The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Distribution Theories: Keynesian

  • Mauro Baranzini
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_149

Abstract

As Kaldor has pointed out, Keynes was never interested in the problem of distribution of income as such; the determination of its level was his main concern: ‘One may nevertheless christen a particular theory of distribution as ‘Keynesian’ if it can be shown to be an application of the specifically Keynesian apparatus of thought’ (Kaldor 1956, p. 94). Since the middle Fifties a large number of neo-or post-Keynesian models of economic growth and income distribution have appeared, originating mainly in the University of Cambridge. Post-Keynesian distribution theory now occupies an undisputed place in most macro-economic textbooks. These models have been labelled as ‘post-Keynesian’ since savings passively adjust to the externally given full-employment investment, via redistribution of income between wages and profits and/or among social classes. This contrasts with the pre-Keynesian or neo-classical framework, where investment is governed by saving, and where the production function and marginal productivity theory play a crucial role in determining income distribution. The ‘post-Keynesian’ model also differs from the static Keynesian scheme, where changes in the level, rather than in the distribution, of income ensure equality between saving and investment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Baranzini, M. 1975. The Pasinetti and the anti-Pasinetti theorems: A reconciliation. Oxford Economic Papers 27: 470–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baranzini, M., and R. Scazzieri. 1986. Knowledge in economics: A framework. In Foundations of economics: Structures of inquiry and economic theory, ed. M. Baranzini, and R. Scazzieri. Oxford/New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Bliss, C.J. 1975. Capital theory and the distribution of income. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Hahn, F.H., and R.C.O. Matthews. 1964. The theory of economic growth: A survey. Economic Journal 74: 779–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harcourt, G.C. 1972. Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaldor, N. 1956. Alternative theories of distribution. Review of Economic Studies 23(2): 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaldor, N. 1960. Essays on value and distribution. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  8. Meade, J.E. 1963. The rate of profit in a growing economy. Economic Journal 73: 665–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meade, J.E. 1966. The outcome of the Pasinetti process: A note. Economic Journal 76: 161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pasinetti, L.L. 1962. The rate of profit and income distribution in relation to the rate of economic growth. Review of Economic Studies 29: 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pasinetti, L.L. 1974. Growth and income distribution, essays in economic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pasinetti, L.L. 1981. Structural change and economic growth. A theoretical essay on the dynamics of the wealth of nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Robinson, J. 1962. Essays in the theory of economic growth. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Samuelson, P.A., and F. Modigliani. 1966. The Pasinetti paradox in neoclassical and more general models. Review of Economic Studies 33: 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vaughan, R.N. 1979. Class behaviour and the distribution of wealth. Review of Economic Studies 46: 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauro Baranzini
    • 1
  1. 1.