{"title":"外围资本主义的多样性:论经济落后的制度基础*","authors":"Esteban Pérez Caldentey, M. Vernengo","doi":"10.4337/roke.2022.02.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically analyses the literature spawned by Peter Hall and David Soskice’s influential book on the varieties of capitalism. It takes as a starting point the critiques within the comparative political economy literature about the supply-side views on economic growth, and the problems with emphasizing the nature of firm behavior as the source of institutional variety. It argues that demand-led growth, as discussed by Post-Keynesian authors, provides an important alternative to the conventional approach to the explanation of varieties of institutional experience. It suggests that understanding the reasons for institutional variety within capitalism requires incorporating the work of Cambridge Keynesians which recovered the work of Classical political economy authors and extended Keynes’s ideas on effective demand to explain the process of accumulation. It also requires incorporating the ideas of Prebisch and the Latin American Structuralists, who analysed the limits to accumulation in peripheral countries. The paper also discusses the limitations of Neo-Kaleckian models of demand-led growth used by some authors in the comparative political economy literature, and it suggests a new taxonomy for ordering varieties of capitalism.","PeriodicalId":45671,"journal":{"name":"Review of Keynesian Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Varieties of peripheral capitalism: on the institutional foundations of economic backwardness*\",\"authors\":\"Esteban Pérez Caldentey, M. Vernengo\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/roke.2022.02.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper critically analyses the literature spawned by Peter Hall and David Soskice’s influential book on the varieties of capitalism. It takes as a starting point the critiques within the comparative political economy literature about the supply-side views on economic growth, and the problems with emphasizing the nature of firm behavior as the source of institutional variety. It argues that demand-led growth, as discussed by Post-Keynesian authors, provides an important alternative to the conventional approach to the explanation of varieties of institutional experience. It suggests that understanding the reasons for institutional variety within capitalism requires incorporating the work of Cambridge Keynesians which recovered the work of Classical political economy authors and extended Keynes’s ideas on effective demand to explain the process of accumulation. It also requires incorporating the ideas of Prebisch and the Latin American Structuralists, who analysed the limits to accumulation in peripheral countries. The paper also discusses the limitations of Neo-Kaleckian models of demand-led growth used by some authors in the comparative political economy literature, and it suggests a new taxonomy for ordering varieties of capitalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Keynesian Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Keynesian Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2022.02.06\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Keynesian Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/roke.2022.02.06","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Varieties of peripheral capitalism: on the institutional foundations of economic backwardness*
This paper critically analyses the literature spawned by Peter Hall and David Soskice’s influential book on the varieties of capitalism. It takes as a starting point the critiques within the comparative political economy literature about the supply-side views on economic growth, and the problems with emphasizing the nature of firm behavior as the source of institutional variety. It argues that demand-led growth, as discussed by Post-Keynesian authors, provides an important alternative to the conventional approach to the explanation of varieties of institutional experience. It suggests that understanding the reasons for institutional variety within capitalism requires incorporating the work of Cambridge Keynesians which recovered the work of Classical political economy authors and extended Keynes’s ideas on effective demand to explain the process of accumulation. It also requires incorporating the ideas of Prebisch and the Latin American Structuralists, who analysed the limits to accumulation in peripheral countries. The paper also discusses the limitations of Neo-Kaleckian models of demand-led growth used by some authors in the comparative political economy literature, and it suggests a new taxonomy for ordering varieties of capitalism.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE) is dedicated to the promotion of research in Keynesian economics. Not only does that include Keynesian ideas about macroeconomic theory and policy, it also extends to microeconomic and meso-economic analysis and relevant empirical and historical research. The journal provides a forum for developing and disseminating Keynesian ideas, and intends to encourage critical exchange with other macroeconomic paradigms. The journal is dedicated to the development of Keynesian theory and policy. In our view, Keynesian theory should hold a similar place in economics to that held by the theory of evolution in biology. Many individual economists still work within the Keynesian paradigm, but intellectual success demands institutional support that can leverage those individual efforts. The journal offers such support by providing a forum for developing and sharing Keynesian ideas. Not only does that include ideas about macroeconomic theory and policy, it also extends to microeconomic and meso-economic analysis and relevant empirical and historical research. We see a bright future for the Keynesian approach to macroeconomics and invite the economics profession to join us by subscribing to the journal and submitting manuscripts.