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 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

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

横川 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.52, no.3, pp.19-31, 2015-10-20 (Released:2017-09-19)

---

This paper examines the Subprime Mortgage Crisis as a Minsky Crisis by reexamining Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis. The fundamental proposition of the Financial Instability Hypothesis is that "Stability is destabilizing". When we re-examine the process of endogenous destabilization of the financial structure in the capitalist economy from the point of view of financial innovation, it reveals that financial innovations deploy "speculative finance" and "Ponzi finance." Increasing investment to specific capital assets requires new financial products that overcome regulation constraints. New financial products also must have acceptable yield and maturity both for lenders and borrowers. Financial instability develops in periods of "tranquility" when decreasing liquidity preferences attracts economic entities to obtain alternative assets with high interests instead of cash and demand deposits. In this process financial innovations are carried out and a pyramiding of liquid assets is built. However, the chain of financial contracts made in pyramiding of liquid assets increases likelihood of a serious liquidity crisis by the liquidity shortage of central financial institutions or financial markets. It means that financial innovation endogenously increase financial instability. Since 2000s, a huge pyramiding of liquid assets which is called the Originate-to-Distribute (OTD) Model had been created. In the OTD model, subprime mortgages loan originated by commercial banks were converted into CDO. Off-balance sheet entities of commercial banks and hedge funds bought the majority of AAA tranches. Re-securitization made it possible for them to produce large amounts of short-term financial assets from long-term financial assets and to raise funds from MMMF and Securities Lenders in short term using such as repo and ABCP. MMMF raised funds from selling the shares to households and firms. Securities Lenders raised funds from long-term savings of the household sector. However, the downgrading of subprime MBS by rating agencies since June 2007 invoked liquidity crisis in the CP market and the repo market. It made it impossible for off-balance sheet entities of commercial banks and hedge funds to raise funds in those markets. Money center banks which provided liquidity support to off-balance sheet entities and investment banks which provided fund to hedge funds through repo and prime brokerage made losses. Collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 caused run on MMMF and Securities Lenders. The run reduced investment and exacerbated the liquidity crisis further. In short, the OTD Model which constituted of banks, off-balance entities, hedge funds, MMF and Securities Lenders formed a chain of financial contracts to earn interests from the interest gaps. This scheme made financial structure vulnerable to liquidity shortage. The chain of financial contracts was collapsed by downgrading of subprime MBS. This entailed huge liquidity crisis and severe depression. I conclude from the point of endogenous destabilization that Subprime Mortgage Crisis is one of a Minsky Crisis.

著者

森岡 真史

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.47, no.2, pp.89-100, 2010-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Nobuo OKISHIO (1927-2003) is famous as one of pioneers in the introduction of mathematical model analysis into Marxian economics. However, there is no common understanding about what is the essence of Okishio's economics. The purpose of this paper is to explore theoretical and methodological features of Okishio's economics through investigation of his works concerning the principles of capitalism. Naturally this task involves a critical review of some aspects in its accomplishments. Okishio's theory of the general principles of capitalism consists of four parts: reproduction structure, wage-price relation, short-term equilibrium, and capital accumulation. These four parts are further divided into two groups. The first two parts analyze the objective structure of capitalist production by Leontief type input-output models. The latter two parts deal with the mechanism which keeps the fluctuation of real wage rate within a certain range through business cycle. Here Okishio adopts the framework of Keynes-Harrod type macro model which presupposes the independence of the demand for investment. These four parts are mutually connected and each presupposes others. As a whole, they constitute a theoretical system explaining the reproduction of capitalist economy. His description of the reproduction of capitalist relations is completed through the whole of these four parts. Starting from the relation between physical quantities and labor hour, he critically and rigorously reconstructed Marx's theory of value and exploitation. By clarifying the concept of surplus labor, he succeeded to show internal linkage between categories in the world of commodity exchange and objective structure of reproduction. At the same time it is also possible to regard Okishio as one of the most penetrating internal critics of Marx's value theory. On the problem of wage-price relation, he elucidated the law of the uniform profit rate caused by the change of technology and real wage. This analysis is based on the assumption that the choice of technique by capitalists follows the cost-minimizing principle. Beyond the analysis of objective structure of capitalist economy, Okishio tried to build a coherent theory of business cycle as the process of cumulative disequilibrium by clarifying the peculiarity of the decision-making of capitalists concerning production, employment and investment. Considering that many Marxian economists had been indifferent to the problem of how individual capitalist behaved, Okishio's attempt was certainly a great challenge. However, his theory on this matter is unsatisfactory on several counts. His characterization of capitalist's supply behavior does not correspond to his formal model. His analysis of business cycle lacks explanation of the mechanism preventing the perpetuation of cumulative disequilibrium. In spite of Okishio's exceptional talent and passion, his endeavors to incorporate the theory of individual choice and behavior into the explanation of reproduction of capitalism did not reach the goal. Thus Okishio's economics has left us a difficult problem to combine structural and behavioral analysis into single coherent theoretical framework.

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

---

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

---

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

森岡 孝二

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.53, no.4, pp.18, 2017 (Released:2019-01-07)

著者

梅澤 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.53, no.3, pp.23, 2016 (Released:2018-10-09)

著者

森岡 真史

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.50, no.4, pp.60-72, 2014-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Nobuo Okishio (1927-2003) and Michio Morishima (1923-2004) belonged to the same generation. Both of them started their study of economics through Hicks's Value and Capital. Because of Okishio's conversion from Hicksian to Marxian economics, their academic path once separated in the mid-1950s. However, since the late-1960s Morishima undertook a reformulation of Marxian value theory. In the 1970s He also accepted Keynes's principle of effective demand as the proper description of contemporary capitalism where the Say's Law does not hold true anymore. The purpose of this paper is to overview Okishio's and Morishima's economics and highlight some important characteristics common to them. Since the author has already made a detailed argument on Okishio in a previous essay, this paper puts focus on Morishima's economics. Morishima regarded theories as a set of tools which should be selected depending on features of the economy to be investigated. Thus his economics has no universal "principle". While making substantial contributions to the elaboration of the general equilibrium theory, he was well aware that adherence to strict generality would be theoretically barren. In his view the scope of analysis based on optimization is limited also by the fact that "sociological factors" play crucial roles in labor market. He showed keen interest in concrete processes of market transactions and emphasized the necessity to analyze the movement of temporary equilibrium prices over periods. Morishima's theoretical transition in late 1960's was twofold. In terms of analytical method he adopted von Neumann's framework. More importantly, in terms of the basic understanding of capitalism, he embraced Keynes. Morishima indicated that equalization of the return rates of durable goods is incompatible with full employment of factors unless the Say's Law is assumed. In connection with this, he sought to construct a price theory which could explain both prices determined by auction and prices set by firms based on the full-cost principle. In Capital and Credit Morishima tried to incorporate into his theory the roles of entrepreneurs and bankers as co-creators of "production possibility set". Okishio and Morishima were outstanding internal critics of the theories upon which they themselves had relied. Okishio's reformulation of Marx's economics contains fundamental criticism against it. Morishima's early works include pertinent insight into the limits of Walrasian-Hicksian approach. hey saw economy as a time-consuming circular process accompanied with complicated interrelations between its various agents and sectors. One of the reasons why they were not impressed with Sraffa might be that they had already established circulation-based view of economy. On Marxian value and exploitation theory, there were no substantial disagreement between them. Rejecting the Say's Law clearly, Okishio and Morishima built their theory on the principle of effective demand. They regard the movement of capital stocks as one of basic factors determining the dynamics of capitalist economy. However, advocacy of Keynes brought disharmony into their theoretical systems. Okishio's Keynesian short-term theory is not consistently connected with Marxian longterm theory. There remained a large gap between Morishima's vision of "the anti-Say's Law system" and his formalized Neumann-type model. Clarification of these common features would be significant as a preparation for more comprehensive comparison of their economics.

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.53, no.3, pp.36, 2016 (Released:2018-10-09)

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

---

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

松尾 匡

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.4, pp.14, 2018 (Released:2020-01-06)

著者

二宮 健史郎

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.52, no.2, pp.92-94, 2015-07-20 (Released:2017-07-03)

著者

服部 茂幸

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.52, no.3, pp.32-42, 2015-10-20 (Released:2017-09-19)

---

Following the financial crisis of 2008, a large number of economists have become interested in the financial instability hypothesis of Hyman P. Minsky. However, his theory of money manager capitalism is also important in thinking about the crisis. At the end of the 1980's, Minsky had already pointed out that American capitalism evolves from corporate capitalism to money manager capitalism. However, he regarded this evolution as retrogression, not progress. Money manager capitalism has been the largest cause of the poverty and the enormous inequality of income and wealth in the United States. He also pointed out that there was a possibility that a serious depression would occur in the future. The global financial crisis of 2008 can be called the realization of Minsky's prediction. Actually, we cannot regard the year 2008 as an exception, since the United States experienced a financial confusion every several years. It is the intervention of the Federal Reserve and government that have prevented this financial confusion from expanding into a financial crisis. However, today when several years have passed since the crisis, the U. S. economy seems to be recovering, as if there had been no crisis. However, current economic recovery means the revival of money manager capitalism. It is often said that the U. S. economy is recovering smoothly since the crisis. In fact, since the early 2000s, the U. S. long-term GDP growth per capita has not been different from that of Japan, whose economy is said to be stagnant due to deflation. It is true that the present U. S. unemployment rate has today been reduced to nearly 5% from its peak of 10%, but the main reason is that people who cannot find jobs have given up looking for jobs. The U. S. employment recovery is far behind that of Japan. In the era of the housing bubble, households in the U. S. borrowed money to consume and to purchase houses. But after the crisis, households have found it difficult to borrow further. The crisis ended the era of financial Keynesianism, and that delayed the U. S. economic recovery. Nevertheless, finance has shown a quick recovery. Profits or capital gains in the financial sector have already recovered and are now near the previous peak. The income and wealth of the super-rich have been restored, as finance is reinvigorated and stock prices are rising. Recovery from the current crisis is contrary to the recovery from the Great Depression in 1930s. The Great Depression and the New Deal ended the era of financial capitalism. The depression destroyed the income and wealth of the super-riches. On the other hand, the economic growth rates of the early New Deal period were very high. The unemployment rate rapidly decreased to 10% in 1936, from its peak of 23%. The U. S. economic policy, which regards the financial sector as most important, is the main cause of the revival of money manager capitalism. The framework of such an economic policy was made by the political and economic structure of the U. S. Today, the financial sector is a powerful player in U. S. politics and economic policy. The manufacturing industry has declined, and real wages are stagnant. In this situation, financial Keynesianism is almost the only model for economic growth. Sadly, the crisis ended the era of financial Keynesianism, but an alternative model has not yet founded.

著者

八尾 信光

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.1, pp.4-15, 2014-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

The substantial economic magnitude of every country in the world should be compared by GDP converted into the dollar by purchasing power parity. Then, Iillustrated the economic expansion process and fluctuation process in the main capitalist states for 165 years in 1850 to 2015 by this method. Based on such a viewpoint, Iused statistics of Angus Maddison, and statistics of IMF. Moreover, the expansion process of the world economy in 1950 to 2015 was illustrated. Based on the secular trend [shown in this figure] for 65 years, the increase process of the real average income and real economic magnitude in the "advanced nations" and the "emerging countries" by 2100 was viewed. Based on such research, Ihave judged as follows. (1)The economy of "advanced nations" goes to rapid growth→medium growth→low-growth→zero-rate economic growth (1960-2050). (2)The economy of "emerging countries" is pursuing it behind time for about 60 years by the aggregate average (2010-2100). (3)The structure of the world economy changes rapidly and it makes the growth rate decrease gradually as the whole (2000-2100). Considering the above secular trend, probably, the target in the future world (2010-2100) will be as follows. (1)Establishment of the democratic welfare society on the basis of economical richening. (2)Formation of the world system of government based on rise of emerging countries. (3)Conversion into "the society of citizen bases" from "the society of capital basis." Japan realized postwar reconstruction and high growth based on the Reform of the social system after the Second World War. In the face of many subjects, Japan had many experiences and has got the result in the meantime. Many countries which are pursuing the Japan back can refer to the experience and result. Probably, the technology and the system which Japan developed are utilizable. The Constitution of Japan is aimed at democratic welfare society in peace. It is also precious property of Japan to have maintained this firmly. If such experience and property are utilized effectively, future Japan will be able to do the big contribution for realization of better society and the better world.

著者

高良 倉成

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.53, no.3, pp.71, 2016 (Released:2018-10-09)

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

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.52, no.3, pp.3-6, 2015-10-20 (Released:2017-09-19)

著者

阿部 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.45, no.4, pp.88-96, 2009-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

As described herein, the Kaleckian growth model microfoundation was produced. Ikeda (2006) pointed out similarity between the Kaleckian model and the New-Keynesian imperfection theory. Although he produced the Kaleckian model a microfoundation on a mark-up price setting and saving function, he gave it no Kaleckian feature that increased monopoly power decreases the growth rate. It has no an autonomous investment function. Therefore increased monopoly power increases saving, which increases investment. This paper introduces investment determination considering the growth rate of demand expectation reported by Adachi (2000). We follow Adachi (2000), which derived an investment function of the imperfect firm. Thereby, we obtain Kaleckian's particular result. The microfoundation is on Post-Keynesian streams, which value the reality of economic models based on the following points. (1) Animal spirits, which are not reduced to probabilistic expectation, determine investment. (2) Development of a credit system occurs behind the autonomous investment function. (3) The economy is on a dynamic transition path. The three points described above differ from Neo-Classical assumptions. Neo-Classicism adopts no subjective expectation such as animal spirits and subsumes that saving determines investment. It also tends to value the equilibrium state when it discusses the economy. Adopting the "ad hoc" assumption that consumption is done using only wage income, we produce no microfoundation of our entire model to assert the importance of an autonomous investment function. However, the assumption is useful when considering the relation between income distribution and the macro-economy. Although Post-Keynesian is often criticized for its lack of a microfoundation, the point is not whether a microfoundation exists but if the assumption is realistic. The Post-Keynesian school can explain the real economy despite that criticism. This paper's main point is that autonomous investment is necessary when we consider the microfoundation of the Kaleckian growth model.

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

神山 義治

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.109-111, 2013