Neither New Nor Keynesian: A Critique of the New Keynesian Programme

Günümüzde yeni Keynesgil iktisatla yakından ilgili ve iktisat politikası oluşturan çevrelerde çok etkili bir uzlaşı oluşmaktadır: Makroiktisatta Yeni Uzlaşı (MYU). Bu yazıda MYU’nun betimlenmesine çalışılmakta ve söz konusu uzlaşının hemen hemen hiçbir özelliği ile Keynesgil sayılamayacağı, üstelik bir çok özelliği itibariyle yeni de olmadığı ileri sürülmektedir. Keynesgil iktisat hem kısa, hem uzun dönemde yatırımların anahtar rolü oynadığı “efektif talep ilkesi”nin önemi, Say Yasası’nın ve piyasa uyum süreçlerinin tam istihdam yaratacağı görüşünün reddi ve yaygın belirsizliklerle karakterize edilen bir dünya üzerine kuruludur. Oysa MYU tam bilgilenme altında optimizasyon davranışlarıyla, Say Yasası’na geçerlilik kazandırılmasıyla, talebin arz üzerindeki etkisinin reddi ile, para politikası üzerine odaklanılarak, maliye politikasının rolünün yadsınması ile karakterize edilmekte ve bu bağlamda Keynesgil olmadığı kolayca görülmektedir. MYU’da ‘doğal faiz haddi’ kavramına verilen kilit rol ise, bir yenilik değil, Wicksell’e dönüştür.

Ne "Yeni" ne de "Keynesgil: Yeni Keynesgil Programın Bir Eleştirisi

A ‘new consensus in macroeconomics’ has recently emerged which is closely linked with new Keynesian economics and which is highly influential in policy-making circles. This paper outlines the ‘new consensus in macroeconomics’, and argues that in virtually all respects it cannot be considered Keynesian, and in many respects it is not new either. Keynesian economics is viewed in terms of the role of the ‘principle of effective demand’ in both the short run and the long run with investment having a key role, the rejection of Say’s Law and market adjustment processes to generate full employment, and the world characterised by pervasive uncertainty. The NCM is characterised by optimising behaviour under full information, the reinstatement of Say’s Law, the denial of effects of demand on supply, and a focus on monetary policy and a denial of the role of fiscal policy. It can be readily seen not to be Keynesian. The crucial role given to the ‘natural rate of interest’ indicates its lack of novelty with a return to Wicksell.

PDF

___

ARESTIS, P. (2007), “What is the New Consensus in Macroeconomics?” in P. Arestis (ed.), Is There a New Consensus in Macroeconomics ? Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, forthcoming.
ARESTIS, P. and SAWYER, M. (2004), “Can Monetary Policy Affect the Real Economy?”, European Review of Economics and Finance, 3(3), 9-32. ————(2005), “Aggregate Demand, Conflict and Capacity in the Inflationary Process”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(6), 959-74. ————(2006a), “Another Look into the Phillips’ Curve”, mimeo., University of Leeds. ————(2006b), “Fiscal Policy Matters”, Public Finance, 54 (3), 1-15.
BALL, L., MANKIW, N.G. and ROMER, D. (1988), “The New Keynesian Economics and the Output-Inflation Tradeoff”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
BANK OF ENGLAND (2005), The Bank of England Quarterly Model, London: Bank of England.
BLANCHARD, O. J. and FISCHER, S. (1989), Lectures on Macroeconomics, Cambridge, Mass., USA and London: The MIT Press.
DAVIDSON, P. (2002), Financial Markets, Money and the Real World, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ————(2006), “Keynes and Money” in P. Arestis and M. Sawyer (eds.), A Handbook Of Alternative Monetary Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
DE VROEY, M. (1997), “Accounting for Involuntary Unemployment in Neoclassical Theory: Some Lessons from Sixty Years of Uphill Struggle” in R. Backhouse, D. Hausman, U.Mäki and A. Salanti (eds.), Economics and Methodology: Crossing Boundaries, Basingstoke: Mecmillan.
FRIEDMAN, M. (1968), “The Role of Monetary Policy”, American Economic Review, 58 (1), 1-17.
FRIEDMAN, M. (1974), “A Theoretical Framework for Monetary Analysis”, in R. Gordon (ed.), Milton Friedman’s Monetary Framework: A Debate with His Critics, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
GOODHART, C.A.E. (2004), Review of Interest and Prices by M. Woodford, Journal of Economics, 82, 195-200.
GORDON, R.J. (1997), “The Time-varying NAIRU and Its Implications for Economic Policy”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 11-32.
KALECKI, M. (1944), “Professor Pigou on “The Classical Stationary State”: A Comment”, Economic Journal, 54 (1), 131-2. ————(1990), Collected Works of Michal Kalecki, Vol. 1: Capitalism, Business Cycles and Full Employment (ed. J. Osiantynski), Oxford: Clarendon Press. KEYNES, J.M. (1930), A Treatise on Money, Vol.1: The Pure Theory of Money. London: Macmillan. ————(1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, London: Macmillan. ————(1937), “The General Theory of Employment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 51(2), 209-33.
LAYARD, R. and NICKELL, S. (1986), “Unemployment in Britain”, Economica, 53 (Supplement), S121-69.
MCCALLUM, B.T. (2001), “Monetary Policy Analysis in Models without Money”, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 83(4), 145-60.
MEYER, L.H. (2001), “Does Money Matter?”, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 83(5), 1-15.
PALACIO-VERA, A. (2005), “The ‘Modern’ View of Macroeconomics: Some Critical Reflections”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(4), 747–67.
SAWYER, M. (2002), “The NAIRU, Aggregate Demand and Investment”, Metroeconomica, 53(1), 66-94.
WOODFORD, M. (2003), Interest and Prices: Foundations of a Theory of Monetary Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.