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
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
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
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
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
玉手 慎太郎
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.51, no.3, pp.65-70, 2014-10-20

Japanese Marxian philosopher Satoshi Matsui has constructed the "normative theory of socialism" in contrast to the normative theories of liberalism by reading Marx faithfully and investigating controversies about Marx's normative aspects. This paper examines his arguments by comparing them with the views of John Rawls on normative theories and justice. Matsui's normative theory of socialism has centers on Marx's normative "principle" and the change in the role of such a principle in correspondence with the development of society. The latter is more important. According to the Marx's theory of the development of society, namely, "historical materialism," society will necessarily reach communism(the second stage of socialism) after capitalism and via socialism(the first stage of socialism). In the society of socialism, Matsui says, the normative theories of liberalism work well in improving people's lives, but in the society of communism, the normative theories of liberalism must be substituted by the normative principle of Marx. This two-level use of normative theory is the main point of Matsui's normative theory of socialism. Matsui's theory is problematic at two points. First, the justification of his theory is based entirely on historical materialism, so it is not persuasive for non-Marxians unless historical materialism is justified logically or empirically. Second, even if historical materialism is justified successfully, it breaks a condition of normative theories of liberalism ("circumstances of justice" in Rawls's terms), so that we can say nothing about the superiority of Marx's normative principles to those of liberalism because they do not share this condition in common. The "circumstances of justice" condition, however, inescapably introduces "alienation" in Marx's sense. The "circumstances of justice" is a common premise of normative theories of liberalism, and the concept of alienation points out a fundamental problem with normative theories of liberalism. Matsui's failure lies in his use of historical materialism as a ground of justification. The core of the normative theory of socialism, in contrast of normative theories of liberalism, is the concept of alienation, while historical materialism is just a device of Marx's for the abolition of alienation. All normative theorists(not only Marxian but also non-Marxian)must consider seriously the choice between the variety of lives under alienation and the uniformity of lives following the abolition of alienation.
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
ラパヴィツァス コスタス 横内 正雄
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.1, pp.42-55, 2010-04-20

The crisis of 2007-9 resulted from a financial bubble marked by weak production, expanding bank assets, and growing household indebtedness. For these reasons the crisis casts light on the financialisation of capitalist economies. The literature on financialisation generally links weak production with booming finance; according to some, causation runs from weak production to booming finance, while for others it runs in the opposite direction. This article argues that there is no direct causation between booming finance and weak production. Rather, financialisation represents systemic transformation of capitalist production and finance, which ultimately accounts for the crisis of 2007-9, and has three main features. First, less reliance of large corporations on banks; second, banks shifting their activities toward mediating in open markets and transacting with individuals; third, increasing implication of individuals in the operations of finance.
著者
中谷 武
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.6-14, 2010-01-20

This paper attempts to evaluate the significance of wage-led economy of Post Keynesian economics. In order to achieve longterm sustainable economic growth under the low growth and the environmental constraints, the switch from profit-led economy to wage-led economy will be effective and also inevitable. The main points are as follows: 1) Our current economic crisis can not be resolved by simply resuming the Keynesian demand policies in face of environmental constraints, growing fiscal deficits and low birthrate and an aging population. What is important is that we have to consider both demand side and supply side simultaneously, which mutually interrelate in determining the output and employment levels. The supply side of Keynesian theory is the core of the issue, which is neglected for long because Keynes himself disregarded it. The main stream economics has picked up this point and criticized Keynes but falsely. 2) There are three ways to shift the supply curve downwards: (1) technical improvement, (2) cutting labor cost and (3) cutting profit margin. The ways employed by neo-liberals which are theoretically based on the main stream economics since eighties are the first and the second ones, whose effectiveness has shown to be restrictive because they shift the demand curve downwards as well as supply curve. In this sense the supply side policies are rebelled against by demand side; consumption demand is sharply depressed by deteriorating expectation in future wages and employment insecurity. On the other hand, the wage-led economy is to pursue the third way of downwards shift of supply curve. 3) The possibility of wage-led economy depends on both characteristics of investment and saving functions. We can say firstly that under the condition of low economic growth the characteristics of saving function become more important compared with those in investment function, secondly that a lower saving rate of laborers leads to greater possibility of wage-led economy, and thirdly that a more progressive tax system makes wage-led economy more possible. These Post Keynesian claims are of importance in face of recent regressive tax reforms and the relatively higher saving rate in Asian countries. 4) Blecker (1989) and Bhaduri and Marglin (1990) argued that the increasing international price competition prevents the potential of wage-led economy even if the domestic economy is wage-led. In this paper we discussed that this claim is not confined to wage-led economy: the profit-led economy is also not sustainable under the severe international competition. Therefore a domestic price increase can not be maintained regardless of whether it is wage-led or profit-led domestically under global competition. In other words, in face of international competition we need to improve the supply condition. Here we must consider again by which way we realize the shift of supply curve. 5) We discussed four cases of two-country economy composed of two-by-two combinations: wage-led or profit-led and domestic country or foreign country. An increase in wage share in domestic country with profitled foreign country has positive effects to both countries: the domestic production as well as foreign production increase. The effects of an increase in the wage share in wage-led domestic country become ambiguous, however, when the foreign country is also wage-led, but it affects favorably to domestic country compared to foreign country. 6) Finally we examine the necessary conditions of sustainable economic growth from longer run perspectives. If we maintain both the inside equilibrium condition and the outside equilibrium condition at the same time, how can the wage rate increase in the long run? By inside we consider the labor market and by outside we mean the trade balance. Then we argue that the wage rate increase depends on the natural growth rates of domestic and foreign economies, the elasticity of trade, the growth rate of labor productivity and the pass-on effect to profit share. Especially, the wage rate must increase at a higher rate when the foreign natural rate of growth is higher than that of domestic one.
著者
藤田 真哉
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.1, pp.66-78, 2010-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

This paper explains why the U.S. economy experienced high growth from the 1990s to the early 2000s while the Japanese economy stagnated during this same period. To do so, we firstly construct a Kaldorian cumulative causation model which takes into account the interrelation between demand and labor productivity growth in a two-sector (investment goods and consumption goods sectors) framework. Secondly, we estimate the model parameters, using data for the U.S. during 1994-2004 and for Japan during 1991-2003 and substitute them into our model. Then, we compare both countries estimated demand regime functions, which describe the effect of productivity on demand, and productivity regime functions, showing the effect of demand on productivity in each sector. Our results are summarized as follows. The U.S. rapid GDP growth in the 1990s was characterized by the investment goods sector's high demand growth, which in turn was mainly driven by its high labor productivity growth. The U.S. established a new growth regime, which was caused not by wage indexation to productivity and mass consumption, as appeared during the so-called 'Fordism' period, but by decreasing the investment goods price and increasing investment demand in the consumption goods sector. Moreover, higher export and public expenditure growth for the consumer goods sector was the driving force behind this sector's high growth. As for the Japanese economy, although the investment goods sector also attained rapid productivity growth and could have raised its high demand growth during this period, it was unable to do so. The decreasing investment goods price didn't lead to its high demand growth as it did in the U.S. because the idle stock due to over-accumulation and bad loans caused by the burst of the bubble economy in the early 1990s gave disincentive for firms to invest. But, we should note that deregulating the labor market itself, which leads to an increase in the low-skilled irregular worker, could not produce higher performance without active labor market policies because it brings about low productivity in both the investment goods and the consumer goods sectors.
著者
山森 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.41, no.2, pp.28-37, 2004-07-20

Esping-Andersen's influential analysis for de-commodification is one of powerful conceptualization of need fulfillment under modern capitalism. Feminists' critique against his analysis and his effort to reply to these criticisms has contributed to the academic enquiry for "the welfare state and family". In his response, Esping-Andersen introduced concept of de-familialization. I discuss both consepts (de-commodification and de-familialization) have two analytically distinct contents; say, Polanyian de-commodification (policies for maintenance of commodification), and Esping-Andersenian de-commodification(policies beyond such a institutional rationality); De-familialization for maintenance of family, and De-familialization beyond such a institutional rationality. I argue both latter contents are crucial if we consider both concept as "emancipatory potential", as Esping-Andersen wrote. I also argue his conceptualizing de-familialization is problematic because it means eventually commodification. We could recognize really existing both latter contents and de-familialization beyond his conceptualization, in terms of "moral economy".
著者
宮田 惟史
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.48, no.1, pp.60-71, 2011-04-20

The aim of this paper is to analyze the relation between the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit and crisis, based on K. Marx's manuscript of Capital Volume III Part three (MEGA II/4.2). As is generally known, there are many controversies about the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit considered by Capital Volume III Part three. Especially the arguments have been done within the relation between crisis and "an absolute overproduction of capital" and also "overproduction of commodities", which is depicted in the Part three Chapter 15. One main argument is pointed out by Uno [1974a] who understands crisis from the point of "an absolute overproduction of capital" occurred by a rise in wages. Another key point is discussed by Imura [1984] who explains crisis based on "overproduction of commodities" after rejecting the concept of "an absolute overproduction of capital" as "an extreme hypothesis". Finally Tomituka [1975] mentioned because "these two concepts simultaneously have the antinomic character" they should be understood in an integrated sphere. However, as far as I am concerned, the most significant problem that is common to their arguments, would be that these are dealt with within the area that the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit are not basically relating to the moments of crisis. These common views are shown by their thoughts that the law should be separated from the description of crisis in Chapter 15, as the subject of the Chapter 15 should not be understood "Development of the Law's Internal Contradictions", but "'Development of Inner Contradictions' of the capitalist production in the development of the productivity and the progress of the capital accumulation" or "Development of Inner Contradictions of the method of capitalist production" (Imura [1984] p.193, Uno [1974a] p.170, Tomituka [1994] p.79). In other words, even though the disputants admit the law, the generally accepted opinion within hitherto studies is that the law does not have an impact on crisis and the industrial cycle in the short term but only fanctions in the long term. So the arguments have been done over the account of the crisis in Chapter 15 on the premises that the law does not have a direct relation to crisis. As the original manuscript of Capital Volume III Part three was released, it is now clear that some statements and paragraphs were removed and moved around respectively by F. Engels and even he made up all of the titles and sections. In order to discuss the relation between the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit and crisis, we should carefully reconsider the concept of "an overproduction of capital" which is one of the significant focus points. In a separate account from "an absolute overproduction of capital" there is a statement about "real overproduction of capital (die wirkliche Ueberproduction von Capital)" in the original draft. Interestingly in this text Marx recognises "an absolute overproduction of capital" not as "an extreme hypothesis" as Imura [1984] mentioned, but as a real possible situation. Morover, there is an original statement about "a rise in wages" as the moment of crisis, relating to "an absolute overproduction of capital", too. In this paper, on the basis of the above arguments which should be reconsidered based on the original manuscript, it will demonstrate how Marx grasped the logical relation between the law of the tendential fall in the general rate of profit and crisis.
著者
吉田 文和
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.14-24, 2013-04-20

If we review the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on 11 March 2011 and examine the nuclear disaster that has followed it from the standpoint of the theories that have been developed to deal with the problems of pollution, and analyze it first from the point of view that focuses on "the causes of pollution" and "the damage that pollution causes", and then, further, to go on to consider the various theories or concepts that relate to issues of "responsibility", "countermeasures", "social cost", "relief", and finally to weigh up proposals for "an alternative policy", it should become possible to determine the extent of the problem, the issues that have to be faced and the courses of action that we need to take, the prospects for finding a solution, and a timeline that may lead to its resolution.
著者
山口 拓美
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.4, pp.13-24, 2005-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

According to Marxian political economy, exploitation means extracting surplus labor. But Marx himself used the term "exploitation" in more general sense also. In his Capital,Volume III, Marx wrote that workers are exploited when capitalists save labor conditions at the expense of the workers. So we can find in Capital two definitions of exploitation: the narrow definition as extracting surplus labor and the broad definition as treating workers badly. With respect to the broad definition of exploitation, I think it is based on Kantian moral principle that obligates us not to treat other people merely as means for our own ends. Kant limited his moral principle to human beings. However, philosophers in today's society extend the principle to nonhuman beings, especially to animals. I think this view of exploitation is important for criticizing contemporary capitalism, because it has relevance for contemporary problems, such as sexual exploitation of women and children, exploitation of nature, and exploitation of animals. Among these problems, animal exploitation is the hottest topic on the political agenda in Europe. The European Treaties recognize animals as sentient beings, and the European Community has been improving animal welfare standard for the past two decades. Moreover the EC made a specific submission to the WTO Committee on Agriculture on "Animal welfare and agricultural trade". Today, animal exploitation is an issue of growing importance in global capitalism. This paper explores the moral basis of Marx's view of exploitation, considers the exploitation of nature, and then discusses the exploitation of animals in today's commercial agriculture.
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
渡辺 幹雄
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.44, no.4, pp.41-66, 2008

In this paper, I'll show that Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971) includes a hidden purpose, which is, the purpose to set out the framework of some kind of liberal communism. First, I make clear the failure of his 'moral geometry' and its ideological character. Second, I situate his concept of justice in the history of it. According to this, it turns out that his theory of justice can not be the universal and neutral moral science, but presupposes certain ideology from the beginning. Rawlsian justice does include some communistic aspects ex ante. In section 3, I discuss the distinctiveness of his theory in view of what is called 'a fixed point of our moral judgments.' It is a fundamentalistic foundation of his theory of justice, from which his principles of justice, especially the difference principle, are derived indeed. The original position and veil of ignorance are all the device to disguise that fact. Next, I argue that Rawls intentionally neglects a controversial theme, id est, 'Work-Ownership Thesis.' Despite the fact that Work-Ownership Thesis is a widely accepted belief, he has never discussed it. It's because that thesis sharply conflicts with the fixed point he exposes, and so, its acceptance would make it impossible for him to derive the difference principle. Furthermore, a simple neglect of the thesis means that the difference principle is a highly communistic principle. For it is only in the highly achieved communistic society that the thesis can be perfectly neglected. In section 5, I prove that the difference principle thus derived is both irrational and unreasonable. This is explained as the result of making one fixed point of our moral judgments absolute, and so losing the balance with some other fixed points that Rawls doesn't take up. Upon preceding arguments, in the last section 6, I conclude that it is very dangerous for one to make his favorite moral judgments absolute without thinking much of other ones. His judgments as such are just his own personal judgments, or indeed prejudices, that he expects his readers to accept, and the lack of balance will lead to a political disaster.
著者
藤田 真哉
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論
巻号頁・発行日
vol.41, no.2, pp.80-87, 2004

The purpose of this paper is to explain how institutional adjustments in the labor market affect the macro-economic stability. We suppose that the institutional adjustments in the labor market consist of three factors: inelasticity of employment, money wage indexation to labor productivity, and money wage indexation to price level. In addition, we shall take into account also the relevance of reserve army effect to the macro-economic stability. In this paper, we adopt a Goodwin-type cycle model. This model, which has its origin in Goodwin (1967), has a characteristic feature in the respect that a business cycle is caused by factors in the labor market rather than those in the good market or in the money market. The model seems therefore to be appropriate for examining the relation between the macro-economic stability and adjustment patterns in the labor market. On the basis of this model, we construct the Goodwin-type model with alternative growth regimes: profit-led growth regime and wage-led growth regime. The former means that large profit share leads high growth, and the latter means that large wage share leads high growth. The difference between these two growth regimes has been analyzed by post-Keynesian economics. According to which growth regime we choose, the effects which institutional adjustments in the labor market have on the macro-economic stability are varied. Some of our results are as follows. First, under profit-led growth the macro-economic system with low elasticity of employment and with low money wage indexation to labor productivity is unstable, but not always so under wage-led growth. Second, either under profit-led growth or wage-led growth sufficiently large money wage indexation to price level destabilizes the macro-economic system. Third, controlling the reserve army effect makes the macro-economic system stable under wage-led growth, but unstable under profit-led growth.