著者

斉藤 美彦

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.43, no.3, pp.15-26, 2006

---

In fiscal 1965, the Japanese Government could not continue to balance the budget and started to issue government bonds. Gross debt of the national government grew rapidly following the first oil crisis. Consequently, Japanese banks and the Bank of Japan have greatly increased their holdings of government bonds. The Bank of Japan, in particular, has had to increase the amount of outright purchases of long-term government bonds since the introduction of the quantitative easing policy in March 2001. Recently, many market participants and economists argue that a largely treasury-only portfolio of central banks would be appropriate as the markets for government bonds are large and liquid. This paper first examines the course of this large increase in the outright purchase of government bonds by the Bank of Japan, and then looks at a popular belief that the issuance of central bank notes should be supported by long-term government bonds. In addition, the paper shows that this popular belief is premised on the specific historical condition of the fiscal deficit. The paper also looks at the relationship between orthodox monetary policies and the accumulation of government bonds. The paper does not follow the old argument that central banks should hold only gold, foreign exchange and real bills, rather, it contends that the main issue is the way contemporary capitalism, financial systems and monetary policies are analyzed. Japan's future fiscal condition will be severely affected by its ageing society and the apparently ever increasing strength of the Yen. Under such circumstances, the Bank of Japan is likely to be under pressure to maintain the price of long-term government bonds and thereby keep long term interest rates low. Such a policy is likely to affect central bank independence, a very dangerous prospect. Finally, this paper emphasizes that central bank notes are not supplied exogenously. Private sector banks supply money (deposits) endogenously and people obtain central bank notes by withdrawing deposits. The demand for central bank notes is a part of the total demand for monetary aggregates supplied by private sector banks. The relationship, therefore, between the accumulation of government bonds and the structure of balance sheets of central banks concerns the overall contemporary financial systems.

著者

安田 均

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.67-77, 2013-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

This paper examines labour in consumption, focusing on domestic labour activities that are not replaced by private or public services. The validity of the following three points will be demonstrated. First, domestic labour can be characterized as non-quantitative non-productive labour as opposed to quantitative productive labour by distinguishing the two oft-confused notions of labour, namely productive labour and value formation labour. Second, relativization of the notion of productive labour enables us to define domestic labour as work closely linked to consumption, without reformulating the intrinsic definition of labour or distinguishing domestic labour from labour in general as 'non-work'. Third, labour in consumption, namely, nonproductive labour, should be characterized through its non-quantitativeness, self-purposiveness, and complementarity.

著者

佐々木 隆雄

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.1, pp.10-19, 2008-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

In this paper I try to describe some aspects of the increase in income inequality in the United States since the 1970s based on the results of previous research on this subject, and to consider some underlying causes of these phenomena. 1. Facts about the income distribution As to the trends in the family income distribution, there was a mild trend toward equalization after the World War II, which underwent dramatic reversal after the 1970s. The increase in income inequality in the past 30 years has many aspects but the most interesting aspect may be the dramatic concentration of income at the top to the disadvantage of vast majority. Owing to this process, pre-tax family income shares of top groups have returned to the very high levels of the pre-war or pre-Great Depression era from the low levels reached in the 1970s, reversing the also remarkable income equalization process from 1930s to 1970s. It may be said that the United States is the only advanced country whose top income shares returned to the levels of the pre-war days. Data on the income components tell us that the conspicuous decline of income shares of top groups from the 1930s to 1970s was largely due to the large decline of capital income shares of these groups as a result of the equally large decline of their asset shares. The latter was due to the effects of economic turbulence of the Great Depression and the World War II as well as of the introduction of the progressive taxation in this period. The increase in income shares of top groups in recent times is mainly due to the dramatic increase in their labor income shares, rather than in their capital income shares. Among the 'working rich' in these days are captains of new industries, Wall Street financiers, executives of big corporations and other celebrities. 2. Speculation on the causes of the changes in income distribution The causes of the decrease in income inequality in the early period and its remarkable reversal since the 1970s seem to be related to the changes in the American capitalist system in their respective periods. The Great Depression, New Deal and the World War II contributed to the equalization of income distribution through the economic disturbances and direct government control of private economy. Institutional changes of the labor market, such as the different states of unionization (growth of union power in early period and the decline of unionism in later period) and the difference in the administration of the federal minimum wage system both shaped some of the trend of wage differentials in each period. Difference in the degree of internationalization and in the style of business management caused by changes in the business environment in each period may have contributed to shape the trend of respective period. The generally accepted view on income distribution also changed and shaped the trend in it in each period. The experiences in the Great Depression, the total war and the war against communism all set much value on social solidarity rather than fierce capitalistic competition, contributing to a more egalitarian view of distribution. In the later period some worsening of economic condition or the sense of growing economic crisis owing to oil shocks, slowdown of productivity growth and the competitive challenges from other countries emphasized the creation of wealth rather than the distribution of wealth, competition rather than social solidarity, thus contributing to the less egalitarian view of distribution. All these systemic factors should be considered in studying the causes of the trends in income distribution.

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

鈴木 英規

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.43, no.1, pp.57-67, 2006-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Whilst different kinds of 'incommensurability' were argued in the 'the socialist calculation debate', which made the debate unexpectedly fruitful, there has never been a research for reconstructing the debate in respect of 'incommensurability'. This paper, therefore, aims to reconsider the debate by focusing on 'incommensurability', and to defend an argument by Otto Neurath, an Austrian socialist, in the debate. Incommensurability is defined as a lack of measurement: two items or options are commensurable if they can, and incommensurable if they cannot, be measured. According to John O'Neill's recent studies on the debate, whilst Neurath and Hayek similarly argue on 'incommensurability', they don't reach an agreement because the locus of their 'incommensurability' are different: Neurath's incommensurability exists in between values themselves whereas Hayek's one is in between different beliefs about what is of value. In other words, Neurath's incommensurability derives from value pluralism, whereas Hayek's one derives from epistemic relativism. Exploring the difference paves the way for rediscovering importance of the debate, and especially for defending Neurath's standpoint, which was supposed to be inferior to others' one. After summarizing O'Neill's argument on the debate, we firstly reconsider the debate by Mises, Neurath, Hayek and Lange, respectively, by focusing on their different aspects on 'incommensurability'. Second, we support a, so-called, 'weak claim' that O'Neill holds, namely 'even though Hayek is right, Neurath is defensible'. Unlike O'Neill's approach, however, we try it from a perspective of critical realism. Critical realism is a philosophical and methodological perspective currently argued in the U.K. and holds that there is more to 'what is' than 'what is known'. The former framework of questioning is called ontology, namely the philosophical investigation about nature of being or existence. In contrast, the latter one is called epistemology, namely the philosophical investigation about knowledge of being or existence and about how knowledge of being is obtained. Ontology has, for many years, tended to be overlooked and has often been eclipsed by its relative epistemology. This has, almost inevitably, led to ontological confusion right across the spectrum of social science in general and in the analysis of money/market in particular. Through 'philosophical under-labouring' for Neurath's argument from a critical realist perspective, this paper tries to avoid the ontological confusion encouraging the practice of collapsing value pluralism into epistemic relativism.

著者

宇仁 宏幸

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.77-88, 2014-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

According to K. W. Kapp, the principle of cumulative causation is at the core of institutional economics and sets it apart from earlier and contemporary non-institutional approaches, and particularly from the mechanistic equilibrium approach. Cumulative causation, in short, means that changes in multiple factors proceed in parallel and cumulatively through mutually reinforcing effects working among these factors. There are two streams in the theory of cumulative causation, whose themes are different. The first stream originated from Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. Its main theme is two-way causation between the evolution of human instincts and the evolution of social institutions. The second stream is macroeconomic dynamics that applies the concept of cumulative causation, which originated from A. Young's paper in 1928 and was developed further by G. Myrdal, N. Kaldor and R. Boyer. They analyzed two-way causation between various economic variables such as labor productivity growth and demand growth, where institutions play the role of mediating causation. However, there is no explicit reference to cumulative causation in J. R. Commons' primary work, Institutional Economics that consists of about 900 pages. Furthermore, Commons was never taken up in historical studies on theories of cumulative causation. Nevertheless, does Commons' system of institutional economics not include the principle of cumulative causation? This paper will consider this issue, based on Institutional Economics and a manuscript written in 1927 that was newly found by the author. In comparison with this 1927 manuscript, Commons' theory in Institutional Economics published 1934 has developed greatly. Between 1927 and 1934, there was Great Depression, the rise of Stalinism and fascism, revitalization of the labor movement and the start of the New Deal. These drastic social and economic changes affected Commons' theory. I think that, through his consideration of this large-scale lack of demand, Commons changed his view on scarcity from the one of emphasizing the supply side to the one of taking count of both sides of supply and demand. I assume that the unbalanced description in the 1927 manuscript, emphasizing only sellers' control of the quantity of supply, was deleted as a result of this conceptual expansion of "proprietary scarcity." Moreover, by including institutional economic adjustments at the macro and meso levels, the concept of "rationing transaction" is expanded significantly in Institutional Economics, as compared with "judicial transaction" in the 1927 manuscript. As a result, although Commons did not use the words "cumulative causation" in Institutional Economics, he reached very close to an idea of cumulative causation similar to that of Kaldor and Boyer by expanding the concepts of "proprietary scarcity" and "rationing transaction."

著者

吉田 憲夫

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.17-27, 2011-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

In this paper, I criticize Kimitoshi Mukai's Monetary value theory from the viewpoint of Wataru Hiromatsu s Reification theory. The fundamental difference between Mukai and me results from the difference in the ontological understanding of value, more specifically, that of commodity and from the difference of the ontological understanding of Marx s dialectic which originates from it. I think that though Marx s dialectic clearly differs from deduction, Mukai s logic is still deduction. Simply speaking, the difference between Mukai and me results from the ontological understanding of the fetish character of commodity. From the viewpoint of Hiromatsu s Reification theory, Mukai s Monetary theory is a product of fetishism on money. For example, the direct exchangeability which Mukai advocates is a reflective regulation on the situation in which the goods which everyone needs really exist in a certain trade area. It is not that the natural property of direct exchangeability independently exist.

著者

亀崎 澄夫

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.2, pp.106-108, 2010-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

著者

宋 磊

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.2, pp.42-49, 2015-07-20 (Released:2017-07-03)

---

It is true that the government plays important roles in the process of China's economic growth. However, because the advocates of theories of Chinese economic model and Chinese State Capitalism fail to provide an applicable analytical framework, the roles of government are exaggerated. Inspired by the reinterpretation of James Abegglen's research about so-called Japan. Inc, this essay aims to understand China's economic growth and the roles of government by discussing the relationship between the governmental capacity and corporate capability. Concretely, after classifying the governmental capacity into imposing capacity and inducing capacity and dividing the corporate capability into production capacity and technical capability separately, we analyze how these kinds of governmental capacity and corporate capability interact in different sectors. The main findings can be summarized as the following three points. First, compared to SOE, for private firms or multinational firms, the eff ect of governmental capacity over corporate capability is limited. Second, although the governmental capacity shapes the corporate capability to a large extend in the non manufacturing sector, the eff ect of governmental capacity over corporate capability is not crucial in the manufacturing sector. Third, in the manufacturing sector, the governmental capacity contributes to the formation of production capacity, but the linkage between intervention and accumulation of technical capability is weak.

著者

宇仁 宏幸

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.3, pp.79-89, 2012-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

A majority of economic theories, including that of Marx, have focused on the production and reproduction of wealth, productive capacity, and labour productivity. Attempts to analyse the destructive power of human activities on the ecosystem began in the mid-twentieth century. It is now widely recognized that the production of wealth relates to the destruction of the ecosystem today; however, theoretical and quantitative analyses concerning this theme are few, and we cannot find an established theory. The first purpose of this paper is to clarify 'stylised facts' by a quantitative analysis of the relationship between GHG emission and economic growth in advanced countries since the 1990s. The important fact is that the reduction of GHG emissions is compatible with economic growth under certain institutional conditions. The second purpose of this paper is to analyse the stylised facts using a cumulative causation model. In the case that the reduction of GHG emissions is compatible with economic growth, a partial dilemma exists between them. Therefore, whether a country gives priority to the reduction of GHG emissions or to economic growth becomes a political choice. Section II critically examines existing opinions. Intuitively, the higher the economic growth rate is, the higher the rate at which GHG emissions increase. Pessimistic opinions that economic growth is not compatible with the reduction of GHG emissions are based on this intuition. Moreover, this intuition sometimes leads to the extreme opinion that zero or negative economic growth is necessary to reduce GHG emissions. We show that these opinions are faulty owing to inadequate processing of data. Section III explains the results of a panel data analysis and a time series data analysis with regard to the relationship between the decreasing rate of emission intensity and economic growth rates in eighteen advanced countries. There is a positive correlation between the economic growth rate and the decreasing rate of emission intensity since the 1990s. Moreover, the introduction of an environment tax increases the decreasing rate of emission intensity. Section IV shows that there is trade-off between the effects of dynamic increasing returns on labour inputs and GHG emissions. The decreasing rate of emission intensity is equal to the increase rate of the real GDP per unit of GHG. Therefore, a decrease in emission intensity can be considered to be an increase of returns on GHG emissions. We measure also the Verdoon coefficients that show the strength of dynamic increasing returns on labour inputs. These two dynamic increasing returns have a trade-off relationship. In other words, the dynamic increasing returns on labour inputs are weak in countries where the dynamic increasing returns on GHG emissions are strong. Most of these countries introduced environment taxes in the 1990s. Section V explains the manner in which the transformation of innovation to reduce GHG emissions affects growth regime using a cumulative causation model. The decreasing rate of emission intensity represents the change in the broadly-defined labour productivity considering destructibility of the ecosystem. We call this 'broadly-defined productivity growth'. We examine influences of the transformation of innovation on the demand regime, the productivity regime and the broadly defined productivity regime. Thus, we show the structural reason why economic growth and labour productivity growth were partially sacrificed in countries that promoted the transformation to economy innovations by the introduction of environment taxes.

著者

佐藤 拓也

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.54, no.2, pp.99, 2017 (Released:2019-07-08)

著者

塩沢 由典

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.3, pp.41-52, 2009-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

The mainstream of economics is named neoclassical economics. Its success in 20th century economics is obvious and it remains dominant even in 21st century. One of the reasons why neoclassical economics so succeeded is the appropriate employment of mathematical methods. Two pillars of the neoclassical framework are optimization and equilibrium. Both permitted to transform economic problems into tractable mathematical formulations. But, the cost of this use of mathematics was not cheap. It enclosed the economics to the simple world of calculus and put aside many of important questions that economics should attack. Neoclassical way of explanation seems to be flourishing but it is an effort to make scarecrows from in one field to in another. They may be impressive for naive people, as the explanation is full of high mathematics. But, this is not the real way to develop economics. Problem setting itself is designed such that the problem thus obtained is soluble. By consequence, there are full of ridiculer explanations. To cite an example, the RBC (Real Business Cycle) theory is one. This "theory" claims that business cycle is caused by the technical shocks the economy incurs. How does it explain the present world wide depression? Is financial crisis also a technical shock? I cited many other examples in the text, but the main question is not this point. RBS is only an example, but of what? It is a symptom of the crisis of economics as discipline. Now it is the time to seek a breakthrough. We should build a new economics different from neoclassical economics. There are many schools in economics and all but few are for it. But the question is how? Most of the endeavors that schools of economics tried failed. Is it possible after all? The attempt is not an easy one, of course. It requires a firm strategy. It is not a question of changing this hypothesis to another. The trouble that neoclassical economics faces is that it is enclosed in a circle of mathematical tractability. This circle is very loose and hard to see it, but it is strong enough that it never permits to go beyond it, as far as economics continues to use mathematics as main methodology. By consequence, the new strategy must be as powerful and as omnipotent as mathematics. What I propose as such a candidate is MAS (Multi-Agent simulation). MAS may liberate us from the yoke of mathematical tractability. Process analysis becomes the major field of MAS. By mathematics, analysis of processes was difficult except for special types of time development, i.e. differential and difference equations. In MAS, varieties of people can be included. People of different income, of different taste, of different opinion, and so on. Goods can be also very different. Firms may be different too. Evolution of behaviors can be implemented. MAS may open a new stage of economics. It is time to bet for it.

著者

掛下 達郎

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.54, no.2, pp.105, 2017 (Released:2019-07-08)

著者

石倉 雅男

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.43-51, 2015-10-20 (Released:2017-09-19)

---

Minsky's classification of financing profiles of non-financial business firms based on his concept of "margin of safety" can be applied not only to problems in a domestic financial system, but also to those in the international financial system. The present paper investigates issues regarding financial instability in the international economy by extending his perspective to the relationship between creditor and debtor countries. Section 2 reviews Minsky's classification of financial profiles of non-financial business firms whose assets are financed by liabilities, namely, his concepts of hedge, speculative, and Ponzi financing, with a brief comment on how patterns of debt amortization affect the "margin of safety." Relying on Kregel's recent study of financial crises and international imbalances in the current global economy, we show in Section 3 that (1) the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s was triggered and exacerbated by the liquidation of foreign currency-denominated debts owed by the non-financial corporate and banking sectors of those countries and (2) emerging Asian economies have boosted their exports by lending to their trading partners, as evidenced by the fact that China's trade surplus with the United States has increased and its holdings of U.S. long-term securities too have accumulated since the early 2000s. By re-examining Domar's analysis of the time behavior of the ratio of funds inflow (amortization plus interest received) to their outflow (foreign investment), we show in Section 4 that Domar's condition for sustainable foreign investment-namely that the growth rate of foreign lending is higher than the rate of interest-turns out to be equivalent to the condition for Ponzi financing, namely that new foreign borrowings are larger than the repayment of principal and interest for outstanding foreign debts. Section 5 concludes with a short comment on the debt sustainability of the key currency country.

著者

鶴田 満彦

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.2, pp.6-16, 2010-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

The big economic fluctuation, which began with the sub-prime loan crisis, and came to a head with the bankruptcies of Leman Brothers, General Motors and Chrysler, seems to be the greatest world economic crisis since 1929, and be able to be called the World Economic Crisis in 2008(or simply the 2008 Crisis). This paper aims to explain the basic character of the 2008 Crisis. The major points to be discussed are as follows. (1) Is the 2008 Crisis cyclical one as a phase of trade cycle, or a catastrophe like 'a crisis that comes only once in 100 years'? (2) What are the relations between the world financial crisis and the over-accumulation which results in the overproduction crisis? (3) what is the historical meaning of the 2008 Crisis? In other words how will the modern capitalism structurely change after the 2008 Crisis? (1) Tadao KAWAKAMI regards the 2008 Crisis as not only a world economic crisis but also a catastrophe, which arised from the US government stopping to change US dollar into gold in 1971, and has been prepared by US making huge current account deficits and the following enormous volume of speculative money in the world. Originally a crisis as a phase of trade cycle clears off the over-capital, and at the same time changes the precedent regime of accumulation. In this sense the 2008 crisis will transform the global structure of accumulation by strengthening the public control over financial institutions and financial commodities and weakening US hegemony over the world economy, but the author does not agree the world capitalism will fall into a catastrophe just through the 2008 Crisis. (2) Kiyoko IMURA regards the 2008 Crisis as a world-scale big financial crisis, which came from 'the speculative financial activities independent of real economies' that could be appear after the US government stopping to change US dollar into gold in 1971. Makoto ITOH also attaches much importance to financial factors in the 2008 Crisis, refering to Marx's 'the second model of money crisis'. According to the author, a financial crisis is nothing but the result of over-credit which is another expression of over-accumulation. Sub-prime loans, car loans, and other consumer loans, many of which ITOH calls 'financialization of labour-power', are mostly modern forms of over-credit. When financial institutions cannot expand over-credit by the limit of their own capital, over-credit comes to the surface as over-accumulation, which results in over-production and over-export in the real economies. (3) The 2008 Crisis was the first greatest crisis on the global capitalism. The global capitalism stemmed from the big changes in the international monetary system in 1970s, following stagflation and the information-communication revolution, characterized by de-regulation over money, labour and trade. The 2008 Crisis showed the failure of these neo-liberal policies and enormous costs of the crisis. After the crisis, the globalization-orientation will not change, but the global capitalism will have to transform into multipolarized,regulation-acceptable, and more public one. In the middle and long run, the most serious problem to the world economy is the environmental problem, including water, food, energy and other resources. With the 2008 Crisis as a turning point people are expected to be able to control the economy wisely in cooperation.

著者

新村 聡

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.43, no.1, pp.26-35, 2006

---

This paper considers different concepts of equality and inequality in neo-liberalism and welfare states. The equality in neo-liberalism or libertarianism is based on the two principles, that is, the principle of "distribution in proportion to desert," and that of "burden in proportion to benefit." We call them "the market principles" in this paper. On the other hand, the equality in welfare states is based on the different two principles, the principle of "distribution in proportion to needs," and that of "burden in proportion to ability." We call them "the community principle." Karl Marx distinguished the works principle (a kind of the principle of distribution in proportion to desert) and the needs principle in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. He expected that the works principle would prevail in the first stage of a communist society and the needs principle would do in the second and highly developed one. Amarthya Sen pointed that the needs principle had been involved in the social security and other social services in welfare states. This paper argues that the community principles, including the needs principle and the principle of burden in proportion to ability, are more or less prevailing not only in welfare states but also in various communities such as families, local communities, companies, religious organizations, nation states, and international organizations.

著者

鈴木 和雄

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.3, pp.36-46, 2010-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

The purpose of this paper is to examine the structure of triangular relationship of the labor process in interactive service work and the effects which the relationship brings about on workers. In examining how relations of control are shaped among management, workers and customers, this paper elucidates two distinct types of control of interactive service work: control of customers by managers and workers, and that of workers and managers by customers. After showing patterns of alignment and opposition of the interests in interactive service work, this paper indicates two effects that these alignment and opposition bring about on workers. One is supervising effect of workers, as customers behave like 'another bosses' who control workers along with management in the labor process. Another is conforming effect of workers to management interests, as workers seek to control customers to increase their own work performances by aligning with management. This paper then examines transfer processes of conflicting interests among management, workers and customers. Conflicts between managers and customers are transferred to those between workers and customers, as workers appear representatives of firms in interactive service work. Conflicts between management and workers are also transferred to those between workers and customers, as customers see workers representing firms. In these transferring processes one actor represents another, which can be called as substituting effects. It is concluded that in the triangular relationship traditional conflicts between workers and management cannot be apparently manifested. In a situation in which customers become 'another bosses' and conflicting interests among actors are transferred, labor control by capital is blurred. Also in a situation in which workers seek to control customers in favor of management, real opposition between capital and labor become concealed. Therefore the triangular relationship of interactive service work tends to transform workers' class consciousness from explicit to distorted one.

著者

森本 壮亮

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.3, pp.54-64, 2014-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

This paper examines Dumenil and Foley's "New Interpreta-tion(NI)" of Marx's value theory as an interpretation of Capital. We can summarize the NI as follows. First, it bridges the dimensions of labor values and prices by the concept of the "value of money," which is defined as the ratio of aggregate labor time to aggregate money value added. Second, it interprets Marx's value theory as a macroeconomic labor theory and the equality between total value and total price as the net one in a given period. Third, it defines the value of labor power as the money wage multiplied by the "value of money," and argues that exploitation is an issue of the distribution of the net value added between workers and capitalists. Although Dumenil and Foley claim that the NI is just what Marx tried to argue in Capital, Marx's texts and manuscripts of Capital show the opposite. Marx's starting point was to criticize classical economists who explained that wage was a proportion of the net value added and exploitation was a distributional issue. The argument of the NI is totally the same with the one of classical economists. In contrast, Marx argues that the capitalist exploitation is for workers to be absorbed into the circuit of capital whose sole aim is to increase the value. Also Marx points out that variable capital, which is used for wage, is the value that workers created not in the present but in the past. These Marx's arguments show that Marx's value theory is quite similar to the "temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI)." Therefore the orthodox(or Sraffian)interpretation of Marx's value theory and the transformation problem is also invalid as an interpretation of Marx. First, although the orthodox interpretation claims that Marx considers exploitation as an issue of the distribution of labor for production, Marx doesn't. Marx's exploitation theory is constructed based on the concept of the circuit of capital, and it is irrelevant to the distribution of labor for production. Second, although the orthodox interpretation claims that the dimension of the transformation is labor time, such claim is both unrealistic and alien to capitalism. Capitalists'criteria are their rates of profit or amounts of profit, not their "rates of profit" of labor time. There is no reason for such "rates of profit" to be uniformed at least in a capitalist society. Thus we conclude that the most appropriate new interpretation of Marx's Capital is the TSSI.

著者

岩田 佳久

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.77-88, 2015-10-20 (Released:2017-09-19)

---

It is well known that there are two opposed views of the asset price rising, Fed view and BIS view. Fed view advocates "Clean up the mess" strategy, which leaves the asset price rising and eases credit boldly in the burst of the bubble. On the other hand, BIS view advocates "Lean against the wind" strategy, which tightens credit proactively at the asset price rising. The opposition between the two views also exists in the debate of Global Imbalances in the 2000s. Bernanke, Fed view, argues that "Global saving glut" flows into US and makes the current account deficit (i.e. net capital inflow) larger in US and the interest rate lower in the world. On the other hand, Borio, BIS view, objects that the excess savings in national economic accounting system is irrelative to the bank ability to expand credit and to set the interest rate, and that what is influential on the asset price rising is not net capital inflow but gross one. Borio's argument is superior to Bernanke on the financial economy, but has some weaknesses when it is reviewed from the point of the Marxian economics. This paper tries to develop the Marxian credit theory. Firstly, Borio accepts the concept of ex ante saving and investment though he thinks little of it in determination of the market interest rate. As we can see in the debate between Keynes and Ohlin in 1937, ex ante saving is not lending the saving but financing the investment by the credit creation. Secondly, Borio emphasizes that money (credit money) is made by credit creation from nothing, ex nihilo. But, though the recent Marxian economics also accepts that money is created by the banks, it emphasizes that credit money anticipates the reflux of money in the future. Credit money is backed by the value of commodity or the ability to gain money, such as the labor's ability to gain wage and the government's ability to collect tax. That is, credit money is not created from nothing, but based on the value of commodities or on the ability to realize the value in the future. Thirdly, the interest rate is determined at the level where banks can gain the average profit. Marx explained the level of interest rate from the relation between demand and supply of money capital. But the bank, as a capital, self-valorizing value, gains the general profit rate on the invested capital through the competition in the same sector and among the all sectors.

著者

松尾 匡

出版者

経済理論学会事務局 ; 2004-

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.54, no.4, pp.14-26, 2018-01