Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments

Hein, Eckhard Article Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (EJEEP) Provided in Cooperation with: Edward Elgar Publishing Suggested Citation: Hein, Eckhard (2017) : Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments, European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention (EJEEP), ISSN 2052-7772, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 131-172, https://doi.org/10.4337/ejeep.2017.02.01 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/277385 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments Eckhard Hein* Berlin School of Economics and Law and Institute for International Political Economy (IPE) Berlin, Germany In this paper the main developments in post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s will be reviewed. For this purpose the main differences between heterodox economics in general, including post-Keynesian economics, and orthodox economics will be reiterated and an overview of the strands of post-Keynesian economics, their commonalities and developments since the 1930s will be outlined. This will provide the grounds for touching upon three important areas of development and progress of post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: first, the integration of distribution issues and distributional conflict into shortand long-run macroeconomics, both in theoretical and in empirical/ applied works; second, the integrated analysis of money, finance and macroeconomics and its application to changing institutional and historical circumstances, such as the process of financialisation; and third, the development of full-blown macroeconomic models, providing alternatives to the mainstream ‘New Consensus Model’(NCM), and allowing us to derive a full macroeconomic policy mix as a more convincing alternative to the one implied and proposed by the mainstream NCM, which has dramatically failed in the face of the recent crises. Keywords: post-Keynesian macroeconomics, heterodox vs orthodox economics, pluralism in economics, distribution, money, finance, macroeconomics, macroeconomic policies JEL codes: B22, E12 1 INTRODUCTION The Research Network Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM), now the Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM), has been active for two decades, since the start of the network in 1996 and its first official workshop in 1997. 1 The annual conferences have become major international events for post-Keynesian economists, and they have become ever more attractive for economists looking for alternatives to mainstream New Consensus macroeconomics, which has so dramatically failed in the recent crisis. In what follows I will focus on some main lines of development of postKeynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s and review some major contributions, several, but not all, having been presented at the FMM conferences. The selection of topics to be covered is somewhat subjective and biased, and I do not claim to be comprehensive in * For helpful comments I would like to thank Giuseppe Fontana, Christian Jimenez, Marc Lavoie, Torsten Niechoj, Franz Prante, Engelbert Stockhammer and the participants in the 20th FMM conference in Berlin in October 2016. Remaining errors are mine, of course. 1. There was an initial workshop in October 1996, which, different from the following workshops, didnot generate a publicationof the papers presented, and probably therefore has not been counted asan official FMM workshop in the history of this network. See Hein/Priewe (2009) for a brief review of this history from 1996 until 2009, and for the more recent developments, see Gechert et al. (2017). European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2, 2017, pp. 131–172 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd The Lypiatts, 15 Lansdown Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 2JA, UK and The William Pratt House, 9 Dewey Court, Northampton MA 01060-3815, USA a broader sense. Readers who are interested in the current state of post-Keynesian economics in general and the broad range of topics and approaches covered by this research programme might want to take a look at the latest books by King (2015) and Lavoie (2014), as well as at the essays in Harcourt/Kriesler (2013), Hein/Stockhammer (2011a) and King (2012a), for example. In this paper I will start by elaborating on post-Keynesian economics as an alternative to orthodox mainstream economics in Section 2. This requires briefly reiterating the main differences between heterodox economics in general, including post-Keynesian economics, and orthodox economics. In that section I will also provide an overview of the strands of post-Keynesian economics and their commonalities, which define a specific research programme within heterodox economics. Finally I will briefly survey the main stages of development of post-Keynesian economics. This will provide the grounds and set the scene for the main contribution of the paper in Section 3, in which I will touch upon three important areas of development and progress of post-Keynesian macroeconomics, at least from my perspective, from the mid 1990s until recently: first, the integration of distribution issues and distributional conflict into shortand long-run macroeconomics, both in theoretical and in empirical/applied works; second, the integrated analysis of money, finance and macroeconomics and its application to changing institutional and historical circumstances, like the process of financialisation; and third, the development of full-blown macroeconomic models, providing alternatives to the mainstream ‘New Consensus Model’(NCM), and allowing us to derive a full macroeconomic policy mix as a more convincing alternative to the one implied and proposed by the mainstream NCM. In Section 4, I will then briefly comment on some omitted topics, open questions and areas for future research for post-Keynesian economics. I will finish by arguing that post-Keynesian economics, although consisting of quite diverse and pluralist strands, has nonetheless sufficient coherence to be seen as a specific school or research programme in heterodox economics, which has a lot to offer, in particular in the area of macroeconomics, for a broader and pluralist political economy research programme as an alternative to orthodox mainstream economics. 2 POST-KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS AS A PART OF HETERODOX ECONOMICS AND AN ALTERNATIVE TO ORTHODOX ECONOMICS 2 2.1 Heterodox economics vs orthodox economics Post-Keynesian economics is part of heterodox economics more generally, such as classical, Marxian, Old Institutional, Evolutionary Political Economy, Social, Feminist and Ecological economics, which provide alternatives to neoclassical or orthodox economics. Following Lavoie (2011a; 2014: ch. 1), several presuppositions can be singled out, which unite heterodox approaches against the orthodox/neoclassical mainstream and its modern macroeconomic incarnations, represented in the New Keynesian, the New Classical and the Real Business Cycle schools, as well as the synthesis in the NCM. 3 •Regarding the epistemology and the ontology, that is, the science of learning and the basic categories of the scientific systems and their relationships, heterodox economics is based on ‘realism’. The objective of economics is to tell relevant stories and to 2. This section partly draws on Hein (2014a) and Hein/Lavoie (2017). 3. For the ‘New Neoclassical synthesis’or the ‘New Consensus model’(NCM), see Clarida et al. (1999) and Goodfriend/King (1997). 132 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd explain the actual working of the economy in the real world starting from Kaldor-type ‘stylised facts’. Orthodox economics, by contrast, is founded on ‘instrumentalism’, which means that an economic assumption is considered to be sound, irrespective of observed data or facts, if it leads to the calculation of equilibrium positions and is conducive to accurate predictions (Friedman 1953). •Regarding the concept of rationality, heterodox economics assumes ‘environmentconsistent rationality’and ‘satisficing agents’. It is acknowledged that individuals face severe limitations in their ability to acquire and process information, in particular because the latter may simply be non-existent and because there is no ‘true’ model to process available information, not to mention the fact that current decisions may change the set of possible future states. Thus, expectations are often based on irreducible or fundamental uncertainty. Following norms, conventions, customs and rules of thumb, as well as the establishment of institutions reducing uncertainty, are considered as rational or reasonable responses. Orthodox theory by contrast assumes ‘model-consistent rationality’and ‘optimising agents’. Individuals possess quasi-unlimited knowledge about present and future states of the economy, and they have the ability to calculate economic outcomes applying the ‘true’model of the economy. In this sense they are assumed to possess ‘perfect information’and have ‘rational expectations’. •With respect to the applied method, heterodox approaches follow ‘organicism’and ‘holism’. They consider individuals as social beings in the context of their environment, given by class, gender, culture, social norms, institutions and history. From this perspective, all sorts of micro–macro paradoxes can arise, which means that reasonable behaviour at the micro level may not generate the intended results at the macro level, when interrelationships between individual actions are taken into account (‘paradox of thrift’,‘paradox of costs’,‘paradox of debt’,‘paradox of liquidity’, and so on). The orthodox method is based on ‘methodological individualism’ and ‘atomicism’, which means that the analysis has to start from the pre-social individual and his/her preferences. The behaviour of a representative agent as a utility and profit-maximiser under constraints provides the microfoundation of macroeconomics (and of institutions). Micro–macro paradoxes are ruled out by design. •With respect to the economic core, heterodox schools focus on ‘production’and ‘growth’.Whereas the classical economists and Marx were preoccupied with the creation of resources by means of accumulation of (part of) the surplus and by technical progress, Kalecki and Keynes, starting in the early/mid 1930s, focused on the utilisation of resources, because monetary production economies usually operate below full employment. In this context, prices in heterodox schools are considered as (re-)production prices and are affected by income distribution, which itself is determined by socio-institutional factors. On the contrary, the starting point and the focus of orthodox theory are ‘exchange’,‘allocation’and ‘scarcity’. According to this perspective, economicsisabouttheefficientallocation of scarce resources. Prices are assumed to reflect scarcity, exchange is the starting point of economic analysis, and production and growth are only extensions to this basic perspective. Income distribution is determined by production technologies. •Regarding the political core, heterodox schools at the minimum require ‘regulated markets’and continuous state intervention into the economy. It is held that unfettered markets, irrespective of price flexibility or inflexibility, generate instabilities, unacceptable inequalities and inefficiencies. The notion of free markets is considered to be a myth, because there has always been an institutional framework for the market economy. Furthermore it is argued that unrestricted competition tends towards oligopoly Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 133 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd and monopoly, and thus towards undermining itself. Therefore, permanent market regulation and aggregate demand management by the state are required. This contradicts the orthodox view that ‘unfettered’and free markets are generally stable and generate an optimal allocation at full employment levels of activity, at least in the long run. State interventions are said to generate inefficiencies, and hence for orthodox economists these are only acceptable when there are externalities and/or monopoly abuses. 2.2 Strands of post-Keynesian economics and broad commonalities Based on the general presuppositions uniting heterodox economics, different strands of post-Keynesian economics can be distinguished in a ‘big tent’approach. In an early paper, Hamouda/Harcourt (1988) have mentioned three strands, American post-Keynesians, neo-Ricardians and Kaleckians, but had difficulties in classifying outstanding individuals, such as Kaldor, Goodwin, Pasinetti and Godley. Therefore, Lavoie (2011a; 2014: ch. 1) distinguishes five strands of post-Keynesian economics with the respective representatives, which I present in revised order: •The first strand is represented by the fundamentalist Keynesians, directly inspired by John Maynard Keynes, the older Joan Robinson, as well as Hyman Minsky, G.L.S. Shackle and Sydney Weintraub, with fundamental uncertainty, the features of a monetary production economy, financial instability and methodological issues as major themes. •The Kaleckians are the second strand, drawing on the works of Michal Kalecki, Josef Steindl and the younger Joan Robinson, with cost-plus pricing, class conflict, effective demand, income distribution and growth as major themes. •The third strand consists of the Kaldorians, basing their work on the contributions by Nicholas Kaldor, Roy F. Harrod, Richard Goodwin, John Cornwall and Wynne Godley. The major themes are economic growth, productivity regimes, open economy constraints to growth and the nexus between the economic and the financial system. •The Sraffians or neo-Ricardians constitute the fourth strand, drawing on the work of Piero Sraffa and Pierangelo Garegnani, and focusing on issues such as relative prices in multi-sectoral production systems, choice of techniques, capital theory, and long-period positions of the economy. •The fifth strand is the Institutionalists, relying on the work of Thorstein Veblen, Gardiner Means, P.W.S. Andrews, John Kenneth Galbraith, Abba Lerner and Alfred Eichner, and concentrating on themes such as pricing, the theory of the firm, monetary institutions, and behavioural and labour economics. King (2015: ch. 9) lists the Sraffians and the Institutionalists (the latter together with Evolutionary economics) as distinct heterodox schools, however with some links, commonalities and overlaps with the post-Keynesian research programme, and would thus only include the first three strands in post-Keynesian economics. I hold that this is a matter of taste, and that Sraffians and Institutionalists can be included in post-Keyensian economics if we apply a broad tent approach. Modern post-Keynesian work has at least been inspired by these strands, too, and these strands share the five characteristics of post-Keynesian economics to be sketched below. Starting with Eichner/Kregel (1975), several attempts have been made to single out what the different strands of post-Keynesianism have in common and what distinguishes post-Keynesian economics from orthodox economics and other strands of heterodox 134 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd economics. It can be argued that post-Keynesians adhere to the five presuppositions of heterodox economics in general, and that they can be distinguished from other heterodox economics by the following five characteristics, which might apply to the different strands to different degrees, but on which all five strands might agree: •First, there is the focus on a monetary theory of production, in which money is non-neutral in the short and the long run, as Keynes (1933 [1987]) in his contribution to the Spiethoff Festschrift has famously claimed. Money and monetary variables are important for shortand long-run economic processes and the latter cannot be sensibly analysed without considering monetary and financial variables. •Second, based on the notion of a monetary production economy, there is the dominance of the principle of effective demand in the short and long run. This is true for both Keynes, as explained in particular in the drafts leading to The General Theory (Keynes 1979), as well as for Kalecki (1939; 1954). In a monetary production economy investment creates its own saving, through changes in the level of economic activity and income or through changes in distribution, provided that the propensities to save out of different types of incomes differ. Post-Keynesians (Kaldor 1957; Robinson 1956; 1962; Steindl 1952) have moved this principle from short-run income and employment determination to mediumto long-run growth issues and have argued that growth and even productivity growth are largely demand-determined as well. •Third, there is the importance of the notion of fundamental uncertainty, which is different from probabilistic risk. Future events are not known and there is thus no way to allocate probability values to them; or as Keynes (1937: 214) has put it, fundamental uncertainty means that ‘(w)e simply do not know’. Expectations cannot be based on a true model of the economy, and will themselves feed back on the outcome of economic processes. •Fourth, based on the first three characteristics, post-Keynesians insist that economic processes take place in historical and irreversible time (Robinson 1962) –and are thus largely path-dependent. There is no predetermined equilibrium towards which the economy will or can adjust in historical time. On the contrary, the long period is just a succession of short periods, according to Kalecki (1971). This means that concepts such as an inflation barrier or a NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) or potential growth are endogenous to the actual time path of the economy driven by effective demand. •Fifth, there is the importance of distributional issues and distribution conflict for economic outcomes. This is true both for income, employment and inflation, and for growth and technological progress. Different strands of post-Keynesian economics may focus on different aspects of distributional issues and may have different theories of distribution, but they all agree that distribution conflict and the institutions which moderate distribution conflict are important for the overall macroeconomic outcome, in the short and in the long run. 2.3 Stages of development of post-Keynesian economics The development of what was to become ‘post-Keynesian economics’has gone through different stages since the 1930s, as for example described by Fontana (2009a: ch. 2) and Lavoie (2014: ch. 1). 4 4. See also the more extensive books on the history of post-Keynesian economics by Harcourt (2006), King (2002) and Pasinetti (2007). Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 135 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd •In the 1930s and 1940s the history of post-Keynesian economics started off with Keynes’s (1936 [1973]) and Kalecki’s (1939; 1971) revolution in macroeconomics, based on the introduction of the principle of effective demand. The focus in this period was clearly on the determination of output and employment, involuntary unemployment and the trade cycle. •The 1950s and 1960s saw the extension of the principle of effective demand from the short to the long period, with the appearance of the post-Keynesian distribution and growth models of the first generation, associated with the works of Kaldor (1955/1956; 1957), Pasinetti (1962) and Robinson (1956; 1962). Furthermore, this was the period of the critique of aggregate neoclassical theory in the ‘Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital’. •The 1970s, a promising ‘romantic age’according to Fontana (2009a: ch. 2), saw the attempts at defining the contours of a ‘post-Keynesian’paradigm in economics, most prominently by Davidson (1972) and by Eichner/Kregel (1975). This was accompanied by the founding of the still most important journals for postKeynesians, the Cambridge Journal of Economics (1977) and the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (1978), and by important works on the theory of the firm and on pricing theory. •The 1980s and 1990s were an ‘age of uncertainty’(Fontana 2009a: ch. 2) for postKeynesians, with a strong focus on methodology, the history of economic thought, and on ‘what Keynes really meant’. However, it has also seen the publication of some textbook presentations of post-Keynesian economics, such as Arestis (1992), Davidson (1994), Lavoie (1992) and Palley (1996a), and the founding of new journals widely open for post-Keynesians, such as the International Review of Applied Economics and the Review of Political Economy. During this period, important contributions to the theory of endogenous money and the financial instability hypothesis were made. This was accompanied by the presentation of a second generation of post-Keynesian distribution and growth models, based on the works of Kalecki (1939; 1954) and Steindl (1952). •The current period, starting in the late 1990s/early 2000s, has been characterised by the increasing relevance of applied and econometric work, in particular in the area of distribution and growth, macroeconomic policy analysis and the analysis of economic policy regimes. There has also been much research on financial instability, internationalisation and globalisation, and more recently on ‘financialisation’as a new stage of development of modern capitalism. Some of this work has been carried through in an integrated analysis of money, finance, distribution conflict, effective demand, capital accumulation and growth in stock-flow consistent models, both analytically in small-scale models and by means of simulation in more realistic large-scale models. Further textbooks or textbook-like edited volumes have been published, such as Davidson (2011), Harcourt/Kriesler (2013), Hein (2014b), Hein/Stockhammer (2011a), Heine/Herr (2013), Holt/Pressman (2001), King (2012a; 2015) and Lavoie (2006a; 2014), as well as Rochon/Rossi (2016). And some new post-Keynesian Journals have entered the stage, like the European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention and the Review of Keynesian Economics. 5 5. For a more extensive review of the global post-Keynesian academic infrastructure, including textbooks, journals and graduate programmes, as well as conferences and summer schools, see Hein (2014a) and the information provided in the Heterodox Economics Directory (http://hetero doxnews.com/hed/). 136 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 3 WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN POST-KEYNESIAN MACROECONOMICS SINCE THE MID 1990s? Based on the five presuppositions of heterodox economics in general and the five characteristics of post-Keynesian economics in particular outlined in Section 2, I would claim that over the last eight decades or so, there has emerged a solid body of post-Keynesian theory and economic policy recommendations in the area of macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy. This is related to issues of employment and unemployment, distribution, growth and technical change, money, credit and finance, international money and finance, financialisation, financial instability and financial crisis, and European economics and economic policies, as well as to development and emerging market economics. In what follows, I will focus and elaborate on three particularly important areas of postKeynesian macroeconomics and macroeconomic modelling, which have flourished over the last two decades, integrating several core elements and contributions of post-Keynesian economics and providing more convincing alternatives to mainstream orthodox economics in these areas: •First, there is the integration of distribution issues and distributional conflict into shortand long-run macroeconomics, both in theoretical and empirical/applied works. This means that post-Keynesians have been doing for decades what, after the recent global financial crisis and the Great Recession, has tended to become more relevant and fashionable in mainstream economics, too. •Second, we have the integrated analysis of money, finance and macroeconomics and its application to changing institutional and historical circumstances, such as the process of financialisation. This is extremely important for the understanding of the recent financial and economic crises and the suggestion of alternative policies to deal with these crises. •And third, there is the development of full-blown macroeconomic models, incorporating the features mentioned above, providing alternatives to the mainstream NCM, and allowing us to derive a full alternative macroeconomic policy mix to the one implied and proposed by the mainstream NCM, which has so dramatically failed in the face of the recent crises. 3.1 Integration of distributional issues into shortand long-run macroeconomics The consideration of distributional issues is a distinguishing feature of post-Keynesian economics in general and of the Kaleckian, Kaldorian and Sraffian strands in particular. This is true for both the determination of short-run income, employment and inflation, as well as for mediumto long-run output and productivity growth. As is well known, Kalecki’s (1939) principle of effective demand, as an earlier alternative to Keynes’s (1936 [1973]) approach, has the profit share (or the wage share) as a determinant of the multiplier effect of short-run exogenous expenditures (investment, government expenditures or exports), together with the propensity to save out of profits, assuming that workers as a whole do not save in the simple version (Hein 2014b: ch. 5). This notion hasbeenextendedinthemodernKaleckiandistribution and growth models, drawing also on the work of Steindl (1952). It started with Rowthorn (1981) and Dutt (1984; 1987), in particular, and the models were further developed by Bhaduri/Marglin (1990) and Kurz (1990). These Kaleckian models are based on the notion of active price setting of firms in oligopolistic or monopolistic markets, they assume that capitalist economies are faced with unemployment and excess capacities beyond the short run, and Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 137 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd they take the rate of capacity utilisation as an adjusting variable also in the medium to long run. These models have become an attractive alternative to the old post-Keynesian distribution and growth models inspired by the contributions of Kaldor (1955/1956; 1957), Pasinetti (1962) and Robinson (1956; 1962). In those models income shares are determined by capitalist expenditures, assuming the economy to operate at a normal rate of utilisation of (at least) the capital stock in the long run and prices in the goods market to be more flexible than nominal wages in the labour market, to allow for the necessary adjustment of income shares towards their equilibrium values (Hein 2014b: ch. 4). The earlier ‘neo-Kaleckian’models, in their basic closed-economy versions without a government, only generate wage-led demand and growth regimes. A higher profit share and hence a lower wage share will have a directly negative effect on consumption, and this will feed through to investment via lower capacity utilisation, which will reduce investment and hence capacity utilisation even further, and dampen capital accumulation, growth and the rate of profit. Only an open economy with strong redistribution effects on net exports could become profit-led, as shown by Blecker (1989). However, the later ‘post-Kaleckian’versions by Bhaduri/Marglin (1990) and Kurz (1990) are able to generate different regimes and thus also profit-led demand or growth even for a closed economy. 6 This is done by adding the profit share (or the wage share) as a direct determinant to the investment function and thus assuming away the ‘strong accelerator’effect contained in the earlier ‘neo-Kaleckian’models (see Hein 2014b: ch. 6). A strong direct positive effect of a rise in the profit share on investment may thus overcompensate the negative effect on consumption, and raise capacity utilisation as well as capital accumulation and growth. 7 Since the mid 1990s, the development of the Kaleckian approach as a workhorse in post-Keynesian macroeconomics, both shortand mediumto long-run, has sparked considerable theoretical controversies on the one hand, and empirical research on the other. I would like to broadly distinguish the following areas of controversies –there may be more than these, of course. 3.1.1 Endogenous rate of capacity utilisation beyond the short run? Both modern variants of the Kaleckian approach towards distribution and growth have been challenged because of their treatment of capacity utilisation as an endogenous variable beyond the short run and the potential deviation of the equilibrium rate of capacity utilisation from the normal rate or firms’target rate of utilisation when making investment decisions. Marxian and Harrodian authors, such as Duménil/Lévy (1999), Shaikh (2009) and Skott (2010; 2012), have argued that such a position should not be considered to be a long-run equilibrium, but would, rather, trigger further responses by firms. Thus ‘Harrodian instability’would arise, in which equilibrium utilisation moves ever farther away from target or normal utilisation. This would then have to be contained by other mechanisms in the model (changes in distribution or animal spirits, or government and centralbank interventions). In these models, usually the paradox of saving, as well as the paradox of costs, and hence the possibility of wage-led growth, disappear in the long-run equilibrium. However, as discussed in detail in Hein et al. (2011), the mechanisms proposed 6. See Lavoie (2017) on the origins and evolution of the debate on wage-led and profit-led regimes. 7. We may also obtain an intermediate regime with wage-led demand but profit-led growth (Bhaduri/ Marglin 1990; Hein 2014b: ch. 6). 138 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd differentials provide a major explanation for endogenous productivity growth in post-Keynesian models. In these models, productivity growth is usually driven by demand growth (Verdoorn’s law) and/or capital accumulation (Kaldor’s technical progress function), as well as by Hicksian/Marxian wage-push components (Hein 2014b: ch. 7; Lavoie 2014: ch. 6.9). 17 3.2 Integrated analysis of money, finance and macroeconomics A second main area of development and progress in post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s has been the integrated analysis of money, finance and macroeconomics and its application to changing institutional and historical circumstances, like the process of financialisation in particular. This has provided a much richer understanding of the fundamental problems and contradictions underlying the recent global financial crisis and the Great Recession than those provided by the mainstream NCM. Since in this context distributional issues matter again, we will see some overlap with what has been discussed in Section 3.1. The non-neutrality of money and the principle of effective demand are core characteristics of post-Keynesian economics, and post-Keynesians of different strands have reached a broad agreement that the volume of credit and the stock of money are endogenously determined by income (growth) and by payment conventions, and are thus not under the direct control of the monetary authorities: The supply of money and credit is demand-led. What central banks can control is the short-term rate of interest and the conditions under which they grant credit to commercial banks. To what extent central banks have control over the real long-term rate of interest, that is, the nominal longterm rate of interest corrected for inflation (expectations), has been a matter of debate, the infamous horizontalist–structuralist controversy, 18 because liquidity and risk assessment of financial and non-financial agents may have an impact on the spread between shortand long-term rates. These assessments are difficult to manage by the central bank, and inflation (expectations) is not under perfect control by the central bank either. However, what most post-Keynesians would subscribe to nowadays is the view that the rate of interest, both shortand long-term, is a monetary phenomenon, whatever the precise determination, which is exogenous for the income generation and the growth process (Pasinetti 1974: 47). The latter might feed back on the shortand long-term interest rate through various channels (different types of monetary policy reactions, default, uncertainty and liquidity assessments of private agents, etc.), but the feedback process is timeand space-contingent and thus difficult or even impossible to generalise. 19 Although, for the economy as a whole, money and credit are endogenous and saving is determined by investment, both in the short and in the long run, this does not imply that the individual firm will be able to finance whatever investment project it deems profitable. Already Kalecki (1936 [1982]) had criticised Keynes’s (1936 [1973]) theory of investment, which determined a short-run equilibrium level of investment for the individual firm and for 17. See also the recent empirical work by Hartwig (2013), Hein/Tarassow (2010), Naastepad (2006), Rowthorn (1999), Storm/Naastepad (2011) and Vergeer/Kleinknecht (2010/2011; 2014). 18. On the discussion between ‘horizontalists’and ‘structuralists’,seethesurveysbyFontana (2003; 2004; 2009a), Hein (2008: ch. 6.5; 2012c), Lavoie (1996c; 2011b), Palley (1994b; 1996b; 2008a; 2013a) and Pollin (1991), for example. 19. I have spelt out my view on the horizontalist–structuralist debate in Hein (2008; 2012c; 2014b: ch. 9.2). For an overview of the current state of post-Keynesian monetary economics, see Lavoie (2014: ch. 4). Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 145 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd the economy as a whole by the comparison of the marginal efficiency of capital, that is, the expected rate of profit, and the given monetary interest rate. Elaborating on Kalecki’scritique, Sardoni (2011) has shown that Keynes’s theory of investment is convincing neither from the microeconomic nor from the macroeconomic perspective. The alternative is the integration of finance constraints into the investment function of the individual firm, as proposed by Kalecki’s (1937) ‘principle of increasing risk’, arguing that in incompletely competitive credit and asset markets own capital or own means of financial resources become a co-determinant of investment, and thus of the size of the firm through the financing channel. 20 Wolfson’s (1996) post-Keynesian theory of credit rationing in a world of fundamental uncertainty, asymmetric expectations and confidence is another way of approaching this issue. Following Kalecki’s‘principle of increasing risk’, Steindl (1952) has made use of a similar notion, introducing the ‘gearing ratio’into the investment function of the firm. And also Minsky’s (1975; 1986) theory of investment is based on the Kaleckian idea of integrating investment finance, making the important distinctions between different types of financing, hedge, speculative and Ponzi, as well as providing a theory of endogenous change of these different types (‘stability breeds instability’), on which his ‘financial instability hypothesis’is based. This paper is not the place to discuss the respective contributions in detail. 21 What is important here is that this Kalecki– Steindl–Minsky connection has provided the foundations for the integration of interest, credit and finance into post-Keynesian macroeconomic models, and growth and distribution models in particular, since the mid 1990s. This has first been done through the investment function: Internal means of finance, cash flow or own capital are nowadays important elements of investment functions used in post-Keynesian models, together with expected sales or capacity utilisation. But as we have already seen in Section 3.1, in more recent models the indebtedness of the private household sector has become another channel of integration of financial issues into macroeconomic models. When it comes to modelling financial and macroeconomic issues, basically two types of models have been used so far: (i) demand-driven small-scale analytical models, and (ii) large-scale, stock-flow consistent (SFC) models in the tradition of Godley (Cambridge) and Tobin (Yale) (Godley/Lavoie 2007). 22 The first type of model allows for general analytical results regarding the distribution and growth effects of changes in parameters and behavioural coefficients. In the second type, these effects are usually obtained through numerical simulations. However, the advantage of the second type of model is that it can take into account the features of the financial and economic sectors and structures of the economy in a richer and more detailed way. Of course, both types are complementary and the results obtained should, in principle, not contradict each other. Small analytical models should be stock-flow consistent, too, and SFC models can be simplified such that analytical solutions can be computed. We can now distinguish two stages of integration of financial variables into the distribution and growth models since the mid 1990s: In the first stage, we have seen the explicit integration of credit, interest and a rentier class into post-Keynesian distribution and growth models, and in the second stage, these models have been further developed in order to make macroeconomic sense of the increasing dominance of finance (financialisation). Let us review each stage in turn. 20. On a comparison of Kalecki’s and Keynes’s theories of investment, see also Lopez G. (2002) and Lopez G./Mott (1999). 21. See Nikolaidi (2017) for a review of the modelling attempts of Minsky’s contributions. 22. See Caverzasi/Godin (2015a) for a survey of post-Keynesian SFC modelling. 146 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd 3.2.1 The integration of interest and credit into post-Keynesian distribution and growth models 23 It was not until the late 1980s/early 1990s that post-Keynesians started to take Keynes’s (1933 [1987]) research programme of a ‘monetary theory of production’more seriously and introduced monetary variables into the Kaldor–Robinson and the Kalecki–Steindl variants of the distribution and growth models. Pasinetti’s (1974: ch. 6) natural rate of growth model with assets held by capitalists and workers, in which the normal rate of profit is positively associated with the rate of interest as long as the latter is below the former, was an early exception from this general tendency of neglecting the relevance of monetary variables. 24 Since the late 1980s, however, several attempts have been presented at integrating monetary variables into different types of post-Keynesian distribution and growth models, as reviewed in Hein (2008; 2014b: ch. 9) and Lavoie (2009b; 2014: ch. 6.10–11). 25 Basically, we have three channels through which monetary and financial variables have a principal impact on distribution and growth in closed, private economy models, consisting of three classes: rentiers, managers/firms and workers. The exogenous monetary rate of interest and the stock of debt of firms affect income distribution between the three classes, they affect investment of firms through the internal means of finance channel, and there are effects on consumption through the income shares of the three groups. The models usually determine the overall effect of changes in monetary variables on the macroeconomic outcomes (capacity utilisation, capital stock and GDP growth) and examine the mediumto long-run financial stability, that is, the dynamics of debt–income or debt–capital ratios. Let me now highlight a few important results of this kind of literature. Dutt (1995) has reformulated the possibility of Steindl’s macroeconomic paradox of debt, that is, an inverse relationship between capacity utilisation, capital accumulation and growth, on the one hand, and the debt–capital ratio of the firm sector, on the other, which contradicts the Minskyan notion of a co-movement of economic activity and accumulation with the indebtedness indicator. Similarly, Taylor (2008: ch. 8.5) has distinguished between debtled (Minskyian) and debt-burdened (Steindlian) regimes, in his analytical version of the SFC model by Lavoie/Godley (2001/2002). The debt-led vs debt-burdened distinction is also immanent in a contribution by Lavoie (1995b), which has been further elaborated in Hein (2006b; 2007; 2008), including interest-elastic mark-ups and hence profit shares, among other things. In the basic model, taking into account that interest payments are costs to firms, which have a partially restrictive effect on investment, but are income to rentiers’households, which has a favourable impact on consumption, ‘normal’,‘intermediate’and ‘puzzling’cases have been derived. In the normal case, a higher interest rate or higher indebtedness of firms has a negative effect on utilisation and capital accumulation, because the partial effect on investment dominates the effect on consumption; the economy is also debt-burdened. In the puzzling case, however, the expansionary effect on consumption dominates the contractionary effect on investment, such that we get rising utilisation and capital 23. This section partly draws on Hein (2014b: ch. 9). 24. Other exceptions have been Kaldor’s (1966) neo-Pasinetti theorem, Skott’s (1989) reformulation and extension of the neo-Pasinetti theorem, and early attempts at modelling Minskyan dynamics by Taylor/O’Connell (1985) and Franke/Semmler (1991). 25. These contributions include Dutt (1989; 1990/1991; 1992; 1995), Dutt/Amadeo (1993), Epstein (1992; 1994), Hein (2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2007), Hein/Schoder (2011), Lavoie (1992: ch. 6.5; 1993; 1995b), Lavoie et al. (2004), Smithin (1997, 2003a: ch. 7; 2003b) and Taylor (1985; 2008: ch. 8.5), among others. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 147 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd accumulation; the economy is also debt-led. In the intermediate case, utilisation gets stimulated by income redistribution from firms to rentiers; however, the effect of utilisation in the investment function is too weak to raise capital accumulation. Looking at the debt dynamics, it has been found that only the puzzling case and hence the overall debt-led regime is stable, whereas the other regimes generate unstable debt–capital ratios and hence unstable debt and capital accumulation dynamics (Hein 2014b: ch. 9). The question of dynamic stability of regimes has been further debated, and models have been presented with less restrictive results regarding instability, if dividends, capital gains, Tobin’sqand other features are included (Hein 2013; Franke 2016; Sasaki/Fujita 2012). Furthermore, authors like Charles (2008a; 2008b; 2008c), Lima/Meirelles (2007), Meirelles/Lima (2006), Nikolaidi (2014), Nishi (2012b) and Ryoo (2013) have introduced Minsky’s (1986) distinction between hedge, speculative and Ponzi financing into different variants of Kaleckian distribution and growth models, and they have provided richer models with several more regimes and sources of instability. Only a few studies have provided empirical estimations for the models sketched above, making use of the ‘one-directional structural approach’and taking interest rates or interest payments–capital ratios as exogenous variables. 26 Hein/Schoder (2011) have estimated the effects of net interest payments of the non-financial business sector (in relation to the nominal capital stock of this sector) on functional income distribution, saving and investment for Germany and the US (1960–2007), and they have found the ‘normal case’for both countries. This result is confirmed by the Onaran et al. (2011) study which also obtains a negative effect of redistribution in favour of rentiers on aggregate demand for the US (1962–2007). And it also seems to be broadly in line with results by Argitis (2009) and Argitis/Michopoulou (2010). They present panel estimations using annual data for different sets of OECD countries (1981–2003) which show that the share of interest income of banks in GDP has a negative effect on aggregate demand growth whereas the wage share has a positive impact. 3.2.2 Financialisation in post-Keynesian distribution and growth models 27 Since the early/mid 2000s, post-Keynesians have increasingly applied their integrated distribution and growth models to the issues of ‘financialisation’, that is, ‘the increasing role of financial motives, financial markets, financial actors and financial institutions in the operation of the domestic and international economies’(Epstein 2005a: 3). These contributions have been based on detailed empirical case studies of the development of financialisation by, for example, the contributions in Epstein (2005b), and by Palley (2008b; 2013b: ch. 2) for the US, by van Treeck (2009a) and van Treeck et al. (2007) for Germany as compared to the US, and by Stockhammer (2008a) for Europe. 28 Furthermore, the post-Keynesian ‘macroeconomics of financialisation’can rely on some 26. Of course, there have been several estimations of single distribution, saving/consumption and investment equations including interest rates and debt variables, as reviewed by Hein (2014b: ch. 9), however, without including them in a full distribution and growth model and deriving the respective regimes. 27. This section partly draws on Hein (2014b: ch. 10) and Hein et al. (2015). 28. For more recent country studies, see the results of the large EU-funded research project on Financialisation, Economy, Society, Sustainable Development (FESSUD), in particular the FESSUD Studies in Financial Systems, to which several post-Keynesians researchers, among others, have contributed (www.fessud.eu). And on country studies on financialisation and the financial and economic crisis, see the same series and the contributions in Hein et al. (2016). 148 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd post-Keynesian ‘microeconomic’contributions on the theory of the firm under the conditions of financialisation, by Crotty (1990), Dallery (2009) and Stockhammer (2005/ 2006), for example, and more recently on the effects of norms etc. (conspicuous consumption, ‘keeping up with the Joneses’) on household consumption behaviour, which I have referred to in Section 3.1. As outlined in Hein (2012b: ch. 1) and Hein/van Treeck (2010a) from a post-Keynesian macroeconomic perspective, finance-dominated capitalism can be characterised by the following elements: 1. With regard to distribution, financialisation has been conducive to a rising gross profit share, including retained profits, dividends and interest payments, and thus a falling labour income share, on the one hand, and to increasing inequality of wages and top management salaries and thus of personal or household incomes, on the other hand. Hein (2015), reviewing the empirical literature on the determinants of functional income distribution against the background of the Kaleckian theory of income distribution, has argued that features of finance-dominated capitalism have contributed to falling labour income shares, to different degrees in different countries, through three main channels: the falling bargaining power of trade unions, the rising profit claims imposed in particular by increasingly powerful rentiers, and a change in the sectoral composition of the economy in favour of the financial corporate sector. 29 These channels have also contributed to rising personal/household-income inequality. 2. Regarding investment in the capital stock, financialisation has caused increasing shareholder power vis-à-vis firms and workers, the demand for an increasing rate of return on equity and bonds held by rentiers, and an alignment of management with shareholder interests through short-run performance-related pay schemes, as bonuses, stock option programmes, and so on. On the one hand, this has imposed short-termism on management and has caused decreasing management animal spirits with respect to real investment in capital stock and the long-run growth of the firm and an increasing preference for financial investment, generating high profits in the short run. On the other hand, it has drained internal means of finance available for real investment purposes from non-financial corporations, through increasing dividend payments and share buybacks in order to boost stock prices and thus shareholder value. These ‘preference’and the ‘internal means of finance’channels have had partially negative effects on firms’real investment in the capital stock. Econometric evidence for these two channels has been supplied by Onaran et al. (2011), Orhangazi (2008), Stockhammer (2004c), Tori/Onaran (2016) and van Treeck (2008), in particular for the US and the UK but also for other countries, such as France. 3. Regarding consumption, financialisation has generated an increasing potential for wealth-based and debt-financed consumption, thus creating the potential to compensate for the depressing demand effects of financialisation, which were imposed on the economy via redistribution and the depressing impact of shareholder value orientation on real investment. Stock-market and housing-price booms have each increased notional wealth against which households were willing to borrow. Changing financial norms, new financial instruments (credit card debt, home equity lending) and deterioration of creditworthiness standards, triggered by securitisation of mortgage debt and ‘originate and distribute’strategies of commercial banks, made increasing credit available to low-income, low-wealth households, in particular. This allowed for 29. For recent econometric studies partly going beyond these findings, see, for example, Dünhaupt (2017) and Stockhammer (2017b). Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 149 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd consumption to rise faster than median income and thus to stabilise aggregate demand. But italsogenerated increasing debt–income ratiosof private households. Barba/Pivetti (2009), Cynamon/Fazzari (2008; 2016), Guttmann/Plihon (2010), van Treeck (2009a; 2014) and van Treeck/Sturn (2012) have presented extensive case studies on wealth-based and debt-financed consumption, with a focus on the US. However, the exact mechanism through which consumption has been pushed (wealth, credit availability, maintenance of basic needs, relative income hypothesis) is still a matter of debate, as I have discussed above. 4. The liberalisation of international capital markets and capital accounts has allowed for rising and persistent current-account imbalances at the global but also at the regional level, for example, within the euro area, as has been analysed by several authors, including Belabed et al. (2013), Dodig et al. (2016), Hein (2012b: ch. 6; 2013/2014; 2014b: ch. 10), Hein/Mundt (2012), Stockhammer (2010; 2012; 2015; 2017c) and van Treeck/Sturn (2012). Simultaneously, it also created the problems of foreign indebtedness of current-account deficit countries, speculative capital movements, exchange-rate volatilities and related currency crises (Bortz 2016; Herr 2011). Based on these macroeconomic effects of financialisation, post-Keynesians have presented different small-scale analytical and large-scale SFC models examining the longrun growth and stability effects of financialisation, as reviewed in Hein (2012b: ch. 3; 2014b: ch. 10) and Hein/van Treeck (2010a), for example. 30 Depending on the values of the model parameters, ‘finance-led growth’regimes, as suggested by Boyer (2000), ‘profits without investment’regimes, as found by Cordonnier (2006), or ‘contractive’ regimes may emerge. Only in the ‘finance-led growth’regime is increasing shareholder power overall expansive with respect to the rates of capacity utilisation, as an indicator for aggregate demand, profit and capital accumulation. In the ‘profits without investment’ regime, however, the effects on the rates of capacity utilisation and profit remain expansive but capital accumulation gets depressed, and in the ‘contractive’regime there is a depressing effect on all three endogenous variables of the model. As shown in Hein (2012b: ch. 3), only the ‘finance-led growth’regime yields long-run stability of the financial structure of the firm sector and of capital accumulation. This regime, however, requires a very special parameter constellation: weakly negative effects of increasing shareholder power on management’sanimal spirits regarding real investment in the capital stock, a low rentiers’propensity to save out of current income, a low profit share, a low elasticity of investment with respect to distributed profits and internal funds, and a high responsiveness with regard to capacity utilisation (and to Tobin’sqin some models). In particular, a long-run increase in the gross profit share associated with financialisation may turn the stable financial structure into an unstable one. More realistic parameter constellations, giving rise to ‘profits without investment’or ‘contractive’regimes, have turned out to yield unstable long-run results regarding the financial structure of the firm sector and the rate of capital accumulation. ‘Profits without investment’regimes, as the regimes which empirically seem to have prevailed during the pre-2007 crisis financialisation period (Hein 2012b: ch. 6; Hein/ Mundt 2012; van Treeck 2009a; 2009b; van Treeck/Sturn 2012), can be driven by flourishing consumption demand, by rising export surpluses or by government deficits, each compensating for low and falling investment in the capital stock. This is so because, 30. See also Caverzasi/Godin (2015b), Dutt (2016), Godley/Lavoie (2007: ch. 11), Hein (2010a; 2010b), Hein/van Treeck (2010b), Isaac/Kim (2013), Lavoie (2008; 2009a), Skott/Ryoo (2008a; 2008b) and van Treeck (2009b). 150 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd from a macroeconomic perspective, the following equation, derived from national income accounting, has to hold, as pointed out by Kalecki (1971: 82): Gross profits net of taxes ¼Gross investment þCapitalists’consumption þGovernment budget deficit þExport surplus −Workers’saving:(1) The increasing dominance of finance, income redistribution at the expense of the wage share and low-income households, stagnating income-financed consumption and weak investment in the capital stock generated two opposite but mutually dependent types of demand and growth regimes before the global financial crisis and the Great Recession. First, there was the ‘debt-led private demand boom’type of development, with the ‘debtled private consumption boom’as an extreme case, making use of the increasing potential for debt-financed consumption generated by financialisation. This type of development has been found in countries such as the US, the UK, Spain, Ireland and Greece. As has been explained above in Section 3.1, several models have shown that increasing credit to (workers’) households may indeed be expansionary for consumption, aggregate demand (and hence profits) and growth in the short run, and that the system will thus be debt-led. However, in the long run, a rising stock of debt and hence rising interest payments, and therefore redistribution of income from debtor households with high propensities to consume to rentiers with low consumption propensities, have to be taken into account. Under certain conditions, these contractionary effects may overcompensate for the expansionary effect of higher credit, and the system may become debt-burdened in the long run. Furthermore, it has been shown that as soon as households’debt–income ratios exceed some threshold values, this ratio itself and hence the system will become unstable. Second, there was the ‘export-led mercantilist’regime, driven by net exports and currentaccount surpluses based on nominal wage moderation and suppressed domestic demand. This type of development has been found in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and China during the pre-2007 crisis financialisation period. Since the ‘debt-led private demand boom’economies were running increasing currentaccount deficits, the ‘export-led mercantilist’economies with increasing current-account surpluses were the necessary counterpart at the global level, and they had to rely on the willingness and the ability of the ‘debt-led private demand boom’economies to go into debt, in particular the private household sectors in these economies. Therefore, the financial crisis, which was triggered by over-indebtedness problems of private households in the leading ‘debt-led private demand boom’economy, the US, could quickly spread to the ‘exportled mercantilist’economies through the foreign trade channel (collapse of exports), the financial contagion (devaluation of financial assets) and the expectations channel, in particular. Based on these analyses of the long-run effects of financialisation on income distribution, capital accumulation, consumption and current-account imbalances, post-Keynesians have argued that these developments, together with the liberalisation and deregulation of national and international financial markets, should be considered to be the main causes of the global financial crisis and the Great Recession of 2007–2009 (Hein 2012b; Palley 2010; 2012; 2013c; Stockhammer 2010; 2012; 2015; 2017c). 31 And since the crisis and its severity can be considered to reflect the contradictions and problems of 31. See also Blecker (2016b) and Lavoie (2016b), who review post-Keynesian views on the financial crisis, based on the works of Godley and Minsky, in particular. However, they do not explicitly link these views and contributions to financialisation. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 151 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd finance-dominated capitalism and the two extreme types of development under financialisation, the debt-led private demand boom type and the export-led mercantilist type, some authors have argued that a sustainable recovery strategy should focus on a ‘wage-led’or ‘mass-income-led’type of development (Lavoie/Stockhammer 2013; Stockhammer/Onaran 2013). Since the demand effects of redistribution are rather small and redistribution is difficult to achieve in a stagnationary environment with high unemployment, Onaran (2016) has suggested complementing redistribution in favour of wages with rising public investment. Hein (2011; 2012b: ch. 7), Hein/ Mundt (2012) and Hein/Truger (2011; 2012/2013) have suggested that a wage-led recovery strategy should be at the core of and embedded in a Global Keynesian New Deal, which more broadly would have to address the three main causes for the severity of the crisis: inefficient regulation of financial markets, increasing inequality in the distribution of income and rising imbalances at the global (and regional) levels. The three main pillars of the policy package of a Global Keynesian New Deal are the following: first, the re-regulation of the financial sector in order to prevent future financial excesses and financial crises and to contribute to a redistribution of income towards wages and low-income households; second, the reorientation of macroeconomic policies towards stimulating and stabilising domestic demand, in particular in the current-account surplus countries; and third, the reconstruction of international macroeconomic policy coordination and a new world financial order in order to prevent ‘export-led mercantilist’ and hence ‘beggar thy neighbour’strategies. 32 These policy conclusions have been based on and have referred to the post-Keynesian macroeconomic model(s) and the respective macroeconomic policy recommendations, which have been developed in the course of the early 2000s as a critique and alternative to the NCM. This is where I therefore turn to next. 3.3 Alternative macroeconomic models and policy mixes to the NCM 33 The NCM, based on the works of Clarida et al. (1999) and Goodfriend/King (1997), has been dominating mainstream macroeconomics and macroeconomic policy advice from the late 1990s/early 2000s until the crisis. And although the crisis has shown the limits of this model and the related policy implications, and we have seen some changes for example in monetary policies, the basic structure is still intact (Palley 2013c; Rogers 2014). Post-Keynesians have criticised the NCM from the very start for various reasons and have presented amendments and alternatives. 34 Fundamentally, the post-Keynesian critique has been related to the assumption of a stable long-run equilibrium NAIRU determined exclusively by supply-side factors to which actual unemployment, determined by effective demand, can be adjusted by means of monetary policy interventions. The critique has focused on the assumption of the independence of this NAIRU from the development of actual unemployment, and hence from demand and monetary as well as fiscal policies. In short, what has been questioned has been the assumed long-run neutrality of 32. Palley (2012: ch. 9; 2013b: ch. 12) has made similar suggestions. 33. This section partly draws on Hein (2014a), Hein/Lavoie (2017) and Hein/Stockhammer (2010; 2011b). 34. For post-Keynesian assessments of the NCM and its main elements, the NAIRU and an inflationtargeting central bank, see, for example, Arestis (2009; 2011), Arestis/Sawyer (2004a), Davidson (2006), Dullien (2011), Fontana (2009b), Fontana/Palacio-Vera (2002), Gnos/Rochon (2007), Hein (2006c), Kriesler/Lavoie (2007), Lavoie (2006b), Palley (2007), Rochon/Rossi (2006), Sawyer (2002), Setterfield (2006; 2009a), Smithin (2007), Stockhammer (2008b) and Wray (2007). 152 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd money in the NCM. Furthermore, post-Keynesians have been critical of the sole reliance on central-bank interest-rate policies as the only macroeconomic policy tool in the NCM. On the basis of this critique the NCM policy framework and policy rules have been criticised and amendments have been put forth. Basically, it has been argued that the ‘hierarchy of markets’entailed by orthodox macroeconomics in general, and by the NCM in particular, has to be reversed. Whereas in orthodox macroeconomics the labour market is at the top of the hierarchy, dominating the other macroeconomic markets at least in the long run, in post-Keynesian macroeconomics it is the money, credit and financial markets which are at the top of the hierarchy, with the goods market following, and the labour market at the very bottom. In money, credit and financial markets, the central bank determines the base rate of interest in the money market and the interaction of the central bank, commercial banks, firms, households and the government determines the structure of interest rates in the credit and financial markets. This structure of interest rates is exogenous for the income-generating process, while the volumes of money and credit are endogenous. Changes in the relevant rate of interest have cost and distribution effects, and thus have an impact on aggregate demand in the goods market, with investment demand being the driving force, which then determines the level of output, income and employment. Therefore, the labour market has no direct effect on employment and unemployment. What is determined in the labour market is the nominal wage rate and hence nominal unit labour costs, which have a major impact on the price level and inflation, but which will also affect the real wage rate and income distribution in a realistic setting. Price and distribution effects of nominal wage setting might then feed back on aggregate demand in the goods market and on the interest rates set in the monetary/financial markets of the economy. 35 The specific alternative models post-Keynesians have proposed follow these broad characteristics, but differ in the details. With respect to the inflation generation process, some post-Keynesian authors have assumed away the existence of a short-run inflation barrier and hence the NAIRU completely (Atesoglu/Smithin 2006; Setterfield 2006, 2009a), whereas others have accepted that there is such a short-run inflation barrier, which, however, is endogenous in the medium to long run through different channels (Hein 2006c; Hein/ Stockhammer 2010; 2011b; Lavoie 2006b; Stockhammer 2008b). With respect to the income generation process, some authors have accepted the interest rate inverse IS-curve from the NCM (Atesoglu/Smithin 2006; Lavoie 2006b; Rochon/Setterfield 2007; Setterfield 2006), whereas others have replaced it with a more elaborate approach to effective demand allowing for real debt and different distribution effects (Hein 2006c; Hein/Stockhammer 2010; 2011b; Setterfield 2009a; Stockhammer 2008b). From these models one can derive a consistent macroeconomic policy mix, as an alternative to the NCM, which is shown in Table 1, drawing on and extending the economic policy implications contained in Arestis (2013) and Hein/Stockhammer (2010; 2011b), for example. In the orthodox NCM approach inflation-targeting monetary policies are recommended as the main stabilising economic policy tool. Central-bank policies applying the interest-rate tool have short-run real effects on unemployment, but in the long run only the inflation rate is affected. Fiscal policies are to support inflation-targeting monetary policies by balancing the public budget over the cycle. The labour market, together with the social security system, determines equilibrium unemployment, the NAIRU in the long run, and the speed of adjustment towards this rate in the short run. Regarding international economic policies, 35. See also the basic teaching versions of post-Keynesian macroeconomic models, as proposed by Fontana/Setterfield (2009), Hein/Stockhammer (2009) and Herr (2014), for example. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 153 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd mainstream economics would be in favour of free trade, free capital flows and flexible exchange rates, reaping the presumed benefits from comparative advantages and the related international division of labour. Since, at least in the long run, there is a clear division of labour between the different areas of economic policy making, ex ante coordination is not required –each area of policy-making would have to follow its tasks as outlined. The macroeconomic policy mix based on post-Keynesian models advocates the coordination of economic policies between the different areas, both in the short and the long run, because there is no clear-cut assignment of policy-makers and their instruments to just one specific economic policy target, that is, full employment, stable inflation, equitable distribution of income and wealth, and financial stability. Generally, it is acknowledged that central-bank interest-rate policies have real effects, both in the short and the long run. Central banks should thus target low long-term real interest rates using its short-term monetary interest-rate tool and contribute to stabilising the monetary, financial and real sectors of the economy using other instruments than the interest rate: credit controls, (asset-based) reserve requirements, etc. Above all, central banks have to act as lender of last resort for the banking sector and the government. The latter has been and is still an important lesson to learn in order to overcome the euro crisis and the underlying design failure of the eurozone, that is, the lack of a convincing lender of last resort for the member countries’governments and a guarantee of public debt (Arestis/Sawyer 2011; Goodhart 1998; Hein 2013/2014; Hein/Detzer 2015; Wray 2012: ch. 5.7). The exact monetary Table 1 Macroeconomic policy recommendations: New Consensus models (NCM) and post-Keynesian models (PKM) compared NCM PKM Monetary policy Inflation targeting by means of interest-rate policies, which affects unemployment in the short run, but only inflation in the long run Targets low interest rates which mainly affects distribution, and stabilises monetary, financial and real sectors by applying other instruments (lender of last resort, credit controls, etc.) Fiscal policy Supports monetary policy in achieving price stability by balancing the budget over the cycle Real stabilisation in the short and in the long run with no autonomous deficit targets; affects distribution of disposable income Labour market and wage/ incomes policy Determines the NAIRU in the long run and the speed of adjustment in the short run; focus should be on flexible nominal and real wages Affects price level/inflation and distribution; focus should be on rigid nominal wages, steady nominal unit labour cost growth and compressed wage structure International economic policies Free trade, free capital flows and flexible exchange rates Regulated capital flows, managed exchange rates, infant industry protection, regional and industrial policies Coordination Clear assignment in the long run; coordination at best only in the short run No clear assignment; economic policy coordination required in the short and the long run, both nationally and internationally Source: Based on Hein (2014a: 29). 154 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Dutt, A.K. (1987): Alternative closures again: a comment on ‘Growth, distribution and inflation’, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11, 75–82. Dutt, A.K. (1989): Accumulation, distribution and inflation in a Marxian/post-Keynesian model with a rentier class, in: Review of Radical Political Economics, 21(3), 18–26. Dutt, A.K. (1990): Growth, distribution and capital ownership: Kalecki and Pasinetti revisited, in: Dutta, B., Gangopadhyay, S., Mookherjee, D., Ray, D. (eds), Economic Theory and Policy: Essays in Honour of Dipak Banerjee, Bombay: Oxford University Press, 130–145. Dutt, A.K. (1990/1991): Interest rate policy in LDCs: a Post Keynesian view, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 13, 210–232. Dutt, A.K. (1992): Rentiers in post-Keynesian models, in: Arestis, P., Chick, V. (eds), Recent Developments in Post-Keynesian Economics, Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar, 95–122. Dutt, A.K. (1995): Internal finance and monopoly power in capitalist economies: a reformulation of Steindl’s growth model, in: Metroeconomica, 46, 16–34. Dutt, A.K. (2005a): Steindl’s theory of maturity and stagnation and its relevance today, in: Mott, T., Shapiro, N. (eds), Rethinking Capitalism: Essays on the Economics of Josef Steindl, London and New York: Routledge, 55–78. Dutt, A.K. (2005b): Conspicuous consumption, consumer debt and economic growth, in: Setterfield, M. (ed), Interactions in Analytical Political Economy: Theory, Policy and Applications, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 155–178. Dutt, A.K. (2006a): Aggregate demand, aggregate supply and economic growth, in: International Review of Applied Economics, 20, 319–336. Dutt, A.K. (2006b): Maturity, stagnation and consumer debt: a Steindlian approach, in: Metroeconomica, 57, 339–364. Dutt, A.K. (2010a): Equilibrium, stability and path dependence in Post Keynesian models of economic growth, in: Birolo, A., Foley, D., Kurz,H.D., Steedman,I. (eds), Production, Distribution and Trade: Alternative Perspectives, London: Routledge, 233–253. Dutt, A.K. (2010b): Keynesian growth theory in the 21st century, in: Arestis, P., Sawyer, M. (eds), 21st Century Keynesian Economics: International Papers in Political Economy,Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 39–80. Dutt, A.K. (2012): Distributional dynamics in Post Keynesian growth models, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 34, 431–451. Dutt, A.K. (2016): Growth and distribution in heterodox models with managers and financiers, in: Metroeconomica, 67, 364–396. Dutt,A.K.,Amadeo,E.J.(1993):Apost-Keynesiantheoryofgrowth,interestandmoney,in: Baranzini, M., Harcourt, G.C. (eds), TheDynamicsoftheWealthofNations,London: Macmillan, 181–205. Ederer, S. (2008): Competition-oriented wage policies and its effects on effective demand in the Netherlands, WIFO Working Papers, 312/2008, Vienna: WIFO. Ederer, S., Stockhammer, E. (2007): Wages and aggregate demand: an empirical investigation for France, in: Hein, E., Truger, A. (eds), Money, Distribution and Economic Policy: Alternatives to Orthodox Macroeconomics, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 119–138. Eichner, A.S., Kregel, J.A. (1975): An essay on post-Keynesian theory: a new paradigm in economics, in: Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 1293–1311. Elson, D., Cagatay, N. (2000): The social content of macroeconomic policies, in: World Development, 28, 1347–1364. Epstein, G.A. (1992): Political economy and comparative central banking, in: Review of Radical Political Economics, 24, 1–30. Epstein, G.A. (1994): A political economy model of comparative central banking, in: Dymski, G., Pollin, R. (eds), New Perspectives in Monetary Macroeconomics, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 231–277. Epstein, G.A. (2005a): Introduction: financialization and the world economy, in: Epstein, G.A. (ed), Financialization and the World Economy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 3–16. Epstein, G.A. (ed.) (2005b): Financialization and the World Economy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 161 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Flaschel, P., Proaño, C., (2007): AS–AD disequilibrium dynamics and the Taylor interest rate policy rule: Euro-Area based estimation and simulation, in: Arestis, P., Hein, E., Le Heron, E. (eds), Aspects of Modern Monetary and Macroeconomic Policies, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 172–196. Fontana, G. (2003): Post-Keynesian approaches to endogenous money: a time framework explanation, in: Review of Political Economy, 15, 291–314. Fontana, G. (2004): Rethinking endogenous money: a constructive interpretation of the debates between horizontalists and structuralists, in: Metroeconomica, 55, 367–385. Fontana, G. (2009a): Money, Uncertainty and Time, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Fontana, G. (2009b): Whither New Consensus Macroeconomics? The role of government and fiscal policy in modern macroeconomics, in: Hein, E., Niechoj, T., Stockhammer, E. (eds), Macroeconomic Policies on Shaky Foundations: Whither Mainstream Economics?, Marburg: Metropolis, 187–208. Fontana, G., Palacio-Vera, A. (2002): Monetary policy rules: what are we learning?, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 24, 547–568. Fontana, G., Palacio-Vera, A. (2007): Are long-run price stability and short-run output stabilization all that monetary policy can aim for?, in: Metroeconomica, 58, 269–298. Fontana, G., Sawyer, M. (2013): Post-Keynesian and Kaleckian thoughts on ecological macroeconomics, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 10(2), 256–267. Fontana, G., Sawyer, M. (2016): Towards post-Keynesian ecological macroeconomics, in: Ecological Economics, 121, 186–195. Fontana, G., Setterfield, M. (2009): A simple (and teachable) macroeconomic model with endogenous money, in: Fontana, G., Setterfield, M. (eds), Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Pedagogy, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 144–168. Frank, R.H., Levine, A.S., Dijk, O. (2014): Expenditure cascades, in: Review of Behavioral Economics,1,55–73. Franke, R. (2016): A supplementary note on Professor Hein’s (2013) version of a Kaleckian debt accumulation, in: Metroeconomica, 67, 529–550. Franke, R., Semmler, W. (1991): A dynamical macroeconomic growth model with external financing of firms: a numerical stability analysis, in: Nell, E.J., Semmler, W. (eds), Nicholas Kaldor and Mainstream Economics: Confrontation or Convergence?, London: Macmillan, 335–359. Friedman, M. (1953): The methodology of positive economics, in: Friedman, M., Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 3–43. Gechert, S., Niechoj, T., Stockhammer, E., Truger, A., Watt, A. (2017): Editorial: towards pluralism in macroeconomics? 20th anniversary conference of the FMM research network, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Polices: Intervention, 14(2), 125–130. Gnos, C., Rochon, L.-P. (2007): The New Consensus and post-Keynesian interest rate policy, in: Review of Political Economy, 19, 369–386. Godley, W., Lavoie, M. (2007): Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Goodfriend, M., King, R.G. (1997): The New Neoclassical Synthesis and the role of monetary policy, in: Bernanke, B.S., Rotemberg, J.J. (eds), NBER Macroeconomics Annual: 1997, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 231–283. Goodhart, C.A.E. (1998): The two concepts of money: implications for the analysis of optimal currency areas, in: European Journal of Political Economy, 14, 407–432. Goodwin, R. (1967): A growth cycle, in: Feinstein, C.H. (ed.), Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 54–58. Guttmann, R., Plihon, D. (2010): Consumer debt and financial fragility, in: International Review of Applied Economics, 24, 269–283. Hamouda, O.F., Harcourt, G.C. (1988): Post Keynesianism: from criticism to coherence?, in: Bulletin of Economic Research, 40, 1–33. Harcourt,G.C.(2006):The Structure of Post-Keynesian Economics: The Core Contributions of the Pioneers, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Harcourt, G.C., Kriesler, P. (eds) (2013): The Oxford Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics, 2 volumes, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 162 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Hartwig, J. (2013): Distribution and growth in demand and productivity in Switzerland (1950–2010), in: Applied Economics Letters, 20, 938–944. Hartwig, J. (2014): Testing the Bhaduri–Marglin model with OECD panel data, in: International Review of Applied Economics, 28, 419–435. Hein, E. (2006a): On the (in-)stability and the endogeneity of the ‘normal’rate of capacity utilisation in a post-Keynesian/Kaleckian ‘monetary’distribution and growth model, in: Indian Development Review, 4, 129–150. Hein, E. (2006b): Interest, debt and capital accumulation: a Kaleckian approach, in: International Review of Applied Economics, 20, 337–352. Hein, E. (2006c): Wage bargaining and monetary policy in a Kaleckian monetary distribution and growth model: trying to make sense of the NAIRU, in: Intervention: Journal of Economics,3,305–329. Hein, E. (2007): Interest rate, debt, distribution and capital accumulation in a post-Kaleckian model, in: Metroeconomica, 58, 310–339. Hein, E. (2008): Money, Distribution Conflict and Capital Accumulation: Contributions to ‘Monetary Analysis’, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hein, E. (2010a): A Keynesian perspective on ‘financialisation’, in: Arestis, P., Sawyer, M. (eds), 21st Century Keynesian Economics: International Papers in Political Economy,Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 120–161. Hein, E. (2010b): Shareholder value orientation, distribution and growth: shortand medium-run effects in a Kaleckian model, in: Metroeconomica, 61(2), 302–332. Hein, E. (2011): Redistribution, global imbalances and the financial and economic crisis: the case for a Keynesian New Deal, in: International Journal of Labour Research, 3(1), 51–73. Hein, E. (2012a): Financialisation, re-distribution, household debt and financial fragility in a Kaleckian model, in: PSL Quarterly Review, 65, 11–51. Hein, E. (2012b): The Macroeconomics of Finance-dominated Capitalism –and its Crisis, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. (2012c): The rate of interest as a macroeconomic distribution parameter: horizontalism and post-Keynesian models of distribution and growth, in: Bulletin of Political Economy, 6, 107–132. Hein, E. (2013): On the importance of the retention ratio in a Kaleckian distribution and growth model with debt accumulation: a comment on Sasaki and Fujita (2012), in: Metroeconomica,64, 186–196. Hein, E. (2013/2014): The crisis of finance-dominated capitalism in the euro area, deficiencies in the economic policy architecture and deflationary stagnation policies, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 36, 325–354. Hein, E. (2014a): State and perspectives of post-Keynesian economics –views of a non-methodologist, in: Dullien, S., Hein, E., Truger, A. (eds), Makroökonomie, Entwicklung und Wirtschaftspolitik/ Macroeconomics, Development and Economic Policies: Festschrift für/for Jan Priewe, Marbug: Metropolis, 21–42. Hein, E. (2014b): Distribution and Growth after Keynes: A Post-Keynesian Guide, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Hein, E. (2015): Finance-dominated capitalism and re-distribution of income: a Kaleckian perspective, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39, 907–934. Hein, E. (2016): Secular stagnation or stagnation policy? Steindl after Summers, in: PSL Quarterly Review, 69, 3–47. Hein, E., Detzer, D. (2015): Post-Keynesian alternative policies to curb macroeconomic imbalances in the Euro area, in: Panoeconomicus, 62, 217–236. Hein, E., Lavoie, M. (2017): Post-Keynesian economics, in: Hagemann, H., Dimand, R. (eds), The Elgar Companion to John Maynard Keynes, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, forthcoming. Hein, E., Mundt, M. (2012): Financialisation and the requirements and potentials for wage-led recovery: a review focussing on the G20, Conditions of Work and Employment Series No 37, Geneva: ILO. Hein, E., Priewe, J. (2009): The Research Network Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FMM): past, present and future, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 6, 166–173. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 163 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Hein, E., Schoder, C. (2011): Interest rates, distribution and capital accumulation: a post-Kaleckian perspective on the US and Germany, in: International Review of Applied Economics, 25, 693–723. Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (2009): A post-Keynesian alternative to the New Consensus Model, in: Fontana, G., Setterfield, M. (eds), Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Pedagogy, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 273–294. Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (2010): Macroeconomic policy mix, employment and inflation in a post-Keynesian alternative to the New Consensus Model, in: Review of Political Economy, 22, 317–354. Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (eds) (2011a): A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and Economic Policies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (2011b): A post-Keynesian macroeconomic model of inflation, distribution and employment, in: Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (eds), A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and Economic Policies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar, 112–136. Hein, E., Tarassow, A. (2010): Distribution, aggregate demand and productivity growth: theory and empirical results for six OECD countries based on a post-Kaleckian model, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 727–754. Hein, E., Truger, A. (2011): Finance-dominated capitalism in crisis: the case for a Keynesian New Deal at the European and the global level, in: Arestis, P., Sawyer, M. (eds), New Economics as Mainstream Economics: International Papers in Political Economy,Basingstoke,UK:Palgrave Macmillan, 190–230. Hein, E., Truger, A. (2012/2013): Finance-dominated capitalism in crisis: the case for a global Keynesian New Deal, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 35, 183–210. Hein, E., van Treeck, T. (2010a): ‘Financialisation’in post-Keynesian models of distribution and growth: a systematic review, in: Setterfield, M. (ed.), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 277–292. Hein, E., van Treeck, T. (2010b): ‘Financialisation’and rising shareholder power in Kaleckian/ post-Kaleckian models of distribution and growth, in: Review of Political Economy, 22, 205–233. Hein, E., Vogel, L. (2008): Distribution and growth reconsidered: empirical results for six OECD countries, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32, 479–511. Hein, E., Vogel, L. (2009): Distribution and growth in France and Germany: single equation estimations and model simulations basedontheBhaduri/Marglinmodel,in:Review of Political Economy, 21, 245–271. Hein, E., Lavoie, M., van Treeck, T. (2011): Some instability puzzles in Kaleckian models of growth and distribution: a critical survey, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35, 587–612. Hein, E., Lavoie, M., van Treeck, T. (2012): Harrodian instability and the ‘normal rate’of capacity utilisation in Kaleckian models of distribution and growth: a survey, in: Metroeconomica,63, 139–169. Hein, E., Dodig, N., Budyldina, N. (2015): The transition towards finance-dominated capitalism: French Regulation School, Social Structures of Accumulation and post-Keynesian approaches compared, in: Hein, E., Detzer, D., Dodig, N. (eds), The Demise of Finance-dominated Capitalism: Explaining the Financial and Economic Crises, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 7–53. Hein, E., Detzer, D., Dodig, N. (eds) (2016): Financialisation and the Financial and Economic Crises: Country Studies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Heine, M., Herr, H. (2013): Volkswirtschaftslehre: Paradigmenorientierte Einführung in die Mikround Makroökonomie, 4th edn, München: Oldenbourg. Herr, H. (2011): International monetary and financial architecture, in: Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (eds), A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and Economic Policies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 267–293. Herr, H. (2014): An analytical framework for the post-Keynesian macroeconomic paradigm, in: Izmir Review of Social Sciences,1,73–105. Holt, R.P.F., Pressman, S. (eds) (2001): A New Guide to Post-Keynesian Economics, London: Routledge. Isaac, A.G., Kim, Y.K. (2013): Consumer and corporate debt: a neo-Kaleckian synthesis, in: Metroeconomica, 64, 244–271. 164 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Kaldor, N. (1955/1956): Alternative theories of distribution, in: Review of Economic Studies,23,83–100. (Reprinted in: Kaldor, N., Collected Economic Essays, Volume 1, Essays on Value and Distribution,2nd edn,London:Duckworth,1980.) Kaldor, N. (1957): A model of economic growth, in: The Economic Journal, 67, 591–624. (Reprinted in: Kaldor, N., Collected Economic Essays, Volume 2, Essays on Economic Stability and Growth, London: Duckworth, 1960.) Kaldor, N. (1966): Marginal productivity and the macroeconomic theories of distribution, in: Review of Economic Studies, 33, 309–319. (Reprinted in: Kaldor, N., Collected Economic Essays, Volume 5, Further Essays on Economic Theory, London: Duckworth, 1978.) Kaldor, N. (1970): The case for regional policies, in: Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 17, 337–348. (Reprinted in: Kaldor, N., Collected Economic Essays, Volume 5, Further Essays on Economic Theory, London: Duckworth, 1978.) Kalecki, M. (1936 [1982]): Some remarks on Keynes’s theory [English translation of original Polish version], in: Australian Economic Papers, 21, 245–253. (Reprinted in: Osiatynski, J. (ed), Collected Works of Michal Kalecki, Vol. I, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.) Kalecki, M. (1937): The principle of increasing risk, in: Economica, 4, 440–447. Kalecki, M. (1939): Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations, London: George Allen & Unwin. Kalecki, M. (1943): Political aspects of full employment, in: Political Quarterly, 14, 322–331. Kalecki, M. (1954): Theory of Economic Dynamics, London: George Allen & Unwin. Kalecki, M. (1971): Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933–1970, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kapeller, J., Schütz, B. (2014): Debt, boom, bust: a theory of Minsky–Veblen cycles, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 36, 781–814. Kapeller, J., Schütz, B. (2015): Conspicuous consumption, inequality and debt: the nature of consumption driven profit-led regimes, in: Metroeconomica, 66, 51–70. Keynes, J.M. (1933 [1987]): A monetary theory of production, in: The Collected Writings of J.M. Keynes, Vol. XIII, London and Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 408–411. Keynes,J.M.(1936[1973]):The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,in:The Collected Writings of J.M. Keynes, Vol. VII, London and Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Keynes, J.M. (1937): The General Theory of Employment, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, 51, 209–223. K e ynes,J.M.(1942[1980]):Proposalfor an International Clearing Union, in: The Collected Writings of J.M. Keynes, Vol. 25, London: Macmillan, 168–196. Keynes, J.M. (1979): The General Theory and After: A Supplement, in: The Collected Writings of J.M. Keynes, Vol. XXIX, London and Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Kiefer, D., Rada, C. (2015): Profit maximizing goes global: the race to the bottom, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39, 1333–1350. Kim, Y.K. (2013): Household debt, financialization, and macroeconomic performance in the United States, 1951–2009, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,35,675–694. Kim, Y.K. (2016): Macroeconomic effects of household debt: an empirical analysis, in: Review of Keynesian Economics, 4, 127–150. Kim, Y.K., Setterfield, M., Mei, Y. (2014): A theory of aggregate consumption, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 11, 31–49. King, J.E. (2002): A History of Post Keynesian Economics Since 1936, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. King, J.E.(2009): Microfoundations?, in: Hein, E., Niechoj, T., Stockhammer,E. (eds), Macroeconomic Policies on Shaky Foundations: Whither Mainstream Economics?, Marburg: Metropolis, 33–53. King, J.E. (ed.) (2012a): The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, 2nd edn, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. King, J.E. (2012b): The Microfoundations Delusion: Metaphor and Dogma in the History of Macroeconomics, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. King,J.E.(2015):Advanced Introduction to Post Keynesian Economics, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Kriesler, P., Lavoie, M. (2007): The New Consensus on monetary policy and its Post-Keynesian critique, in: Review of Political Economy, 19, 387–404. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 165 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Kronenberg, T. (2010): Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics, in: Ecological Economics, 69, 1488–1494. Kurz, H.D. (1990): Technical change, growth and distribution: a steady-state approach to ‘unsteady’growth,in:Kurz,H.D.,Capital, Distribution and Effective Demand,Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 201–239. Laski, K., Walther, H. (2015): Kalecki’s profits equation after 80 years, in: Toporowski J., Mamica, L. (eds), MichałKalecki in the 21st Century, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 131–156. Lavoie, M. (1992): Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Lavoie, M. (1993): A post-classical view of money, interest, growth and distribution, in: Mongiovi, G., Rühl, C. (eds), Macroeconomic Theory: Diversity and Convergence, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 3–21. Lavoie, M. (1995a): The Kaleckian model of growth and distribution and its neo-Ricardian and neo-Marxian critiques, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 789–818. Lavoie, M. (1995b): Interest rates in post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, in: Metroeconomica, 46, 146–177. Lavoie, M. (1996a): Traverse, hysteresis and normal rates of capacity utilization in Kaleckian models of growth and distribution, in: Review of Radical Political Economics, 28(4), 113–147. Lavoie, M. (1996b): Unproductive outlays and capital accumulation with target-return pricing, in: Review of Social Economy, 54, 303–321. Lavoie, M. (1996c): Horizontalism, structuralism, liquidity preference and the principle of increasing risk, in: Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 43, 275–300. Lavoie, M. (1996d): Monetary policy in an economy with endogenous credit money, in: Deleplace, G., Nell, E.J. (eds), Money in Motion, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 532–545. Lavoie, M. (2006a): Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Lavoie, M. (2006b): A Post-Keynesian amendment to the New Consensus on monetary policy, in: Metroeconomica, 57, 165–192. Lavoie, M. (2008): Financialisation issues in a post-Keynesian stock-flow consistent model, in: Intervention: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies, 5, 331–356. Lavoie, M. (2009a): Cadrisme within a post-Keynesian model of growth and distribution, in: Review of Political Economy, 21, 369–391. Lavoie, M. (2009b): Towards a post-Keynesian consensus in macroeconomics: reconciling the Cambridge and Wall Street views, in: Hein, E., Niechoj, T., Stockhammer, E. (eds), Macroeconomic Policies on Shaky Foundations: Whither Mainstream Economics?, Marburg: Metropolis, 75–99. Lavoie, M. (2010): Surveying long-run and short-run stability issues with the Kaleckian model of growth, in: Setterfield, M. (ed), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth,Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 132–156. Lavoie, M. (2011a): History and methods of post-Keynesian economics, in: Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (eds), A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and Economic Policies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 1–33. Lavoie, M. (2011b): Money, credit and central banks in post-Keynesian economics, in: Hein, E., Stockhammer, E. (eds), A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and Economic Policies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 34–60. Lavoie, M. (2013): The monetary and fiscal nexus of neo-chartalism: a friendly critique, in: Journal of Economic Issues, 48, 1–31. Lavoie, M. (2014): Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Lavoie, M. (2016a): Convergence towards the normal rate of capacity utilization in neo-Kaleckian models: the role of non-capacity creating autonomous expenditures, in: Metroeconomica, 67, 172–201. Lavoie, M. (2016b): Understanding the global financial crisis: contributions of post-Keynesian economics, in: Studies in Political Economy, 97, 58–75. Lavoie, M. (2017): The origins and evolution of the debate on wage-led and profit-led regimes, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Polices: Intervention, 14(2), 200–221. Lavoie, M., Godley, W. (2001/2002): Kaleckian models of growth in a coherent stock-flow monetary framework: a Kaldorian view, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 22, 277–311. 166 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Lavoie, M., Stockhammer, E. (2013): Wage-led growth: concept, theories and policies, in: Lavoie, M., Stockhammer, E. (eds), Wage-led Growth: An Equitable Strategy for Economic Recovery, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 13–39. Lavoie, M., Rodriguez, G., Seccareccia, M. (2004): Transformational growth, interest rates, and the golden rule, in: Argyrous, G., Forstater, M., Mongiovi, G. (eds), Growth, Distribution, and Effective Demand, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 3–22. Lazonick, W., O’Sullivan, M. (2000): Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance, in: Economy and Society, 29, 13–35. Lerner, A.P. (1943): Functional finance and the federal debt, in: Social Research, 10, 38–51. Lima, G.T., Meirelles, A.J.A. (2007): Macrodynamics of debt regimes, financial instability and growth, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, 563–580. Lopez G., J. (2002): Two versions of the principle of effective demand: Kalecki and Keynes, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 24, 609–622. Lopez G., J., Mott, T. (1999): Kalecki vs. Keynes on the determinants of investment, in: Review of Political Economy, 11, 291–301. McCombie, J. (2011): Criticisms and defences of the balance-of-payments constrained growth model: some old, some new, in: PSL Quarterly Review, 64, 353–392. Meirelles, A.J.A., Lima, G.T. (2006): Debt, financial fragility, and economic growth: a post Keynesian macromodel, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 29, 93–115. Minsky, H.M. (1975): John Maynard Keynes, London and Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Minsky, H. (1986): Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (2nd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.) Naastepad, C.W.M. (2006): Technology, demand and distribution: a cumulative growth model with an application to the Dutch productivity growth slowdown, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30, 403–434. Naastepad, C.W.M., Storm, S. (2007): OECD demand regimes (1960–2000), in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 29, 211–246. Naastepad, C.W.M., Storm, S. (2010): Feasible egalitarianism: demand-led growth, labour and technology, in: Setterfield, M. (ed), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Growth, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 311–330. Nikiforos, M., Foley, D.K. (2012): Distribution and capacity utilization: conceptual issues and empirical evidence, in: Metroeconomica, 63, 200–229. Nikolaidi, M. (2014): Margins of safety and instability in a macrodynamic model with Minskyan insights, in: Structural Change and Economic Dymamics, 31, 1–16. Nikolaidi, M. (2017): Three decades of modelling Minsky: what we have learned and the way forward, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Polices: Intervention, 14(2), 222–238. Nishi, H. (2012a): Household debt, dynamic stability, and change in demand creation patterns, in: Review of Political Economy, 24, 607–622. Nishi, H. (2012b): A dynamic analysis of debt-led and debt-burdened growth regimes with Minskian financial structure, in: Metroeconomica, 63, 634–660. Nishi, H. (2013): On the short-run relationship between the income distribution-growth and debtgrowth regimes, in: International Review of Applied Economics, 27, 729–749. Onaran, Ö. (2016): Wageversus profit-led growth in the context of globalization and public spending: the political aspects of wage-led recovery, in: Review of Keynesian Economics,4, 458–474. Onaran, Ö., Galanis, G. (2014): Income distribution and growth: a global model, in: Environment and Planning A, 46, 2489–2513. Onaran, Ö., Obst, T. (2016): Wage-led growth in the EU15 member-states: the effects of income distribution on growth, investment, trade balance and inflation, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40, 1517–1551. Onaran, Ö., Stockhammer, E. (2005): Two different export-oriented growth strategies: accumulation and distribution in Turkey and South Korea, in: Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 41, 65–89. Onaran, Ö., Stockhammer, E., Grafl, L. (2011): Financialisation, income distribution and aggregate demand in the USA, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35, 637–661. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 167 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Orhangazi, Ö. (2008): Financialisation and capital accumulation in the non-financial corporate sector: a theoretical and empirical investigation on the US economy: 1973–2003, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics,32,863–886. Osiatynski, J. (2015): Review of Eckhard Hein, Distribution and Growth after Keynes: A PostKeynesian Guide,in:Ekonomista,6,921–926. Palley, T.I. (1994a): Debt, aggregate demand, and the business cycle: an analysis in the spirit of Kaldor and Minsky, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 16, 371–390. Palley, T.I. (1994b): Competing views of the money supply process: theory and evidence, in: Metroeconomica, 45, 67–88. Palley, T.I. (1996a): Post Keynesian Economics: Debt, Distribution and the Macro Economy, London: Macmillan. Palley, T.I. (1996b): Accommodationism versus structuralism: time for an accommodation, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 18, 585–594. Palley, T.I. (2005): Class conflict and the Cambridge theory of income distribution, in: Hein, E., Heise, A., Truger, A. (eds), Wages, Employment, Distribution and Growth: International Perspectives, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 223–246. Palley, T.I. (2007): Macroeconomics and monetary policy: competing theoretical frameworks, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30, 61–78. Palley, T.I. (2008a): Endogenous money: implications for the money supply process, interest rates, and macroeconomics, PERI Working Paper No 178, Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Palley, T.I. (2008b): Financialisation: what it is and why it matters, in: Hein, E., Niechoj, T., Spahn, P., Truger, A. (eds), Finance-led Capitalism? Macroeconomic Effects of Changes in the Financial Sector, Marburg: Metropolis, 29–60. Palley, T.I. (2010): The limits of Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis as an explanation of the crisis, in: Monthly Review, 61(11), 28–43. Palley, T.I. (2012): From Crisis to Stagnation: The Destruction of Shared Prosperity and the Role of Economics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Palley, T.I. (2013a): Horizontalists, verticalists, and structuralists: the theory of endogenous money reassessed, in: Review of Keynesian Economics, 1, 406–424. Palley, T.I. (2013b): Financialization: The Economics of Finance Capital Domination, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Palley, T.I. (2013c): Gattopardo economics: the crisis and the mainstream response of change that keeps things the same, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 10, 193–206. Palley, T.I. (2014a): Enriching the neo-Kaleckian growth model: nonlinearities, political economy, and q theory, in: Dullien, S., Hein, E., Truger, A. (eds), Makroökonomie, Entwicklung und Wirtschaftspolitik/Macroeconomics, Development and Economic Policies: Festschrift für/for Jan Priewe, Marburg: Metropolis, 71–84. Palley, T.I. (2014b): A neo-Kaleckian–Goodwin model of capitalist economic growth: monopoly power, managerial pay and labour market conflict, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics,38, 1355–1372. Palley, T.I. (2015a): The middle class in macroeconomics and growth theory: a three-class neoKaleckian–Goodwin model, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39, 221–243. Palley, T.I. (2015b): Money, fiscal policy and interest rates: a critique of modern monetary theory, in: Review of Political Economy, 27, 1–23. Palley, T.I. (2017): Wagevs. profit-led growth: the role of the distribution of wages in determining regime character, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(1), 49–61. Pasinetti, L.L. (1962): Rate of profit and income distribution in relation to the rate of economic growth, in: Review of Economic Studies,29,267–279. (Reprinted in: Pasinetti, L.L., Growth and Income Distribution: Essays in Economic Theory, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1974.) Pasinetti, L.L. (1974): Growth and Income Distribution: Essays in Economic Theory, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pasinetti, L.L. (2007): Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A ‘Revolution in Economics’to be Accomplished, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 168 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Pollin, R. (1991): Two theories of money supply endogeneity: some empirical evidence, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 13, 366–396. Prante, F.J. (2017): Macroeconomic effects of personal and functional income inequality, Working Paper 83/2017, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE) Berlin. Raghavendra, S. (2006): Limits to investment exhilarationism, in: Journal of Economics, 87, 257–280. Rezai, A. (2015): Demand and distribution in integrated economies, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39, 1399–1414. Rezai,A.,Stagl,S.(2016):Ecologicalmacroeconomics:introductionandreview,in:Ecological Economics, 121, 181–185. Rezai, A., Taylor, L., Mechler, R. (2013): Ecological macroeconomics: an application to climate change, in: Ecological Economics, 85, 69–76. Robinson, J. (1956): The Accumulation of Capital, London: Macmillan. Robinson, J. (1962): Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, London: Macmillan. Rochon, L.-P., Rossi, S. (2006): Inflation targeting, economic performance, and income distribution: a monetary macroeconomics analysis, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 28, 615–638. Rochon, L.-P., Rossi, S. (eds) (2016): An Introduction to Macroeconomics: A Heterodox Approach to Economic Analysis, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Rochon, L.-P., Setterfield, M. (2007): Interest rates, income distribution and monetary dominance: post-Keynesians and the ‘fair rate’of interest, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30, 13–42. Rogers, C. (2014): Why ‘state of the art’monetary theory was unable to anticipate the global financial crisis: a child’s guide, in: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, 11, 300–314. Rowthorn, R.E. (1981): Demand, real wages and economic growth, in: Thames Papers in Political Economy, Autumn, 1–39. Rowthorn, R.E. (1999): Unemployment, wage bargaining and capital–labour substitution, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 413–425. Ryoo, S. (2013): The paradox of debt and Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis, in: Metroeconomica, 64, 1–24. Sardoni, C. (2011): Unemployment, Recession and Effective Demand: The Contributions of Marx, Keynes and Kalecki, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Sasaki, H. (2011): Conflict, growth, distribution, and employment: a long-run Kaleckian model, in: International Review of Applied Economics,25, 539–557. Sasaki, H., Fujita, S. (2012): The importance of the retention ratio in a Kaleckian model with debt accumulation, in: Metroeconomica, 63, 417–428. Sawyer, M. (2002): The NAIRU, aggregate demand and investment, in: Metroeconomica, 53, 66–94. Sawyer, M. (2012): The Kaleckian analysis of demand-led growth, in: Metroeconomica, 63, 7–28. Schütz, B. (2012): Endogenous income distribution in the Bhaduri–Marglin model, in: Intervention: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies, 9, 309–320. Seguino, S. (2010a): Gender, distribution, and balance of payments constrained growth in developing countries, in: Review of Political Economy, 22, 373–404. Seguino, S. (2010b): The global economic crisis, its gender and ethnic implications, and policy responses, in: Gender and Development, 18, 179–199. Seguino, S., Heintz, J. (2012): Monetary tightening and the dynamics of race and gender stratification in the US, in: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 71, 603–638. Setterfield, M. (2006): Is inflation targeting compatible with Post Keynesian economics?, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 28, 653–671. Setterfield, M. (2009a): Macroeconomics without the LM curve: an alternative view, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33, 273–293. Setterfield, M. (2009b): Fiscal and monetary policy interactions: lessons for revising the EU Stability and Growth Pact, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 31, 623–643. Setterfield, M. (2011): The remarkable durability of Thirlwall’s law, in: PSL Quarterly Review, 64, 393–427. Setterfield, M., Kim, Y.K. (2016): Debt servicing, aggregate consumption, and growth, in: Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 36, 22–33. Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments 169 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Setterfield, M., Kim, Y.K. (2017): Household borrowing and the possibility of ‘consumptiondriven, profit-led growth’, in: Review of Keynesian Economics,5,43–60. Setterfield, M., Kim, Y.K., Rees, J. (2016): Inequality, debt servicing and the sustainability of steady state growth, in: Review of Political Economy, 28, 45–63. Shaikh, A. (2009): Economic policy in a growth context: a classical synthesis of Keynes and Harrod, in: Metroeconomica, 60, 455–494. Skott, P. (1989): Conflict and Effective Demand in Economic Growth, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Skott, P. (2010): Growth, instability and cycles: Harrodian and Kaleckian models of accumulation and income distribution, in: Setterfield, M. (ed), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 108–131. Skott, P. (2012): Theoretical and empirical shortcomings of the Kaleckian investment function, in: Metroeconomica, 63, 109–138. Skott, P. (2016): Weaknesses of ‘wage-led growth’, Working Paper 2016-08, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Skott, P., Ryoo, S. (2008a): Macroeconomic implications of financialization, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32, 827–862. Skott, P., Ryoo, S. (2008b): Financialization in Kaleckian economics with and without labor constraints, in: Intervention: European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies, 5, 357–386. Smithin, J. (1996): Macroeconomic Policy and the Future of Capitalism: The Revenge of the Rentiers and the Threat to Prosperity, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Smithin, J. (1997): An alternative monetary model of inflation and growth, in: Review of Political Economy, 9, 395–409. Smithin, J. (2003a): Controversies in Monetary Economics, revised edn, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Smithin, J. (2003b): Interest rates, profits and economic growth, in: Nell, E., Forstater, M. (eds), Reinventing Functional Finance: Transformational Growth and Full Employment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 211–223. Smithin, J. (2007): A real interest rate rule for monetary policy?, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30, 101–118. Steindl, J. (1952): Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism, Oxford: Blackwell. (2nd edn: New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1976.) Steindl, J.(1979): Stagnation theory and stagnation policy, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics,3,1–14. (Reprinted in: Steindl, J., Economic Papers, 1941–88, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1990.) Stockhammer, E. (2004a): Is there an equilibrium rate of unemployment in the long run?, in: Review of Political Economy,16, 59–77. Stockhammer, E. (2004b): The Rise of Unemployment in Europe: A Keynesian Approach, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Stockhammer, E. (2004c): Financialisation and the slowdown of accumulation, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 719–741. Stockhammer, E. (2005/2006): Shareholder value orientation and the investment–profit puzzle, in: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 28, 193–215. Stockhammer, E. (2008a): Some stylized facts on the finance-dominated accumulation regime, in: Competition and Change, 12, 189–207. Stockhammer, E. (2008b): Is the NAIRU a Monetarist, New Keynesian, Post Keynesian or Marxist theory?, in: Metroeconomica, 59, 479–510. Stockhammer, E. (2010): Income distribution, the finance-dominated accumulation regime, and the present crisis, in: Dullien, S., Hein, E., Truger, A., van Treeck, T. (eds), The World Economy in Crisis –the Return of Keynesianism?, Marburg: Metropolis, 63–86. Stockhammer, E. (2012): Financialization, income distribution and the crisis, in: Investigación Económica, 71(279), 39–70. Stockhammer, E. (2015): Rising inequality as a cause of the present crisis, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39, 935–958. Stockhammer, E. (2017a): Wage-led versus profit-led demand: what have we learned? A Kaleckian– Minskyan view, in: Review of Keynesian Economics,5,25–42. 170 European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Vol. 14 No. 2 © 2017 The Author Journal compilation © 2017 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd