Neo‐Kaleckian models of growth and distribution have been highly popular among heterodox economists. Two drawbacks of these models have, however, been underlined in the literature: first, the models do not usually converge to their normal rate of capacity utilization; second, the models do not include the Harrodian principle of dynamic instability. Some Sraffian economists have long been arguing that the presence of non‐capacity creating autonomous expenditures provides a mechanism that brings back the model to normal rates of capacity utilization, while safeguarding the main Keynesian message and without going back to classical conclusions. The present article provides a very simple proof of this, showing within a neo‐Kaleckian model that the Harrodian principle of dynamic instability gets tamed by the presence of autonomous consumer expenditures.

The goal of this article is to make a heuristic and comparative presentation of how the major post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution integrate money, more specifically interest rates, into their framework. Five variants will be considered, all constructed on the basis of the newer Kaleckian model. It will be shown that increases in real interest rates may have surprising effects on effective demand. It will also be shown that accumulation rates and leverage ratios need not move together. The latter finding reinforces a major hypothesis of the analysis, that is, real interest rates are an exogenous distributive variable.

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.

No abstract

No abstract

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 AbstractWe tackle the issue of the possible instability of the Kaleckian distribution and growth model and the consequences for the endogeneity of the equilibrium rate of capacity utilization and for the paradox of thrift and the paradox of costs. Distinguishing between Keynesian and Harrodian instability, we review various mechanisms that have been proposed to tame Harrodian instability while bringing back the rate of utilization to its normal rate. We find that the mechanisms that have been suggested are far from being convincing. We thus review some approaches arguing that the adjustment towards a predetermined normal rate should not be expected at all, either because the normal rate reacts to the actual rate, or because of other constraints on the behaviour of entrepreneurs. We conclude that Kaleckian models are more flexible than their Harrodian and Marxian critics suppose when attacking the simple textbook version.JEL code: E12, E20, O41

No abstract

Starting from potential Harrodian instability in the Kaleckian distribution and growth model we survey Kaleckian reactions put forward to avoid or to cope with this instability. We show that, contrary to the position taken by the critics of the Kaleckian model, this model is capable of maintaining an endogenous rate of capacity utilization, the paradox of thrift and the paradox of costs in the long run, even if the problem of Harrodian instability arises. We conclude that Kaleckian models are more flexible than their Harrodian and Marxian critics suppose when attacking the simple textbook version.