From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sun Dec 01 2002 - 21:40:22 EST
"Post-Keynesian and Marxist Economics:
twins or distant cousins?"
Paper from May 2001 by Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia
presented at the Progressive Economic Forum meeting of the
Canadian Economics Association (in pdf format):
http://www.econ.queensu.ca/cea2001/papers/lavoie-seccareccia.pdf
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Abstract: There has been a substantial amount of convergence
between post-Keynesian and Marxist economics, the writings of
Kalecki being common ground for both traditions. Still, some
differences remain. While authors in both traditions seem to agree
to a large extent on short-period issues, *long-period issues
related the role of savings, the rate of profit, inflation,
crowding out, excess money supply, are still contentious.
All this seems to depend on the investment function and
the role of capacity utilization. Post-Keynesians claim that
the rate of accumulation is tied to the rate of capacity
utilization, whereas Marxists link the latter to the change
in the rate of accumulation* ." (emphasis added, JL)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* Does the "abstract" accurately express the main differences
in perspective between these two traditions?
* Can these perspectives be reconciled without doing an
injustice to either one? If so, how?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 00:00:00 EST