书评:失业、衰退和有效需求

IF 1.5 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Economic and Labour Relations Review Pub Date : 2012-02-01 DOI:10.1177/103530461202300112
B. Lucarelli
{"title":"书评:失业、衰退和有效需求","authors":"B. Lucarelli","doi":"10.1177/103530461202300112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this concise, well-written volume, Professor Sardoni sets out to ‘provide a critical examination of the foundations of macroeconomics as developed in the tradition of Marx, Keynes and Kalecki’ (ix). In this regard, the author succeeds quite admirably. Despite the rather profound divergences in methodological approaches among Marx, Keynes and Kalecki, Sardoni argues that there is a common lineage linking these authors in relation to their respective analyses of the problems of unemployment, investment and effective demand. Sardoni argues that Kalecki’s contribution to the theory of effective demand is quite seminal and represents a possible ‘bridge’ between the Marxian and Keynesian traditions. Furthermore, he contends that Kalecki’s theory also resolves some of the analytical problems which continue to plague both Marx and Keynes. In Sardoni’s view, Keynes’s original hypothesis in The General Theory provides an analytical explanation of under-employment equilibrium in which the economy operates at an equilibrium level of output which does not necessarily correspond with full employment. Keynes argues that, contrary to ‘classical’ theory, there are no automatic mechanisms that will ensure that the economy tends toward full employment. In other words, the economy could experience long periods of excess productive capacity and under-employment. On the other hand, Marx’s analytical framework provides a coherent explanation of recurrent capitalist crises but is unable to explain prolonged periods of under-employment equilibrium. Sardoni contends that both Marx and Keynes encounter considerable problems in their respective micro-foundations in explaining the continued existence of under-employment. These micro-foundations assume considerable market perturbations and a competitive market structure. Sardoni argues that, by abandoning the assumption of free competition and adopting a theory of imperfect competition based upon a ‘profit mark-up’ approach and the ‘degree of monopoly’, Kalecki provides a more coherent set of micro-foundations in analysing the macroeconomic problems of unemployment and effective demand. Consequently, the problem of market forms acquires a critical importance for how the macro-economy behaves in relation to the problem of effective demand:","PeriodicalId":51718,"journal":{"name":"Economic and Labour Relations Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/103530461202300112","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: Unemployment, Recession and Effective Demand\",\"authors\":\"B. Lucarelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/103530461202300112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this concise, well-written volume, Professor Sardoni sets out to ‘provide a critical examination of the foundations of macroeconomics as developed in the tradition of Marx, Keynes and Kalecki’ (ix). In this regard, the author succeeds quite admirably. Despite the rather profound divergences in methodological approaches among Marx, Keynes and Kalecki, Sardoni argues that there is a common lineage linking these authors in relation to their respective analyses of the problems of unemployment, investment and effective demand. Sardoni argues that Kalecki’s contribution to the theory of effective demand is quite seminal and represents a possible ‘bridge’ between the Marxian and Keynesian traditions. Furthermore, he contends that Kalecki’s theory also resolves some of the analytical problems which continue to plague both Marx and Keynes. In Sardoni’s view, Keynes’s original hypothesis in The General Theory provides an analytical explanation of under-employment equilibrium in which the economy operates at an equilibrium level of output which does not necessarily correspond with full employment. Keynes argues that, contrary to ‘classical’ theory, there are no automatic mechanisms that will ensure that the economy tends toward full employment. In other words, the economy could experience long periods of excess productive capacity and under-employment. On the other hand, Marx’s analytical framework provides a coherent explanation of recurrent capitalist crises but is unable to explain prolonged periods of under-employment equilibrium. Sardoni contends that both Marx and Keynes encounter considerable problems in their respective micro-foundations in explaining the continued existence of under-employment. These micro-foundations assume considerable market perturbations and a competitive market structure. Sardoni argues that, by abandoning the assumption of free competition and adopting a theory of imperfect competition based upon a ‘profit mark-up’ approach and the ‘degree of monopoly’, Kalecki provides a more coherent set of micro-foundations in analysing the macroeconomic problems of unemployment and effective demand. Consequently, the problem of market forms acquires a critical importance for how the macro-economy behaves in relation to the problem of effective demand:\",\"PeriodicalId\":51718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic and Labour Relations Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/103530461202300112\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic and Labour Relations Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/103530461202300112\",\"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":"Economic and Labour Relations Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/103530461202300112","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

在这本简洁、文笔优美的书中,萨尔多尼教授着手“对马克思、凯恩斯和卡莱茨基传统中发展起来的宏观经济学基础进行了批判性考察”(ix)。在这方面,作者取得了令人钦佩的成功。尽管马克思、凯恩斯和卡莱茨基在方法论上存在相当深刻的分歧,但萨尔多尼认为,在他们各自对失业、投资和有效需求问题的分析方面,这些作者有着共同的谱系。萨尔多尼认为,卡莱茨基对有效需求理论的贡献是非常开创性的,代表了马克思主义和凯恩斯主义传统之间可能的“桥梁”。此外,他认为卡莱茨基的理论还解决了一些一直困扰着马克思和凯恩斯的分析问题。在萨尔多尼看来,凯恩斯在《通论》中的原始假设为就业不足均衡提供了一种分析性解释,在这种均衡中,经济运行在均衡的产出水平上,而这并不一定与充分就业相对应。凯恩斯认为,与“经典”理论相反,不存在能确保经济趋向充分就业的自动机制。换句话说,经济可能会经历长期的产能过剩和就业不足。另一方面,马克思的分析框架为反复出现的资本主义危机提供了连贯的解释,但无法解释长期的就业不足均衡。萨尔多尼认为,在解释就业不足持续存在的问题时,马克思和凯恩斯在各自的微观基础上都遇到了相当大的问题。这些微观基础假定有相当大的市场扰动和竞争性的市场结构。萨尔多尼认为,通过放弃自由竞争的假设,采用基于“利润加价”方法和“垄断程度”的不完全竞争理论,卡莱茨基为分析失业和有效需求等宏观经济问题提供了一套更连贯的微观基础。因此,市场形式的问题对于宏观经济在有效需求问题上的表现具有至关重要的意义:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Book Review: Unemployment, Recession and Effective Demand
In this concise, well-written volume, Professor Sardoni sets out to ‘provide a critical examination of the foundations of macroeconomics as developed in the tradition of Marx, Keynes and Kalecki’ (ix). In this regard, the author succeeds quite admirably. Despite the rather profound divergences in methodological approaches among Marx, Keynes and Kalecki, Sardoni argues that there is a common lineage linking these authors in relation to their respective analyses of the problems of unemployment, investment and effective demand. Sardoni argues that Kalecki’s contribution to the theory of effective demand is quite seminal and represents a possible ‘bridge’ between the Marxian and Keynesian traditions. Furthermore, he contends that Kalecki’s theory also resolves some of the analytical problems which continue to plague both Marx and Keynes. In Sardoni’s view, Keynes’s original hypothesis in The General Theory provides an analytical explanation of under-employment equilibrium in which the economy operates at an equilibrium level of output which does not necessarily correspond with full employment. Keynes argues that, contrary to ‘classical’ theory, there are no automatic mechanisms that will ensure that the economy tends toward full employment. In other words, the economy could experience long periods of excess productive capacity and under-employment. On the other hand, Marx’s analytical framework provides a coherent explanation of recurrent capitalist crises but is unable to explain prolonged periods of under-employment equilibrium. Sardoni contends that both Marx and Keynes encounter considerable problems in their respective micro-foundations in explaining the continued existence of under-employment. These micro-foundations assume considerable market perturbations and a competitive market structure. Sardoni argues that, by abandoning the assumption of free competition and adopting a theory of imperfect competition based upon a ‘profit mark-up’ approach and the ‘degree of monopoly’, Kalecki provides a more coherent set of micro-foundations in analysing the macroeconomic problems of unemployment and effective demand. Consequently, the problem of market forms acquires a critical importance for how the macro-economy behaves in relation to the problem of effective demand:
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
8.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The Economic & Labour Relations Review is a double-blind, peer-reviewed journal that aims to bring together research in economics and labour relations in a multi-disciplinary approach to policy questions. The journal encourages articles that critically assess dominant orthodoxies, as well as alternative models, thereby facilitating informed debate. The journal particularly encourages articles that adopt a post-Keynesian (heterodox) approach to economics, or that explore rights-, equality- or justice-based approaches to labour relations and social policy.
期刊最新文献
Ethical power: a supplement to the trade union’s power resources approach Retirement pension poverty among injured workers with long-term workers’ compensation claims The persistence of a bad idea - Review: Quinlan Michael, Contesting Inequality and Worker Mobilization: Australia 1851–1880, Routledge Studies in Employment and Work Relations in Context, Francis & Hope, 2020 Imperialism in the academy? Challenges for academic journals The chronos of class conflict. The relevance of the temporal dimension in conflicts related to labour migration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1