On 7/19/11 5:54 PM, nathan tankus wrote: > i am near the end of a biography on Nicholas kaldor and he did lots of > work on creating an effective keynesian analysis of developing > countries and making keynesianism more applicable to the open economy. > unfortunately he still had some unfortunate static assumptions > impedded in his analysis (and thus in thirlwall's work who furthered > his analysis). Roy harrod, a very neglected keynesian economist who > was in correspondence with keynes, did some of the best work in > creating a dynamic keynesian model while extending it to the open > economy. his work has been picked up by Anwar Shaikh and others. > example paper here:http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/harrod.pdf > and here: > http://www.levyinstitute.org/files/download.php?file=wp290.pdf&pubid=176. > jamee moudud wrote a book on this which i've read. amazon link > here:http://www.amazon.com/Strategic-Competition-Dynamics-Role-State/dp/1845429230 >
Don't know if I mentioned it here, but someone commented on my article that Kalecki--a big-time Keynesian who some think developed Keynesian ideas before Keynes--wrote a book on policies for developing countries. Here's the exchange: So where would you position Kalecki? The Post Keynesian tradition Beggs has in mind is as much Kalecki as Keynes, and Kalecki was very much interested in countries like Malawi and Zambia. There are Kaleckian traditions in India and Latin America. Kalecki was, famously, starting from Marx. Quite a bit of the PK literature can be read as flowing from vols. 2 and 3 of _Capital_. What you and commenters are doing is reducing “Keynesianism” to a particular policy approach for a particular milieu. That is indeed the meaning the term has taken on in popular usage, but it’s only one facet of the much larger lit that Beggs is pointing to. It’s not even a good representation of Keynes. --- I have never read Kalecki but did read a lengthy article on MRZine (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/ghosh270511.html) about his economic strategy for developing countries that revolved around increased agricultural output. Two things should be said. There is nothing particularly “Keynesian” about this. Nor is it particularly effective as my study of Latin America would lead me to believe. The general tendency of agricultural prices in the 20th and 21st century is to decrease, putting countries like Nicaragua or Colombia at a distinct disadvantage. Of course, banana or coffee plantation owners have benefited greatly, as their shopping expeditions to Miami would testify. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
