Kaldor's Neo‐pasinetti Model and the Cambridge Theory of Distribution*

Araujo, Jorge Thompson

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.1995.tb00286.x

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In my 1987 French book, I had devoted a whole chapter to the neo-Pasinetti theorem and its valuation ratio (similar to Tobin's q ratio), linking it to the work of Richard Kahn, Robin Marris and Scott Moss. While the neo-Pasinetti theorem of 1966 had generated several comments in its days, it had been more or less ignored until Jorge Araujo (1995) gave it a new look. This attracted my attention and I decided to see how it could be set within a neo-Kaleckian model with an endogenous rate of utilization.…”

Section: Part I: Basic Kaleckian Models Of Growth and Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to Post-Keynesian Growth Theory

Lavoie¹

2022

Post-Keynesian Growth Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early thoughtsMy first encounter with post-Keynesian growth theory was during the 1975-76 Honours Seminar in Modern Classics, which was a compulsory full-year undergraduate course in Economics at Carleton University, located in Ottawa, given by Thomas K. Rymes. The Seminar touched diverse fields in economics, ranging from Walrasian exchange and production theory, as well as neoclassical growth theory, and then moving on to the monetary framework with Keynes, Patinkin, Clower, Leijonhufvud and Friedman. Other professors also gave occasional lectures, for instance on the theory of the firm, the principal/agent distinction, shirking by workers and the theory of capital markets. Rymes had done his PhD at McGill University, in Montreal, which at the time and until the early 1980s was the main centre of Cambridge-style Keynesian economics, from which Canadian colleagues such as Mario Seccareccia, Louis-Philippe Rochon, Omar Hamouda, Gilles Dostaler and Morris Altman graduated at either the MA or PhD level. Rymes devoted two lectures to the Cambridge capital controversies (reswitching and capital reversals in two-sector models) and productivity accounting in December 1975. I only found out a year later, when browsing through shelves in a London bookstore, that he had written a whole book on the Cambridge controversies and its implications for productivity measurement, with a very favourable preface by none other than Joan Robinson (Rymes, 1971). He started the 1976 lectures by tackling Harrod's growth model and the neo-Keynesian or neo-Cambridgian models as they were then called. These were the models proposed in the mid-1950s and early 1960s by Joan Robinson, Nicholas Kaldor and Luigi Pasinetti.Like many students, I suppose, I was fascinated and puzzled by Pasinetti's long-run solution to the macroeconomic determination of the profit rate, r = g/s c , which only depended on the growth rate of the economy and the propensity to save of capitalists, regardless of the propensity to save of workers. So much so that when I moved to the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne for my graduate studies in the Fall of 1976, my first major paper was devoted to 'L'introduction de la firme et de la finance dans le modèle de croissance et répartition de Pasinetti' (The introduction of the firm and of finance in Pasinetti's model of growth and distribution), which also discussed Kaldor's neo-Pasinetti theorem. I elected to write my doctoral dissertation on a topic closer to monetary economics, however, and so my main interest became the post-Keynesian theory of endogenous money. When I got a position at the University of Ottawa (first, as a temporary position in 1979, then a tenure-track one in 1981), I opted to teach the graduate course in growth economics, and my lecture notes gave rise to my 1987 book, Macroéconomie: Théories et controverses postkeynésiennes (Macroeconomics: Post-Keynesian Theories and Controversies), which dealt with the Cambridge controversies, in particular its implications for the measurement of technical progr...

show abstract

Section: Part I: Basic Kaleckian Models Of Growth and Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to Post-Keynesian Growth Theory

Lavoie¹

2022

Post-Keynesian Growth Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering that the net demand for placements (xi) is equal to the worker's savings less the consumption from capital gains and the supply of new securities issued by the corporation (xii), as in Davidson (1968) and Araújo (1995), we have:…”

Section: The Stability Condition To the Model To The Case Of Incentivmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comments to the article “The political role of the State in Cambridge theories of growth and distribution”

Oliveira

Sugahara

Teixeira

2021

Brazil. J. Polit. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This comment came to refute and correct the idea of Charles (2007) about the negatively implications in the income distribution when the government expand the consumption in favour to households. We prove that the political choice, to both cases (increasing consumption or increasing profit), impact positively the income distribution and does not affect the essential nature of the Kaldor neo-Pasinetti dynamic equilibrium results and the “Cambridge Equation”. The stability of the model is guarantee by applying the Olech’s Theorem to the case.

show abstract

Pasinetti on Post-Keynesian Income Distribution and Growth Theory: The Basic Issues

Baranzini

Mirante

2018

Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kaldor's Neo‐pasinetti Model and the Cambridge Theory of Distribution*

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Introduction to Post-Keynesian Growth Theory

Introduction to Post-Keynesian Growth Theory

Comments to the article “The political role of the State in Cambridge theories of growth and distribution”

Pasinetti on Post-Keynesian Income Distribution and Growth Theory: The Basic Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About