Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Comments on the history of the Review of Keynesian Economics on its tenth anniversary

Saturday, November 12th, 2022

This Fall (October/November 2022) marks the tenth anniversary of the founding of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE). The founding co-editors were Louis-Philippe Rochon, Matias Vernengo, and I. At the beginning of 2018 Louis-Philippe Rochon stepped down to become sole editor of the Review of Political Economy and he was replaced by Esteban Pérez Caldentey.

Since then, ROKE has further enhanced its reputation, becoming a leading heterodox economics journal as measured by its Clarivate citation score. It also has premier standing for official research assessment purposes in France, Italy, and Brazil.

Active plans for the journal were set in motion in late 2011 and the first issue was published in Autumn 2012. That first issue includes a founding statement by the three co-editors which lays out the motivation for establishing the journal, its scope, and its purpose. The statement is on ROKE’s website. I think it has aged very well and there is not much in it that I would change today. I encourage people to read it.

(more…)

The false promise and bitter fruit of Neoliberalism: political economic disembedding, cultural transformation, and the rise of proto-fascist politics

Tuesday, October 11th, 2022

Neoliberalism is a political economic philosophy that consists of two claims, one economic and the other political. The economic claim is free market laissez-faire economies are the best way to organize economic activity as they generate efficient outcomes that maximize well-being. The political claim is free market economic arrangements promote individual liberty. This paper argues both claims are problematic. The evidence from the forty-year experiment that began in 1980 shows Neoliberalism has undercut shared prosperity and unleashed illiberal forces that threaten liberty. The paper distinguishes between the first political turn which saw the establishment of Neoliberal political hegemony, and the second political turn toward proto-fascism that we are now experiencing. The second turn is being driven by a collection of factors which have created a demand for proto-fascism and weakened the defenses against alt-right ideas. Those factors include socio-economic disembedding, institutional destruction and political disembedding, increased economic inequality that tilts political power, transformation of attitudes to government and governance, transformation of economic identity, and cultural transformation that celebrates sociopathic egotism. The Third Way’s capture of center-left politics means liberal elites occupy the political place that should be held by true opponents of Neoliberalism. Those liberal elites obstruct the politics needed to reverse the deep causes of the drift to proto-fascism. Ironically, that makes those elites a real danger.

READ THE PAPER

Sabotaging Germany, blaming Russia: another view of the Nord Stream pipeline attack

Saturday, October 1st, 2022

Imagine Moscow was nuked yesterday, and this morning The New York Times ran a frontpage headline “Moscow nuked: Russia proves its hostility to Europe again”. Sounds pretty crazy? Yet, in a manner of speaking, that is what happened last week.

On Tuesday September 27th three major leaks caused by undersea explosions were discovered in the Nord Stream gas pipelines connecting Russia and Germany. The New York Times evening e-mail briefing, which is sent to nine million readers, headlined “suspicion of Russian sabotage”. The Wednesday European edition ran a similar headline accompanied by comments about the attacks proving Russian aggression against Europe.

The same take echoed in the UK. The conservative Telegraph newspaper ran a headline Nord Stream sabotage mapped: how Putin could have carried out the attack along with a photo of Vladimir Putin in a submersible. Meanwhile, the progressive Guardian ran a headline about a “new phase of hybrid war” against Europe with the sub-title accusing Russia of suspected sabotage.

(more…)

Theorizing dollar hegemony, Part 1: the political economic foundations of exorbitant privilege

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2022

This paper explores dollar hegemony, emphasizing it is a fundamentally political economic phenomenon. Dollar hegemony rests on the economic, military, and international political power of the US and is manifested through market forces. The paper argues there have been two eras of dollar hegemony which were marked by different models. Dollar hegemony 1.0 corresponded to the Bretton Woods era (1946-1971). Dollar hegemony 2.0 corresponds to the Neoliberal era (1980-Today). The 1970s were an in-between decade of dollar distress during which dollar hegemony was reseeded. The deep foundation of both models is US power, but the two models have completely different economic operating systems. Dollar hegemony 1.0 rested on the trade and manufacturing dominance of the US after World War II. Dollar hegemony 2.0 rests on the Neoliberal reconstruction of the US and global economies which have made the US the center of global capitalism and the most attractive place to hold capital. It is a financial model and intrinsically connected to Neoliberalism. Consideration of dollar hegemony leads to two further questions. One is whether there is a better way of organizing the world monetary order, which is associated with debate about the possibility of a new Bretton Woods. The other is what is the future of dollar hegemony?

READ THE WORKING PAPER

LINK TO PUBLISHED PAPER

Neoliberalism and the Road to Inequality and Stagnation: A Chronicle Foretold

Friday, April 29th, 2022

My latest book has recently been published by Edward Elgar.

The book explores the impact of neoliberal policies on the US, Europe, and the global economy. It shows how the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession were predictable outcomes of the neoliberal policy experiment, as is the emergence of global “race to the bottom” competition. It also explains how Europe’s economic fragility is connected to the neoliberal design of the euro. Neoliberalism creates a particular variety of capitalism and is a political choice. That means society is tacitly engaged in a “war of ideas”, the outcome of which will influence our future political economic trajectory.

The book is available HERE. The cheapest option is the e-book purchased via Googleplay (price = $13.11).

More on the critique of New Developmentalism

Monday, April 11th, 2022

Oreiro and de Paula’s (2022) reply to my article (Palley, 2021) further convinces me that New Developmentalism (ND) substantially misconstrues the development challenge and ND’s policy recommendations lean in a Neoliberal direction. The critique of ND is not its emphasis of the importance of manufacturing. It is the regressive inclination, the narrowness of policy recommendations, neglect of the transformation dimension of development, and neglect of the implications of the shift to a post-industrial era.

READ MORE

Theorizing varieties of capitalism: economics and the fallacy that “There is no alternative (TINA)”

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2022

The VoCs approach to capitalism has the potential to transform economics. It tacitly emphasizes the plasticity of economies, whereby their character and outcomes are significantly a matter of choice. This paper augments VoCs theory to include a distinction between varieties and varietals of capitalism. Drawing on biology, varieties correspond to species and varietals correspond to sub-species. The paper proposes an analytical framework that unifies VoCs theory. It adds a mesoeconomics that links macroeconomics and microeconomics. That mesoeconomics concerns the institutions, behavioral norms, rules and regulations, and policies that characterize the economy and influence its performance. The mesoeconomic structure is described using the metaphor of a box, the six sides of which correspond to the major dimensions of capitalist economies. The design of the box is the product of societal and political choices, which places politics at the center of VoCs analysis. Policy space and policy lock-in are important concerns as they impact the choice set. The fact that economies inevitably involve choice means there is an inescapable normative question regarding what type of capitalism society will have.

READ PAPER

2022 Godley – Tobin Memorial Lecture: Professor Paul Krugman, “The enduring relevance of Tobinomics”

Friday, January 21st, 2022

The Review of Keynesian Economics is pleased to announce that Professor Paul Krugman will give the 2022 Godley – Tobin Lecture. Professor Krugman is Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has also taught at MIT, Princeton University, and Yale University. Like James Tobin, Professor Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (2008) and the American Economics Association’s John Bates Clark Medal (1991).

Professor Krugman’s work has focused on international economics and macroeconomics. He is a prominent American public intellectual who is widely recognized for his regular column in The New York Times.

The title of Professor Krugman’s lecture is “The enduring relevance of Tobinomics”.

The lecture will be held at Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA on April 20, 2022, at 5.00pm and it will also be live streamed.

Federal Reserve Insider Dealing? R.I.P. Central Bank Independence

Tuesday, January 11th, 2022

Federal Reserve Vice-Chair Richard Clarida has shot himself in the foot with what appears to be insider trading. That comes on the heels of prior concerns about inappropriate trading by regional Federal Reserve Bank Presidents Robert Kaplan and Eric Rosengren. Albeit unintentionally, the good news is these indiscretions may have done working families a favor by helping disprove the notion of central bank independence.

For years, many of us have argued that central bank independence is a charade aimed at facilitating control over central banks by financial interests. Here is a link to an article of mine titled “Central Bank Independence: A Rigged Debate Based on False Politics and Economics”.

In that paper I wrote every central banker “inevitably brings her own preferences, views, and prejudices to the policy table (p.77)”.  The implication is clear: appoint people with a Wall Street background and they will bring Wall Street policy preferences; appoint well-to-do financial economists with large stock portfolios and they will bring a personal concern with the stock market and asset prices.

Federal Reserve Presidents and Governors tend to be drawn from the banking community, Wall Street, and neoliberal academic economists. For decades, activists have requested that they be drawn from a broader political economic swathe of society to give working families better representation, but that request has been dismissed as lacking justification.

The Clarida-Kaplan-Rosengren affair argues otherwise. It is suggestive of how private interests are always in the room. It is also indicative of why handing the keys of the central bank to so-called independent bankers does not magically solve the problematic of monetary policy decision making, which is why analytical diversity is a matter of public import.

Messrs. Clarida, Kaplan, and Rosengren will survive and prosper. Wall Street will also continue to taint policymaking via its pre-pensation/post-pensation incentive model. The silver lining in the episode is the opportunity to bury the ideological doctrine of central bank independence and open the Federal Reserve to a broader set of ideas and personnel.

Economics vs QAnon: who’s crazy now?

Wednesday, December 29th, 2021

I’m hoping this year we will make progress getting some of the crazier stuff out of the room.

Here’s a little YouTube teaser from Down Under (give it a minute to get to the punchline):

Who’s crazy now?

All the best in 2022,

Tom