The Social and Economic Importance of Full Employment

Unemployment was singled out by John Maynard Keynes as one of the principle faults of capitalism; the other is excessive inequality. Obviously, there is some link between these two faults: because: since most people living in capitalist economies must work for wages as a major source of their incomes, inability to obtain a job means lower income. If jobs can be provided to the unemployed, inequality and poverty will be reduced although such policy will not directly address the problem of excessive income at the top of the distribution. Most importantly, Keynes wanted to put unemployed labor to work not digging holes, but in socially productive ways. This would help to ensure that the additional effective demand created by government spending would not be exhausted in higher prices as it ran up against bottlenecks or other supply constraints. Further, it would help maintain public support for the government's programs by providing useful output. And it would generate respect for, and feelings of self-worth in, the workers employed in these projects (no worker would want to spend her days digging holes that serve no useful purpose). President Roosevelt's New Deal jobs programs (such as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps) are good examples of such targeted job-creating programs. These provided income and employment for workers, actually helped increase the nation's productivity, and left us with public buildings, dams, trails, and even music that we still enjoy today. As our nation (and the world) collapses into deep recession, or even depression, it is worthwhile to examine Hyman P. Minsky's comprehensive approach to resolving the unemployment problem

The efficacy of macroeconomic policies in resolving financial market disequilibria: A cross-country analysis

This study attempts to evaluate the efficacy of macroeconomic policies in resolving financial market disequilibria and to elucidate the influence of the political landscape and global financial integration on the policymaking process. The current investigation examines three macroeconomic policies (i) government spending, (ii) liquidity provision and (iii) central bank interest rates by analysing 21 countries around the globe. The results suggest that government spending is a suboptimal macroeconomic policy for mitigating imbalances in financial markets, as it may have destabilizing effects. Liquidity provision was found to be ineffective in facilitating financial market stability whereas the adjustment of interest rates was found to be a viable tool for mitigating financial market imbalances. Therefore, an appropriate policy framework would comprise the following: prudent government spending, conditional liquidity provision and a reduction in interest rates following the development of financial market disequilibria. Furthermore, this study found strong evidence against the notion that political orientations influence policy frameworks which were designed to redress financial market disequilibria. This study also found that global financial integration does not influence the policymaking process

The Deep Historical Roots of Macroeconomic Volatility

We present cross-country evidence that a country's macroeconomic volatility, measured either by the standard deviation of output growth or the occurrence of trend-growth breaks, is significantly affected by the country's historical variables. In particular, countries with longer histories of state-level political institutions experience less macroeconomic volatility in postwar periods. Robustness checks reveal that the effect of this historical variable on volatility remains significant and substantial after controlling for a host of structural variables investigated in previous studies. We also find that the state history variable is more important in countries with a higher level of macroeconomic volatility

Social surplus approach and heterodox economics

Given the emphasis on social provisioning in heterodox economics, two of its central theoretical organizing principles are the concepts of the total social product and the social surplus. This appears to link heterodox economics to the social surplus approach associated with the classical economists and currently with Sraffian economists. However, heterodox economics connects agency with the social surplus and the social product, which the Sraffians reject as they take the level and composition of the social product as given. Therefore the different theoretical approach regarding the social surplus taken in heterodox economics may generate a different but similar way of theorizing about a capitalist economy. To explore this difference is the aim of the paper. Thus the paper is divided into four parts and a conclusion. In the first section social provisioning and the social surplus is introduced. In the second section, the Sraffian social surplus approach is delineated while in the third section the heterodox social surplus approach is delineated. In the fourth section of the paper, some of the implications emerging from the differences between the two approaches are discussed. The paper is concluded in the final section

Thomas Piketty, the future of capitalism and the theory of distribution: a review essay Thomas Piketty, the Future of Capitalism and the theory of Distribution: a Review Essay

Abstract This essay reviews Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014). The focus is upon the conceptual framework and theoretical interpretation of the empirical findings assembled in the book, rather than those empirical findings themselves (which are, in any case, broadly incontestable). The core theoretical logic of the distributional dynamics is explained and subjected to scrutiny with respect to the theory of distribution in particular, but also the theory of growth

Journal of the History of Economic Thought Preprints - Keynes, Public Debt and the Complex of Interest Rates

John Maynard Keynes consistently offered qualified endorsement of Abba Lerner’s “functional finance” doctrine – the qualifications particularly turning on Keynes’s attentiveness to policy management of the psychology of the debt market. This article examines Keynes’s understanding of the possible influence of public debt on interest rates, from 1930 forward. With the multiplier a mechanism whereby debt-financed public investment generates matching private saving (net of private investment) plus public saving, it becomes possible for Keynes to conclude that increasing public debt need not place upward pressure on the level of interest rates, so long as policy can successfully manage the psychology of the debt market. This particularly concerns long interest rates and hence, the term structure of rates. His theory of the term structure enables Keynes’s conviction that policy can manage and shape long rates. The conclusion considers also whether Keynes’s caution concerning public debt and interest rates retains relevance today