many people view the outbreak of the severe financial crisis of 2007-8 as confirming Minsky's "financial instability hypothesis". Nevertheless, those who interpret this financial crisis as a "Minsky crisis" don't get a majority even among heterodox economists who believe that the capitalist growth process is inherently unstable. One of the reason is that there are still various theories of economic crisis in the strands of heterodox economics. Therefore, heterodox economists' assessments on Minsky's theory aren't also uniform. Some indicate the limitations of Minsky's perspective. For example, many Marxian economists often point out that Minsky finds the source of instability of a capitalist economy exclusively in the financial sector of the economy and he pays little attention to the contradictions and crises of capitalist economies that result from factors located in the real sector. But economic crises don't necessarily always occur by only one cause. In many case, crises occur because of the complex interaction of plural factors. Further, the form of a crisis may depend on the institutional structure of the economic system at a particular time and place. In order to grasp the nature of economic crises that occur taking various forms each time, we need a comprehensive theoretical framework that integrates perspectives of schools of heterodox economics. We will be able to construct such a framework for the first time by the animated cross-fertilization between various strands of heterodox economics. Since their advent in the late 1960s, American radical economists have done a lot of valuable attempts toward a synthesis of heterodox economics. They have inherited the intellectual capital of Marxian, Keynesian and American institutional schools, and sought to construct an alternative framework to the neoclassical orthodoxy through the integration of those ideas. In addition to the analysis of the real aspect of the economy, they have also achieved many rich results in the analysis of financial instability of a capitalist economy. This paper reviews American radical economists' critical assessments of Minsky's financial instability hypothesis, and examines their interpretations of the current crisis. With these considerations, I explore the possibility of a synthesis of heterodox theories of economic crisis.