An Inquiry into a Dark Mystery in the History of the Monetary Theory of Production: What Went Wrong with the Early Contribution of Joan Robinson

2005 ◽  
pp. 83-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Parguez
2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-257
Author(s):  
Jan Greitens

AbstractIn the history of economic thought, monetary theories in the Germanspeaking world of the early modern era are considered backward compared to the approaches in other European countries. This backwardness can be illustrated by two authors from the mid-18th century who were not only contemporaries but also successively in the service of Frederick II (“the Great”) of Prussia. The first is Johann Philipp Graumann, one of the 'projectors' of the 18th century. As master of the mints in Prussia, he developed a coin project, where he tried to implement a new monetary standard to promote trade, generate seigniorage income and implement the Prussian coins as a kind of a reserve currency. In his writings, he developed a typical mercantilistic monetary theory with a clear understanding of the mechanism in the balance of payments. But even when he tried to include credit instruments, he did not take banks or broader financial markets into account. The second thinker is Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi, who took the opposite position concerning the coin project as well as in his theory. He defended a strictly metalistic monetary approach where the value of money is only based on the metal's value. While Graumann rejected the English coin system, Justi recommended its laws for countries without their own mines, because the sovereign should not misuse his right of coinage. For him, the monetary system had tobe reliable and stable to serve trade and economic development.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 1397-1415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teodoro Dario Togati

AbstractIn this paper, I tackle the key issue raised by Pasinetti, namely why Keynes failed to accomplish his revolution and build a unifying ‘monetary theory of production’ framework. I argue that this occurred because, following his Marshallian background, he adopted an oversimplified view of the structure of theories, a problem which, following Leontief, might be labelled as ‘implicit theorising’ (IT). By making a comparison between the General Theory and standard macroeconomics based on Lakatos’s ‘research programme’ notion, this paper explores IT in a systematic fashion and stresses two key points. First, Keynes did not attack the ‘true’ orthodox postulates but only the conclusions deriving from them. Secondly, he failed to articulate his own research programme effectively. Based on these points, the paper concludes that filling such gaps in Keynes’s theory is the precondition for restoring his generality claim.


2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Fontana ◽  
Riccardo Realfonzo

Author(s):  
Alberto Quadrio Curzio ◽  
Roberto Scazzieri

The Monetary Theory of the Lombard Enlightenment. The relationship. between economic arrangements and administrative decisions is at the core of the contributions of the Lombard economists of the eighteenth century, and it is also the main focus of this essay. Here, we wish to emphasize the importance of the history of ideas and of the history of facts in view of theory formulation and policy proposal within a framework of political economy. Theory must serve, together with history, to the governance of institutions aimed at the orderly working of economies and markets. The relationship. between economics and administration is at the root of the Milanese discussions on monetary policy that took place in the 1760s, and to which both Cesare Beccaria and Pietro Verri contributed. The interest of these discussions is twofold. On the one hand, as John Hicks pointed out, monetary disturbances throw light on the nature of money and on the problems monetary theory must address in moving from one context to another. On the other hand, monetary disturbances are important in highlighting the linkages between monetary theory and the governance of money in specific historical contexts. The writings of the Lombard Enlightenment economists are a case in point. For the Milanese monetary controversy highlights important theoretical issues concerning the governance of ‘imaginary money’, while also emphasizing the specific features of a context characterized by the integration between monetary and physical transfers on the international, and particularly European, scale. This controversy calls attention to monetary disturbances as triggers of change in monetary theory, but it also calls attention to the role of historical and institutional context in determining whether a given monetary policy may be effective or not. Monetary crises may trigger important developments in theory. At the same time, the crises highlight the objective character of structural conditions, which cannot be either unwillingly disregarded or deliberately violated. It is the task of the political economist to identify ‘a correct set of “economic laws” through the analysis of phenomena’, and outline on their basis ‘civil laws for the governance of the economy’(Quadrio Curzio). Section one of this essay (‘Monetary Disorders and Monetary Theory: A Premise’) outlines a conceptual framework for discussing the relationship. between theory, policy and historical context. Section Two (‘Economic Laws and Civil Laws’) discusses the monetary contributions of Cesare Beccaria and Pietro Verri and investigates the link between the structural properties of that ‘very delicate and complex device’ (Einaudi) that is the specific matter of monetary policy, and the civil or administrative laws and governmental decisions though which monetary policy comes into effect. Section Three (‘Monetary Theory and the Fundamental Ideas of Political Economy’) examines the links between the structure of economic systems as systems of interdependence among productive sectors and the structure of monetary systems as ‘systems of governance’ of that interdependence. Section Four (‘The Problem of “Debasement”; Monetary Disturbance and Real Standards’) focuses on the monetary controversy that triggered Beccaria’s and Verri’s contributions, and examines their attempt to identify a real standard for determining the relative value of the different currencies used for transactions on European markets. Section Five (‘Political Economy, Monetary Systems and the Practice of Monetary Policy’) considers possible developments of Beccaria’s and Verri’s contributions for what concerns the distinction between money as standard of measurement and money as means of payment. Section Six (‘Concluding Remarks’) draws the essay to close by discussing the integration between general principles of political economy and specific characteristics of ‘local’ context to be found in the monetary discussions of the Lombard Enlightenment.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-200
Author(s):  
Guogang Wang

Purpose Marx’s monetary theory is an important part of Marxist economics and an irreplaceable milestone in the intellectual history of the monetary theory. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the main content of Marx’s monetary theory from three aspects: the source and nature of money, the function of money and the historical significance of money. Design/methodology/approach Moreover, this paper also gives an extended understanding of Marx’s monetary theory from four perspectives: the endogenous credit mechanism of money, the functions of money and demands for money, the financial function of money and the economic and social functions of money. Findings Lastly, the present paper discusses the practical significance of Marx’s monetary theory from three perspectives, namely, the inspection of “Bitcoin” from the nature and function of money, the definition of demands and the division of supplies at the monetary level, and the prevention of systemic financial risks and the focus of financial supervision. Originality/value Marx’s monetary theory is an important part of Marxist economics and an irreplaceable milestone in the intellectual history of the monetary theory. However, for a long time, the contribution of Marx has rarely been mentioned in the intellectual history of monetary theory. Even the book, Political Economy (On Capitalism), has been only summarily concerned with the source and function of money in Marx’s monetary theory, rather than revealing Marx’s outstanding contribution in the monetary theory and the financial connotation of Marx’s monetary theory, and expounding its practical significance.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Nadia Oliva ◽  
Andrea Pacella

<p>The paper aims to introduce ethical remarks into the monetary circuit (or monetary theory of production)<br />approach in order to study the mechanism of money creation when banks discriminate production on an ethical<br />plane. By the micro-foundation of the banks’ and firms’ behaviour, it will be shown that the ethical<br />discrimination of firms by banks is implemented by the differentiation of the mark-ups on the loan rate and how<br />this discrimination leads the system to create different credit markets according to the capacity (or willingness)<br />of firms to satisfy (or not) the ethical claims of the banks.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document