Friedman and Schwartz (1963) argued in a comprehensive empirical study that monetary shocks are the major cause of business cycle fluctuations. They observed that sharp declines in the money stock occurred prior to severe economic downturns. The apparent inconsistencies of economic fluctuations with economic theory that abstracted from money led to widespread acceptance of the Friedan-Schwartz view even though a theoretical foundation was lacking. Real business cycle theory finds that a major fraction of US postwar business cycle fluctuations is accounted for by persistent shock to total factor productivity (see Kydland and Prescott (1991)). If money is not a major contributing factor to business cycle fluctuations, why is money highly correlated with output? Freeman and Kydland (1998) provides a possible answer to using a transaction based theory of money.私とPrescottとでは、正反対の立場かに立つというべきだが、この感変えには同意できる。
(Edward C. Prescott 1998 Business Cycle Research: Methods and Problems)
Within macroeconomic reasoning, two completely separate methodologies have been developed: one for neoclassical theory based on equilibrium models, and another for the post-Keynesian theory based upon causal relationships and path dependent analysis, where uncertainty, a lack of information, institution and supply and demand factors under constant change create a sustained and (partially) unpredictable dynamic structure.この対立を明確に述べている方法論の本は珍しい。これをきちんと推し進めれば、Post Keynesianの経済学の枠組みは、もっと大きく変わってくるはずだが、第6章 Equilibrium and pathe dependece from a perspective of uncertainty では、Keynesのequilibrium概念をstadstillとして解釈して妥協している。こうした妥協が、結局、彼のtwo completely separate methodologiesを中途半端なものにしているのだろう。それでもLars SyllのThe ultimate methodological issue in economicsよりははるかに良い。同稿に対する私のコメントをもみよ。
2022年
1月
2月
3月
4月
5月
6月
7月
8月
9月
10月
11月
12月