Title
Similitudes and discrepancies in post-Keynesian and Marxist theories of investment: A theoretical and empirical investigation
Date Issued
01 April 2004
Access level
metadata only access
Resource Type
journal article
Author(s)
Lavoie M.
Seccareccia M.
Université d'Ottawa
Abstract
There has been a substantial amount of convergence between post-Keynesian and Marxist economics, the writings of Kalecki being commmon ground for both traditions. Still, some differences remain. While authors in both traditions seem to agree to a large extent on short-period issues, long-period matters relating to the role Of saving, the rate of profit, inflation, crowding out, excess money supply, are still contentious. All this seems to depend on the exact form taken by the investment function, more specifically the role of capacity utilization. Four different equations are set up to be tested, two of which correspond to two variants of the Marxist view, while the other two equations correspond to a naive and a sophisticated Kaleckian view, the latter being based on hysteresis. The equations are tested on three sets of annnal Canadian data. Various statistical tests are applied to all four equations in an effort to rank them, notably information and encompassing tests. The Kaleckian equation with hysteresis generally comes out empirically with the preferred statistical properties, when manufacturing data on actual rates of capital accumulation are considered separately or when both realized and intended rates of investment for the total industrial sector are used. © 2004 Taylor and Francis Ltd.
Start page
127
End page
149
Volume
18
Issue
2
Language
English
OCDE Knowledge area
Economía
Scopus EID
2-s2.0-2442562619
Source
International Review of Applied Economics
ISSN of the container
02692171
Sponsor(s)
Part of this research was made possible through a grant of the Center for Employment and Price Stability (University of Missouri in Kansas City). We are grateful for the various comments, especially those of Jamee Moudud, Marc-André Pigeon, Tom Rymes and Anwar Shaikh, as well as those of the two anonymous referees of the Review. We retain the sole responsibility for all remaining errors or omissions.
Sources of information: Directorio de Producción Científica Scopus