{"title":"Debt and demand regimes in simplified growth models: a comparison of neo-Kaleckian and Supermultiplier models","authors":"Lídia Brochier, Fabio Freitas","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper compares stock-flow consistent (SFC) versions of extended canonical neo-Kaleckian and Supermultiplier models that deal with either households’ or firms’ debt accumulation. This comparison aims are twofold: (i) to evaluate the differences of a debt accumulation process in these models due to their specific closures; (ii) to provide a pedagogical tool for understanding the basic features of each model when dealing with similar issues. In the short run, we find that the relation of debt ratios, demand and growth is similar for both models. In the long run of the Supemultiplier model, only the Minskyan debt regime is economically viable for the firms’ sector. As for the household sector, the paradox of debt is indeed a feature of the canonical Supermultiplier model, yet there may be episodes of rising debt-to-income ratios. As for the neo-Kaleckian model, firms’ leverage ratio can be either pro- or anti-cyclical; in the household sector, the absence of the paradox of debt seems to be the most likely scenario.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"36 1-2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract The paper compares stock-flow consistent (SFC) versions of extended canonical neo-Kaleckian and Supermultiplier models that deal with either households’ or firms’ debt accumulation. This comparison aims are twofold: (i) to evaluate the differences of a debt accumulation process in these models due to their specific closures; (ii) to provide a pedagogical tool for understanding the basic features of each model when dealing with similar issues. In the short run, we find that the relation of debt ratios, demand and growth is similar for both models. In the long run of the Supemultiplier model, only the Minskyan debt regime is economically viable for the firms’ sector. As for the household sector, the paradox of debt is indeed a feature of the canonical Supermultiplier model, yet there may be episodes of rising debt-to-income ratios. As for the neo-Kaleckian model, firms’ leverage ratio can be either pro- or anti-cyclical; in the household sector, the absence of the paradox of debt seems to be the most likely scenario.
期刊介绍:
The Cambridge Journal of Economics, founded in 1977 in the traditions of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor, provides a forum for theoretical, applied, policy and methodological research into social and economic issues. Its focus includes: •the organisation of social production and the distribution of its product •the causes and consequences of gender, ethnic, class and national inequities •inflation and unemployment •the changing forms and boundaries of markets and planning •uneven development and world market instability •globalisation and international integration.