Documents

[2049-5331 - Review of Keynesian Economics] Cambridge and Neo-Kaleckian Growth and Distribution Theory- Comparison With an Application to Fiscal Policy

Description
Cambridge and neo-Kaleckian growth and distribution theory: comparison with an application to fiscal policy Thomas I. Palley Independent Analyst, Washington, DC, USA This paper compares Cambridge and neo-Kaleckian growth theory. Both are members of the post-Keynesian approach to growth and distribution, but the Cambridge model is a hybrid of Keynesian and classical features whereas the neo-Kaleckian model is Keynesian. The Cambridge approach assumes full capacity utilization,
Categories
Published
of 26
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Cambridge and neo-Kaleckian growth anddistribution theory: comparison withan application to fiscal policy Thomas I. Palley Independent Analyst, Washington, DC, USA This paper compares Cambridge and neo-Kaleckian growth theory. Both are members of the post-Keynesian approach to growth and distribution, but the Cambridge model is ahybrid of Keynesian and classical features whereas the neo-Kaleckian model is Keynesian.The Cambridge approach assumes full capacity utilization, while the neo-Kaleckianapproach assumes variable capacity utilization. The two theories rely on fundamentally dif- ferent theories of income distribution. The Cambridge model has a class structure of savingthat generates Pasinetti ’ s (1962) theorem regarding irrelevance of worker saving for steady-state growth and distribution. That class structure can be included in the neo-Kaleckian model, generating a variant of the Pasinetti result whereby steady-state capacityutilization is independent of worker saving. Fiscal policy has similar growth effects in thetwo models, albeit via very different mechanisms. Both models suffer from lack of attentionto the labor market. Keywords:  Distribution, growth, Cambridge, neo-Kaleckian, ownership, fiscal policy JEL codes:  E12, E22, E25 1 INTRODUCTIONThis paper compares Cambridge and neo-Kaleckian distribution and growth theory,with a special focus on the comparative effects of fiscal policy. The Cambridgeapproach is identified with the models of  Kaldor (1956) and Pasinetti (1962). The neo-Kaleckian approach is identified with Rowthorn (1982), Taylor (1983; 1991), Dutt (1984), and Lavoie (1995). Both approaches are part of the post-Keynesian approach to growth. However, their substance is dramatically different, reflecting different theories of income distributionand different views about equilibrium capacity utilization. The Cambridge model is a mix of classical and Keynesian features. It is classical in that it assumes steady-statefull capacity utilization, and growth effects of aggregate demand (AD) alsowork via the classical mechanism of variation in the profit share and profit rate. It is Keynesian in that the functional distribution of income is affected by AD. Theneo-Kaleckian model is Keynesian in that it permits variable steady-state capacity uti-lization, enabling AD to also affect growth via the Keynesian mechanism of variationin the level of economic activity.The paper illustrates these two perspectives with an application to fiscal policy. Thepaperalsoseeks toclarifytheroleof Pasinetti ’ s (1962) version of the Cambridge model Review of Keynesian Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, Spring 2013, pp. 79 – 104 © 2013 The Author Journal compilation © 2013 Edward Elgar Publishing LtdThe Lypiatts, 15 Lansdown Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 2JA, UK and The William Pratt House, 9 Dewey Court, Northampton MA 01060-3815, USA Downloaded from Elgar Online at 04/08/2014 03:16:53PMvia free access  which incorporates a class-based structure of saving that renders worker saving beha-vior irrelevant for the determination of growth and distribution. A class-based structureof saving can also be incorporated into the neo-Kaleckian model, but now it is the rateof capacity utilization that is rendered independent of worker saving behavior.2 THE CAMBRIDGE (UK) MODEL OF GROWTH ANDINCOME DISTRIBUTIONThis section presents the Cambridge (UK) model of growth and income distributionpioneered by Kaldor (1956) and Pasinetti (1962). A key analytic feature of this approach is the class-based structure of saving. A core economic assumption is that in the long run the economy settles at normal capacity utilization. 2.1 The basic model The equations of the model are given by u  ¼  Y  = K   ¼  u  (2.1)  I  = K   ¼  S  = K   ¼  S  w = K   þ  S  k  = K   (2.2)  I  = K   ¼  i  ¼  α  0  þ  α  1 π  u  α  0 > 0 ; α  1 > 0 ; 0 < π  < 1 (2.3) S  w = K   ¼  s w  ¼  σ  w h ω u  þ ½ 1 −  z  π  u  i  0 < σ  w ≤ 1 ; 0 < ω < 1 ; 0 <  z ≤ 1 (2.4) S  k  = K   ¼  s k   ¼  σ  K  ½  z π  u    0 < σ  w < σ  k  ≤ 1 (2.5) π   þ  ω  ¼  1 (2.6)  zi  ¼  s k   (2.7) g  ¼  i  (2.8)where  u  ¼  capacity utilization,  Y   ¼  output,  K   ¼  capital stock,  u *  ¼  normal capacityutilization,  I   ¼  investment spending,  S   ¼  aggregate saving,  S  w  ¼  saving by worker households,  S  k   ¼  saving by capitalist households,  i  ¼  rate of capital accumulation, σ  w  ¼  worker household propensity to save,  σ  k   ¼  capitalist household propensity tosave,  π   ¼  profit share,  ω  ¼  wage share,  z  ¼  share of the capital stock owned bythe capitalist class, and  g  ¼  rate of growth.Equation (2.1) has the rate of capacity utilization equal to normal capacity utiliza-tion. Equation (2.2) is an investment  – saving (  IS  ) balance relation which ensures thegoods market clears. Aggregate saving consists of saving by worker and capitalist households. Equation (2.3) determines the rate of capital accumulation which is a posi-tive function of the profit rate, which in turn is a positive function of the profit share.Equation (2.4) determines the worker saving rate which is a positive function of thewage share and workers ’  ownership share of profits. Equation (2.5) determines capi-talists ’  saving rate which is a positive function of their profit share. Equation (2.6) isthe national income adding-up constraint requiring the profit and wage share to sum to 80 Review of Keynesian Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1 © 2013 The Author Journal compilation © 2013 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Downloaded from Elgar Online at 04/08/2014 03:16:53PMvia free access  unity. Equation (2.7) is the Pasinetti (1962) condition, which is explained below. Lastly, equation (2.8) has the rate of growth equal to the rate of capital accumulation.There are two social classes in the model. Palley (2012a) discusses how the modelcan be extended to incorporate additional classes. The capitalist class is a   ‘ pure ’  capi-talist class in the sense of receiving only profit income and having no wage income.This issue is discussed further below. The assumption of normal capacity utilizationreflects belief that, in the long run, firms are driven to the normal rate by a combinationof microeconomic cost efficiency concerns and the forces of competition.By appropriate substitution, the system of equations given by (2.1) – (2.8) can bereduced to a three-equation system given by: α  0  þ  α  1 π  u  ¼  σ  w  ½ 1 − π   u  þ ½ 1 −  z  π  u    þ  σ  k  ½  z π  u    (2.9)  z ½ α  0  þ  α  1 π  u   ¼  σ  k  ½  z π  u    (2.10) g  ¼  α  0  þ  α  1 π  u  :  (2.11)Equation (2.9) is the  IS   schedule requiring investment  – saving balance. Equation (2.10)is the Pasinetti condition, and equation (2.11) determines the growth rate.The Pasinetti condition is not well understood and is easily mistaken for an  IS   con-dition. In fact, it is an ownership share equilibrium condition (Dutt 1990; Palley 2012a ). To maintain their ownership share, capitalists must fund a portion of invest-ment equal to their ownership share.The model is illustrated in Figure 1. The  IS   schedule corresponds to equation (2.9)and yields combinations of capitalists ’  ownership share and the profit share consistent with goods market equilibrium. The  ZZ   schedule corresponds to equation (2.10) anddetermines the profit share consistent with a constant capitalist ownership share.The growth function corresponds to equation (2.11).The slope of the  IS   schedule is given by  dz  /  d  π  |  IS   ¼  { α  1 +  z [ σ  w − σ  k  ]}/[ σ  k  − σ  w ] π  < 0. 1 The economic logic of the negatively-sloped  IS   schedule is that, as the profit shareincreases, capitalists ’  ownership share must fall to keep aggregate saving equal to invest-ment. The  ZZ   schedule determines the profit share necessary to maintain capitalists ’  own-ership share, and it is vertical because it is independent of   z . The profit share ( π  ) is theinstantaneous endogenous variable and capitalists ’  ownership share (  z ) is a state variable.The logic and dynamics of the model are as follows. In accordance with Kaldor  ’ s(1956) theory of income distribution, income distribution adjusts to ensure saving equals investment. 2 Assuming the goods market clears at every instant, the economyslides smoothly down the  IS   to the long-run equilibrium determined by the intersectionof the  IS   and  ZZ   schedules. To the left of that intersection, capitalists ’  ownership shareis declining because the profit share is not high enough to support enough saving bycapitalists to maintain their existing ownership share. The reverse holds for points onthe  IS   to the right of the intersection.The  ZZ   schedule is often conflated with the  IS   schedule and the ownership share isoften overlooked in macroeconomic analysis. However, it is a critically important  1. The denominator is positive. The numerator is assumed to be negative so that an increasedprofit share increases aggregate saving by more than it increases investment.2. This is accomplished by a Marshallian price adjustment process whereby prices and theprofit share are bid up or down to ensure goods market balance.Cambridge and neo-Kaleckian growth and distribution theory 81 © 2013 The Author Journal compilation © 2013 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Downloaded from Elgar Online at 04/08/2014 03:16:53PMvia free access  variable in the Cambridge model which emphasizes the class structure of saving. Thelevel of saving depends on the class distribution of income, which in turn depends onthe distribution of ownership.As regards conflation of the  IS   and  ZZ   schedules, that likely occurs for two reasons.First, the  ZZ   resembles an  IS   relation. Second, for simplicity, it is often assumed that workers have a propensity to save of zero ( σ  w  ¼  0) so that capitalists ’  ownership shareis unity (  z  ¼  1). In that very special case, the  IS   and  ZZ   schedules are identical.A major feature of the model is that the steady-state profit share and growth rate areboth independent of worker saving behavior. This is the famous Pasinetti (1962) the-orem, whereby only capitalists ’  saving behavior affects growth and the functional dis-tribution of income. In terms of  Figure 1, the steady-state profit share and growth rateare determined by the  ZZ   schedule, which is independent of workers ’  saving behavior and dependent only on capitalists ’  saving behavior.An increase in capitalists ’  propensity to save ( σ  k  ) shifts both the  IS   and  ZZ   schedulesleft, so that the profit share and growth fall, while capitalists ’  ownership share increases. 3 The lesson is that capitalists can save their way to a higher profit share, but they cannot save their way to a higher profit share or faster growth. Trying to do so is counter-productive. The fact that growth falls as a result of increased capitalist saving appearsto be a conventional Keynesian result. However, capacity utilization is constant andlower growth is due to a lower profit share caused by increased saving.Increases in workers ’  propensity to save shift the  IS   left but leave the  ZZ   unchanged.The steady-state profit share and growth are unchanged, but capitalists ’  ownership sharefalls while that of workers ’  increases. Like capitalists, workers also cannot save their way to faster growth, but at least their saving has no negative effect on steady-stategrowth. However, worker saving does increase their ownership share so that workerscan save their way to greater ownership and an improved class distribution of income. Growth,  g  Profitshare, π  Profitshare, π  45 ° Capitalistshare,  z ZZ  IS  g  *  g  = α  0 + α  1 π  u *  z  * π  * π  * Figure 1 The Cambridge growth model  3. Thedeclineincapitalists ’  ownership share follows from the fact the  ZZ   shifts further left thanthe  IS  . The relative shifts are  d  π   /  d  σ  k  j  IS   ¼  z π  u * = [ α  1 u * +  σ  w  zu * −  σ  k   zu * ]  <  0 and  d  π   /  d  σ  k  j  ZZ   ¼  z π  u * = [ α  1 u * −  σ  k   zu * ]  <  0.82 Review of Keynesian Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1 © 2013 The Author Journal compilation © 2013 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Downloaded from Elgar Online at 04/08/2014 03:16:53PMvia free access
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks