Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics

  • Joseph Halevi


The thesis presented here runs as follows: Post-Keynesian economics has contributed to identify within the framework of the theory of effective demand, the conditions of sectoral disproportionalities on which a significant part of Marxian theories of accumulation and crisis are based. This happened not as a result of an explicit dialogue with the Marxian debates about sectoral proportions, but as a consequence of the analytical evolution of Post-Keynesian theories. In order to evince the connection between the Post-Keynesian theory of growth and distribution and the Marxian approach to the question of disproportionalities, it is necessary to accept the basic Kaldorian hypothesis concerning the level of development of the stock of capital relatively to total population, then it is necessary to reject the Kaldorian adjustment mechanism in favour of Hicks’s disequilibrium Traverse (Hicks, 1965,1985; Kaldor, 1956,1957). From the above it follows that I view Kaldor’s and Hicks’s contributions to growth theory as the central analytical core of Post-Keynesian economics. In fact, it will become apparent that the conceptual range of validity of Hicks’s structural disequilibrium falls within Kaldor’s hypothesis about the level of development of the stock of capital in a mature economy.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amato S., ‘Tugan Baranovsky’s Theories of Markets, Accumulation and Industrialization: Their Influence on the Development of Economic Thought and Modem Historiographic Research,’ in Koropeckyi I.S. ed. Selected Contributions of Ukrainian Scholars to Economics, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. Colletti L. and Napoleoni C. Il futuro del capitalismo: crolh o sviluppo? Bari, Laterza, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. Fel’dman G., Kteorii tempov Narodnogo dokhoda, Planovoe Khozyaistvo, November–December, 1928.Google Scholar
  4. Fukuoka M., ‘Full Employment and Constant Coefficients of Production.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 69, 1955.Google Scholar
  5. Gandolfo G., Economic Dynamics, Methods and Models, Amsterdam, North Holland, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. Halevi J., ‘Switching and Employment,’ Eastern Economic Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. Halevi J., ‘Beyond Temporary Equilibrium,’ Economie Appliquée, tome 41, no. 3, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. Halevi J. and Kriesler P., Kalecki, ‘Classical Economics and the Surplus Approach.’ Review of Political Economy. Vol. 3 1991 pp. 79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hicks J., Capital and Growth, London, Oxford University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  10. Hicks J., Methods of Dynamic Economics, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. Kaldor N., ‘Alternative Theories of Distribution,’ Review of Economic Studies, vol. 23. no. 2, 1956.Google Scholar
  12. Kaldor N., Capitalist Evolution in the Light of Keynesian Economics, conference venue l’Universite de Pekin en 1956. Also In Economie Appliquée 1957 and in Essays on Economic Stability and Growth, London, Duckworth, 1960.Google Scholar
  13. Kalecki M., Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. Kalecki M., ‘The Difference Between Crucial Economic Problems of Developed and Underdeveloped Non-Socialist Economies,’ in Essays on Developing Economies, Hassocks U.K. Harvester Press. 1976.Google Scholar
  15. Morishima M., Theory of Economic Growth, Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  16. Pasinetti L., Structural Change and Economic Growth. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  17. Spaventa L., ‘Rate of Profit, Rate of Growth in a Simple Production Model,’ Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 22, no. 2, 1970.Google Scholar
  18. Sweezy P., The Theory of Capitalist Development, 1942, nouvellel edition: New York. Monthly Review Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  19. Sweezy P., A ‘Crucial difference Between Capitalism and Socialism.’ 1953, in Horowitz D., Marx and Modern Economics, New York, Monthly Review Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  20. Tugan-Baranovski M., Theoretische Grundiagen des Marxismus, Leipzig, 1905.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Joseph Halevi, G. C. Harcourt, Peter Kriesler and J. W. Nevile 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Halevi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations