经济系统是否存在内生均衡倾向?现代经济思想中的经济周期与危机

G. Pavanelli
{"title":"经济系统是否存在内生均衡倾向?现代经济思想中的经济周期与危机","authors":"G. Pavanelli","doi":"10.37075/bjiep.2021.2.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically examines the models of economic crises and business cycles devised by leading economists from the nineteenth century to the present day in the light of the current reflections on the limits of the so-called ‘mainstream’ theory. To this end, the article analyses the point of view of the classical authors (J.B. Say, Ricardo, Malthus and Sismondi) and the first analyses of crises in terms of business cycles (Tooke, Juglar, Jevons). It discusses then Tugan-Baranovsky and Arthur Spiethoff models, Wesley C. Mitchell contribution and the monetary explanations of the cycles during the 1920s (R.G. Hawtrey and Irving Fisher). It then examines the main interpretative models of cycles and crises during the 1930s: L. Mises and F. Hayek models, Irving Fisher’s Debt-deflation theory and Keynes contribution. The econometric approach of Frisch and Tinbergen and the ‘real business cycles’ model are then presented, as well as the ‘heterodox’ approach of Hyman Minsky. A main interpretative line of this paper is to maintain that, in spite of its complex taxonomy, modern analysis on business cycles and crises draws inspiration from two distinct methodological approaches that reflect radically different visions of how market economies actually work. The ‘majority’ view is the one shared by most marginalist and neoclassical authors and by the ‘New Classical Economists’. According to them, economic systems are intrinsically stable and tend to converge towards equilibrium. Fluctuations are caused by exogenous shocks bound to be reabsorbed quickly. Contrary to this view, two research approaches are identified having in common a marked attention to the institutional context. On the one hand, the contributions of Schumpeter and, to some extent, Mitchell who shared the belief that fluctuations should be studied with reference to a specific historical context. On the other hand, the analysis of J.M. Keynes and H. Minsky who believe that economic systems are potentially unstable, full employment cannot be taken for granted and appropriate policy measures are needed.\nKeywords: business cycles, crises, Say’s Law, Hyman Minsky, Wesley C. Mitchell, New Classical Economics, real business cycles \nJEL: B3, N1, B41","PeriodicalId":225817,"journal":{"name":"Bulgarian Journal of International Economics and Politics","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There an Endogenous Tendency towards Equilibrium in Economic Systems? Business Cycles and Crises in the Modern Economic Thought\",\"authors\":\"G. Pavanelli\",\"doi\":\"10.37075/bjiep.2021.2.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper critically examines the models of economic crises and business cycles devised by leading economists from the nineteenth century to the present day in the light of the current reflections on the limits of the so-called ‘mainstream’ theory. To this end, the article analyses the point of view of the classical authors (J.B. Say, Ricardo, Malthus and Sismondi) and the first analyses of crises in terms of business cycles (Tooke, Juglar, Jevons). It discusses then Tugan-Baranovsky and Arthur Spiethoff models, Wesley C. Mitchell contribution and the monetary explanations of the cycles during the 1920s (R.G. Hawtrey and Irving Fisher). It then examines the main interpretative models of cycles and crises during the 1930s: L. Mises and F. Hayek models, Irving Fisher’s Debt-deflation theory and Keynes contribution. The econometric approach of Frisch and Tinbergen and the ‘real business cycles’ model are then presented, as well as the ‘heterodox’ approach of Hyman Minsky. A main interpretative line of this paper is to maintain that, in spite of its complex taxonomy, modern analysis on business cycles and crises draws inspiration from two distinct methodological approaches that reflect radically different visions of how market economies actually work. The ‘majority’ view is the one shared by most marginalist and neoclassical authors and by the ‘New Classical Economists’. According to them, economic systems are intrinsically stable and tend to converge towards equilibrium. Fluctuations are caused by exogenous shocks bound to be reabsorbed quickly. Contrary to this view, two research approaches are identified having in common a marked attention to the institutional context. On the one hand, the contributions of Schumpeter and, to some extent, Mitchell who shared the belief that fluctuations should be studied with reference to a specific historical context. On the other hand, the analysis of J.M. Keynes and H. Minsky who believe that economic systems are potentially unstable, full employment cannot be taken for granted and appropriate policy measures are needed.\\nKeywords: business cycles, crises, Say’s Law, Hyman Minsky, Wesley C. Mitchell, New Classical Economics, real business cycles \\nJEL: B3, N1, B41\",\"PeriodicalId\":225817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulgarian Journal of International Economics and Politics\",\"volume\":\"109 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulgarian Journal of International Economics and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37075/bjiep.2021.2.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulgarian Journal of International Economics and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37075/bjiep.2021.2.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文根据当前对所谓“主流”理论局限性的反思,批判性地考察了从19世纪到今天由主要经济学家设计的经济危机和商业周期模型。为此,本文分析了古典作家(J.B.萨伊、李嘉图、马尔萨斯和西斯蒙第)的观点,并首次从商业周期的角度分析了危机(图克、Juglar、Jevons)。它讨论了当时的图根-巴拉诺夫斯基和亚瑟·斯皮霍夫模型,韦斯利·c·米切尔的贡献和20世纪20年代周期的货币解释(R.G. Hawtrey和Irving Fisher)。然后,它考察了20世纪30年代周期和危机的主要解释模型:米塞斯和哈耶克模型,欧文·费雪的债务-通货紧缩理论和凯恩斯的贡献。然后介绍了弗里施和丁伯根的计量经济学方法和“真实商业周期”模型,以及海曼·明斯基的“非正统”方法。本文的一个主要解释思路是,尽管其分类复杂,但对商业周期和危机的现代分析从两种截然不同的方法方法中获得灵感,这两种方法方法反映了对市场经济实际运作方式的截然不同的看法。“多数”观点是大多数边际主义者和新古典主义作家以及“新古典经济学家”所共有的观点。根据他们的观点,经济系统本质上是稳定的,并趋向于趋于均衡。波动是由必然会被迅速重新吸收的外生冲击引起的。与这一观点相反,确定了两种研究方法,它们的共同点是对制度背景的显著关注。一方面,熊彼特的贡献,在某种程度上,米切尔的贡献,他们都认为波动应该参考特定的历史背景来研究。另一方面,J.M.凯恩斯和H.明斯基的分析认为,经济体系是潜在的不稳定,充分就业不能想当然,需要适当的政策措施。关键词:经济周期,危机,萨伊定律,明斯基,米切尔,新古典经济学,真实经济周期[j]: B3, N1, B41
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is There an Endogenous Tendency towards Equilibrium in Economic Systems? Business Cycles and Crises in the Modern Economic Thought
This paper critically examines the models of economic crises and business cycles devised by leading economists from the nineteenth century to the present day in the light of the current reflections on the limits of the so-called ‘mainstream’ theory. To this end, the article analyses the point of view of the classical authors (J.B. Say, Ricardo, Malthus and Sismondi) and the first analyses of crises in terms of business cycles (Tooke, Juglar, Jevons). It discusses then Tugan-Baranovsky and Arthur Spiethoff models, Wesley C. Mitchell contribution and the monetary explanations of the cycles during the 1920s (R.G. Hawtrey and Irving Fisher). It then examines the main interpretative models of cycles and crises during the 1930s: L. Mises and F. Hayek models, Irving Fisher’s Debt-deflation theory and Keynes contribution. The econometric approach of Frisch and Tinbergen and the ‘real business cycles’ model are then presented, as well as the ‘heterodox’ approach of Hyman Minsky. A main interpretative line of this paper is to maintain that, in spite of its complex taxonomy, modern analysis on business cycles and crises draws inspiration from two distinct methodological approaches that reflect radically different visions of how market economies actually work. The ‘majority’ view is the one shared by most marginalist and neoclassical authors and by the ‘New Classical Economists’. According to them, economic systems are intrinsically stable and tend to converge towards equilibrium. Fluctuations are caused by exogenous shocks bound to be reabsorbed quickly. Contrary to this view, two research approaches are identified having in common a marked attention to the institutional context. On the one hand, the contributions of Schumpeter and, to some extent, Mitchell who shared the belief that fluctuations should be studied with reference to a specific historical context. On the other hand, the analysis of J.M. Keynes and H. Minsky who believe that economic systems are potentially unstable, full employment cannot be taken for granted and appropriate policy measures are needed. Keywords: business cycles, crises, Say’s Law, Hyman Minsky, Wesley C. Mitchell, New Classical Economics, real business cycles JEL: B3, N1, B41
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信