"Money and Equilibrium: Two Alternative Nodes Of Coordination Of Economic Activities"

Economic theory has undergone a very deep transformation during the last forty years. Its method and its tools of analysis have evolved dramatically. The standards by which theoretical statements are now appreciated are far more demanding, especially from a formal point of view, than was the case before World War II. Precision and logical validity in raising questions and problems have increased as well. The set of hypotheses necessary to deal with the usual issues of political economy has been made more explicit, allowing everyone to have a more clearer interpretation of what has been done in the different fields. The content and the relevance of the concept of equilibrium have been strongly affected by these transformations. This paper, obviously, does not attempt to give an account of all these changes. It will focus on just one consequence of this evolution: the relevance of the concept of equilibrium in dealing with the traditional question of the working of the market, the central institution in our economies. To put the matter very briefly, the question addressed here concerns the place of equilibrium in economic theory: does mainstream economics allow for another theoretical reference? For two centuries at least, equilibrium was referred to as a particular situation towards which the market mechanism was supposed to drive the economy. An important issue was to prove this conjecture. Whereas mainstream economists (Smith, Ricardo, Stuart Mill, Marshall and Walras) endeavored to prove the stability of the market, critical authors tried to show that certain fundamental flaws of the market mechanism make instability and crisis the rule in a capitalist economy. Among the factors said to be responsible for this result, the monetary character of the economy seems the most important (as was emphasized by Boisguilbert, Sismondi and Marx in the past and by Keynes in our time).

"Viability and Equilibrium: ISLM Revisited"

More than fifty years after the publication of Keynes' General Theory and of the review article by Hicks, ISLM remains the basic model for teaching Keynesian macroeconomics. Some Keynesians have rightly insisted on the inadequacies of ISLM in capturing Keynes' thought but have not converted the profession to their views. The same fate may befall this paper whose aim is to suggest an alternative class-room model in the Keynesian and Kaleckian tradition. Nevertheless, in accordance with Orange's lucid motto,"il n'est pas necessaire d'esperer pour entreprendre ni de reussir pour perseverer"... The main thesis is that the concept of static equilibrium, central to ISLM, is not adequate to express the most fundamental aspect of the Keynesian revolution. The first section of the paper is devoted to a defense of the more general concept of viability. Static equilibrium will appear as but one particular example of this larger notion. A very simple model is presented in the second section. Its distinctive feature, aside from its inclusion of the ISLM equations, is to make a clear distinction between the macroeconomic relations exhibiting the consequences of the decisions of the agents on the one hand and the principles according to which these decisions are taken and carried out on the other. The concept of static equilibrium, by contrast is founded on the confusion of the two: a necessary condition for individual actions to be effective is their mutual compatibility. The third section deals very briefly with the implications of the model for the analysis of macroeconomic policy.

"Marx's Value, Exchange and Surplus Value Theory: A Suggested Interpretation"

The concept of commodity society based on a specific division of labour (opposition between private and social labor) and that of surplus-value are the most prominent achievements of Marx's intellectual efforts in dealing with the economy of capitalism. This paper attempts to evaluate the consistency of the theoretical propositions inherent in these concepts. The main contention is that an internal criticism of Marx's theory of exchange and surplus-value leads one to restate it in a different framework. This framework. Which may be called monetary approach represents an alternative to value theory. The first section of the paper is devoted to Marx's value theory, especially to the form of value analysis. We suggest that Marx did not succeed in deriving money from commodity. As a consequence, money, if any, has to be presupposed at the same time as the specific division of labor. Doing so is breaking with the typical abstraction of value theory which substitutes values for monetary magnitudes, the former being thought of as expressing the essence of society in contrast with the latter conceived as surface phenomena. The second section points out the logical inconsistencies which make the surplus value theory unsuitable for its purpose. A restatement will be suggested in which the monetary character of economic relations is again central.

Monnaie ou don : réflexions sur le mythe économique de la monnaie

La théorie économique de la monnaie est une construction intellectuelle indigène, qui, à ce titre, mérite considération. Elle est l’expression d’un « mythe rationnel » d’autant plus intéressant à analyser que dans sa version la plus achevée il englobe en une construction unique les économies de marché et les économies de don, conçues comme deux moyens alternatifs d’obtenir le même résultat, à savoir une allocation optimale des biens ou richesses entre les individus.L’étude critique de ce mythe et de sa prétention explicative conduit à des réflexions diverses sur le recours à la théorie économique en général pour la compréhension des sociétés modernes et exotiques.The economic theory of currency is an indigenous intellectual construction which merits examination as such. It is the expression of a « rational myth » which is all the more interesting to analyse in that its most developed version incorporates market and gift economies in a single model. These are conceived as two alternative means of obtaining the same result, namely an optimal allocation of goods and wealth among individuals.A critical study of this myth and its explanatory claims leads to diverse reflections on the recourse to economic theory generally for an understanding of modern and exotic societies

La teoría económica: ¿un monumento en peligro?

RESUMEN: La teoría económica ya no tiene el respaldo de los economistas académicos ni de otros intelectuales. Hay muchas razones para este descrédito, pero ellas tienen que ver principalmente con la reducción del área de investigación, como consecuencia de una necesidad cada vez mayor de coherencia y de la voluntad de probar empíricamente algunos supuestos fundamentales que borra la frontera tradicional entre las disciplinas. El desarrollo de técnicas de procesamiento de datos cuantitativos y la naturaleza de las preguntas planteadas, hace que muchos estudios empíricos hagan parte tanto de la economía como de la sociología. Este declive de la teoría económica se refiere principalmente al paradigma dominante, el cual dio a los economistas, simultáneamente, el tipo de problemas a resolver (existencia y optimalidad de los equilibrios) y las herramientas para hacerlo (modelos matemáticos que asocian comportamientos racionales y condiciones de equilibrio). Ese declive tiene poco que ver con el paradigma dominado que Schumpeter llama análisis monetario y que se opone a la teoría del valor. Ilustrado por Steuart en siglo XVIII y por Keynes en el siglo XX, este análisis monetario se caracteriza por otras cuestiones (viabilidad en lugar de equilibrio) y otras representaciones de la economía (matrices de pagos en lugar de matrices de exceso de demanda).ABSTRACT: Economic theory is has lost most of its attractiveness amongst academic economists. Multiple reasons may explain that discredit but two seem of special interest: most severe requirements about logical consistency and questions to be solved have contributed to shrink the field of economic theory while a strong desire to confront assumptions with reality have blurred the frontier between economics and social sciences. The remarkable development of quantitative techniques (big data) and the type of questions on the agenda have made empirical economics and empirical sociology almost impossible to distinguish. The neglect of economic theory is more evident for the dominant paradigm than for the dominate one, called monetary analysis by Schumpeter who opposed it to real or value analysis. Illustrated by Steuart in 18th century and Keynes in the 20th century, monetary analysis deals with different questions (viability rather than equilibrium) and resorts to different tools (payment matrices rather than excess demands).Originalmente publicado en la revista Cahiers d’Économie Politique, 2020/1, número 77, páginas 51-72. Se publica con la autorización del autor y del editor de la revista (febrero 1 de 2021)

Dinero, forma y determinación del valor

Este artículo considera seriamente la forma del valor como una parte esencial de la crpitica de Marx a la economía política. Muestra que esa crítica es particularmente relevante con respecto a la teoría moderna del equilibrio general. Al no dar cabida a los procesos de intercambio descentralizados (aun en quilibrio), la teoría neo-walrasiana es incapaz de modelar adecuadamente los precios de mercado. Sin embargo, Marx no tuvo éxito en su intento de unir la determinación de valor y la forma monetaria del valor. Los autores proponen un modelo tentativo en el que los valores monetarios se determinan de acuerdo con el principio marxista de la "unidad de la producción y la circulación"This article seriously considers the form of value as an essential part of Marx's critique of political economy. It shows that this critique is especially relevant with respect to the modern theory of general equilibrium. By not leaving space for processes of decentralized exchange (even in equilibrium), neo-Walrasian theory is unable to adequately model market prices. However, Marx was not successful in his attempt to unite the determination of value and the monetary form of value. The authors propose a tentative model in which monetary values are determined according to the Marxist principle of "the unity of production and circulation"

Der Regulationsansatz: Ein neues Paradigma?

Cartelier und de Vroey prüfen, was die Arbeiten der Regulationsschule zur ökonomischen Theorie beitragen. Sie kommen zu dem Ergebnis, daß dieser Ansatz in seinem gegenwärtigen Zustand nicht beanspruchen kann, eine Alternative zur herrschenden Theorie darzustellen. Die Regulationsschule versucht nicht, auf die fundamentalen Fragen der politischen Ökonomie zu antworten, deren Aufnahme für Cartelier/de Vroey eine unerläßliche Voraussetzung für die Etablierung eines neuen Paradigmas darstellt. Bezogen auf das Niveau von Theorien mittlerer Reichweite vertreten Cartelier/de Vroey insbesondere bezüglich des Fordismus- Konzepts die Auffassung, daß der Begr(ff, obgleich interessant und originell, ohne weiteres in die traditionelle ökonomische Theorie integrierbar wäre

Mesure de la valeur et système monétaire : la tentative de Gray (1848). Textes et commentaire.

A short introduction precedes two large extracts of a book (1848) in which John Gray describes an original system for the emission of the means of circulation making money a good measure of value and avoiding the general overproduction crisis (not originating in disproportions between the industries). The implications for modern theory of Gray's system are briefly ack- knowledged.Il s'agit d'une présentation succincte de deux extraits d'un ouvrage de J. Gray (1848) proposant un système d'émission de la monnaie destiné à faire de celle-ci une bonne mesure de la valeur et à remédier aux crises qui ne sont pas dues à des disproportions entre les branches. Les implications du système de Gray pour la théorie moderne sont brièvement évoquées.Cartelier Jean. Mesure de la valeur et système monétaire : la tentative de Gray (1848). Textes et commentaire.. In: Cahiers d'économie politique, n°13, 1987. Conceptions de la monnaie : un enjeu théorique. pp. 191-208

Monnaie et marché. Un point de vue critique sur les modèles de prospection

Money and market: a critical view on search models Search models devoted to money theory greatly help in solving some unsettled problems mainly because they deal explicitly with the organisation of transactions and with the way individual agents meet and bargain. The purpose of this paper is to try to assess their importance for the general theory of market economies. Search-theoretic approach to money opens new perspectives but at the same time makes emerge old problems. In particular it seems now impossible not to wonder whether the choice of a collective organisation of exchange is or not a problem analogue to that of a technique of production or that of a bundle of consumption. Does it make sense to try to determine endogenously at the same time the choice of the rules of the game and the best way of playing them? A critical examination of basic search models may come to conclude that their main benefit is to reveal the dead ends of standard equilibrium theory rather than to save it from its traditional flaws in money theory.Monnaie et marché. Un point de vue critique sur les modèles de prospection Appliqués à la théorie de la monnaie, les modèles de prospection fournissent des réponses à des questions jusque-là non résolues. La raison fondamentale de ces succès tient à ce qu'ils étudient explicitement la façon dont les agents se rencontrent et réalisent leurs transactions. L'objet de cet article est de tenter d'apprécier la contribution possible des modèles monétaires de prospection à la théorie générale de l'économie de marché. Cette approche ouvre de nouvelles perspectives mais, en même temps, réactive de vieux problèmes. Il n'est notamment plus possible d'éviter la question de savoir si le choix d'un mode d'organisation des échanges est du même type que celui de la technique de production ou d'un vecteur de consommation. Est-il bien raisonnable de vouloir déterminer de façon endogène à la fois les règles du jeu et la meilleure façon de les utiliser ? Un examen critique des modèles de prospection de base conduit à conclure que leur apport le plus précieux est de révéler les impasses dans lesquelles la théorie de l'équilibre général s'est engagée plutôt que de surmonter ses traditionnelles insuffisances en théorie monétaire.Cartelier Jean. Monnaie et marché. Un point de vue critique sur les modèles de prospection. In: Revue économique, volume 52, n°5, 2001. pp. 993-1011