Japanese Institutionalist Post-Keynesians Revisited: Inheritance from Marx, Keynes and Institutionalism PDF
Preview Japanese Institutionalist Post-Keynesians Revisited: Inheritance from Marx, Keynes and Institutionalism
Evolutionary Economics and Social Complexity Science 29 Hiroyasu Uemura Japanese Institutionalist Post-Keynesians Revisited Inheritance from Marx, Keynes and Institutionalism Evolutionary Economics and Social Complexity Science Volume 29 Editors-in-Chief TakahiroFujimoto,WasedaUniversity,Tokyo,Japan YujiAruka,InstituteofEconomicResearch,ChuoUniversity,Hachioji-shi,Japan Hiroyasu Uemura Japanese Institutionalist Post-Keynesians Revisited Inheritance from Marx, Keynes and Institutionalism HiroyasuUemura GraduateSchoolofInternationalSocialSciences YokohamaNationalUniversity YokohamaCity,Kanagawa,Japan ISSN2198-4204 ISSN2198-4212 (electronic) EvolutionaryEconomicsandSocialComplexityScience ISBN978-981-19-8687-1 ISBN978-981-19-8688-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8688-8 ©SpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2023 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthe materialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation, broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology nowknownorhereafterdeveloped. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Preface This book elucidates the academic contribution made by Japanese institutionalist post-Keynesiansin thehistorical contextof contemporary capitalism inthe second halfofthetwentiethcenturyanddiscussesthepossibledevelopmentofinstitutional economicsinthetwenty-firstcentury. EiichiSugimoto,whocoinedtheterm,“ModernEconomics(Kindaikeizaigaku)” inJapanese,liststhreetypesofthehistoryofeconomicsinhisbook,TheHistoryof Modern Economics, (Iwanami Zensho, Iwanami-shoten, 1953). The first is the history of economics as a culmination of the study of academic materials related to economic theories, and it provides chronological explanations for each school. The second isthe self-developing history of economictheory, which considers the historyofeconomicstodevelopamoreappropriateeconomictheory.Thethirdisthe historyofeconomicsasareflectionofthehistoricaldevelopmentofcapitalism.Itis believedthatvariouseconomictheoriesareproducedinspecifichistoricalcontexts. Sugimotoargues,“Thehistoryofeconomicsinitsoriginalsenserequiresthestudy of the first type as a preparatory step and the appropriate integration of the second andthirdtypes”(Sugimoto1953,p12).Furthermore,heexplains: Insuchahistoryofeconomics,forthefirsttime,onecanjudgewhetheralltheeconomic theories, including the major theories representing each stage of economic and social development,understandthemovementoftheeconomyandsocietycorrectlyorincorrectly, whetheritismerelyapartialperceptionoftheeconomyandsocietyasawhole,oritreaches thelevelofatotalperception,andwhetherthetheoryisprogressingorretrogressinginthe properhistoryofthedevelopmentofeconomics.(Sugimoto1953,p.12) Various economictheoriesdevelopedinpostwar Japan, butwe needtoinvestigate their theoretical validity by asking whether they were based on the realities of postwar contemporary capitalism. Various policy proposals were also made, but it isnecessarytoverifywhethertheyreallyrespondedtotheneedsproposedbypeople intheeconomyandsociety.Thistypeofreflexivethinkingisimportantinthestudy of the history of economics. There has been a great progress in economic theories and their analytical tools, but unfortunately, there has also been a serious v vi Preface retrogressioninthefieldofeconomicsinthehistoricalcontextofthetransformation ofcapitalismsincethe1980s. Basedonthisrecognitionofthetrend,welearnfromtheacademiccontributionof Japaneseeconomistsinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Theeconomistswe examine here inherited from Marx, Keynes, and Institutionalism and analyzed the institutionalstructuresofpostwarcontemporarycapitalism.Forthisreason,theycan becalled“Japaneseinstitutionalistpost-Keynesians.”Theydidnotformaschoolof economics butdevelopedproductiveacademiccommunication withtheir “creative rivalry”(Sugimoto). InChap.1,weexplainthisbook’sperspectiveandaim.Inparticular,weexplain “institutionalisminthebroadsense”(Tsuru)asthefundamentalpointofviewinthis book.InChap.2,wereaffirmtheimportanceof“moderneconomics”and“creative rivalry” among different schools proposed by Eiichi Sugimoto, in contrast to the stagnationofeconomicscausedbythedominanceof“theWalrasianparadigm”after the 1980s. In Chap. 3, we remember Shigeto Tsuru, Yoshihiro Takasuka, and Shigenobu Kishimoto, who conducted a political-economic analysis of the institu- tional structures and dynamics of postwar cotemporary capitalism, particularly focusing on the issues of environmental disruption, inflation, and social welfare. Chap.4introducesYoshikazuMiyazakiandMitsuharaItoh,whostudiedKeynes’s TheGeneralTheoryaswellasthehistoricaldevelopmentofmoderneconomicsafter Keynes and analyzed the institutional structures and dynamics of postwar contem- porarycapitalismandtheJapaneseeconomy.Furthermore,inChap.5,welearnfrom Hirofumi Uzawa, who developed macroeconomic dynamics based on the institu- tionalist analysis of capitalism and proposed the idea of “social common capital.” WealsostudyTsuneoIshikawa’stheoreticalresearchonthemacrodynamicsofthe capitalisteconomyandhisanalysisofincomeandwealthinJapan.InChap.6, we discussSamuelBowles’ssocialthoughtof“themoraleconomy”andRobertBoyer’s régulation theory, focusing on social preference and civil society. Samuel Bowles had productive academic communication with Uzawa and Ishikawa, and Robert BoyerhasinfluencedJapaneseinstitutionaleconomicssincethe1990s.InChap.7, whilelearningagreatdealfromstudiesofJapaneseinstitutionalistpost-Keynesians and identifying the recent development of research conducted by Post-Keynesian andPost-Marxianeconomists,weconsiderthepossibledevelopmentofinstitutional economicsinthetwenty-firstcentury. Economicglobalizationhasprogressedextensivelyinthetwenty-firstcentury.In particular, international finance and production networks are developing rapidly worldwide, influencing the patterns of regional economic integration in the EU andEastAsia.Moreover,socio-economicdisparitiestendtowidenineverycountry, and environmental problems become more serious. Therefore, the importance of social welfare and the global environment has been recognized in the study of economics. Institutional economics in the twenty-first century must develop in theoryandpractice tosolvethese real-worldproblems. Weremember JoanRobin- son issued the warning, “The Second Crisis of Economic Theory,” which was a response to socio-economic instability and stagflation in the 1970s. The current situationineconomicscouldbecalled“TheThirdCrisisofEconomicTheory,”and Preface vii the situation in the real world is even worse due to imbalances in international economic relations, increasing social inequality, the spread of the pandemic, and global environmental disruption and climate change. These problems cannot be analyzed sufficiently by the economics with rational agents and the equilibrium framework. The challenges for the political economy of evolution and institutions based on civil society and social common capital have become much greater since theCovid-19crisisinthetwenty-firstcentury. Since the 1980s, we have studied Post-Keynesian theories and the régulation theory and analyzed the diversity and transformations of contemporary capitalism. We have held many international conferences and developed academic communi- cationwithinternationalscholars.TheJapanAssociationforEvolutionaryEconom- ics was established in 1997 and has been a solid platform for academic communicationandcollaboration. On many occasions, including international conferences in Paris, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Grenoble, Rome, and many cities in Japan, I have received useful comments and helpful suggestions from prominent scholars. Above all, I am very grateful to Robert Boyer (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales), Robert Rowthorn(TheUniversityofCambridge),SamuelBowles(SantaFeInstitute),and MarcLavoie(TheUniversityofOttawa). Furthermore,IamtrulygratefulforthesupportIreceivedinmyacademicstudy and economics research from the following professors: Yoshihiro Takasuka (Hitotsubashi University), Shigenobu Kishimoto (Yokohama National University), and Yoshikazu Miyazaki (Kyoto University). I would also like to thank my col- leagues who have contributed to our collaborative research on the régulation and post-Keynesiantheories andtheevolvingdiversityandinterdependenceofcapital- isms in the EU and East Asia: Toshio Yamada, Tatsuhiko Aoki, Fumitaka Wakamori,MitsuharuMiyamoto,AkinoriIsogai,HiroyukiUni,HironoriTohyama, Lei Song, Yuji Harada, Kazuhiro Okuma, Hiroshi Nishi, Kengo Uchihashi, and ShinjiTahara.Iwishthisbookwouldserveasthestartingpointfornewinternational collaborativeresearch. I would also like to thank the editorial board of Evolutionary Economics and SocialComplexityScience,especiallyYoshinoriShiozawa,KiichiroYagi,andYuji Aruka, as well as the project managers of Springer, Yutaka Hirachi, Kavitha Jayakumar,andRekhaKumarJayakumar. Tokyo,Japan HiroyasuUemura October10,2022 Contents 1 Introduction:InheritancefromMarx,Keynes,and Institutionalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 PerspectiveandAimoftheBook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 InstitutionalismintheBroadSense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 MainContentsoftheBook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 EiichiSugimoto’sCreativeRivalryin“ModernEconomics”and thePresentStateofEconomics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Sugimoto’sResearchPlanandAcademicDevelopment byCreativeRivalry. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 12 2.2.1 Sugimoto’s“ModernEconomics”intheHistory ofEconomicThought. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.2 Marshall’sEconomicTheorywithMulti-layeredTime andSpace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.3 Marx,Keynes,andInstitutionalisminSugimoto. . . . . . . . 13 2.2.4 Sugimoto’sConceptof“CreativeRivalry”. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.3 TheStagnationofEconomicTheoryCausedbytheDominance oftheWalrasianParadigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3.1 TheTheoreticallyClosedNatureoftheWalrasian ParadigmandtheDevelopmentofMicroeconomics. . . . . . 15 2.3.2 TheIsolationofEconomyfromPoliticsandSociety, orPolitical-EconomicAnalysis?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.3 TheoreticalCharacteristicsoftheWalrasianParadigm. . .. 18 2.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ix x Contents 3 ShigetoTsuru’s“InstitutionalismintheBroadSense”andTheories ofContemporaryCapitalismConstructedbyYoshihiroTakasuka andShigenobuKishimoto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2 ShigetoTsuru’sStudyonContemporaryCapitalismwith InstitutionalismintheBroaderSense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2.1 Tsuru’sQuestion:“HasCapitalismChanged?”. . . . . . . .. 22 3.2.2 ThePoliticalEconomyofEnvironmentalDisruption. . . .. 24 3.2.3 ThePoliticalEconomyofSystemReform. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.4 InstitutionalEconomicsRevisited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3 YoshihiroTakasuka’sTheoryofContemporaryCapitalism: AStructuralAnalysisofInflationandCapitalAccumulation. . . . . 28 3.3.1 Takasuka’sPreludetotheTheoryoftheContemporary PriceSystemandProductivityDifferentialInflation. . . . . . 28 3.3.2 Takasuka’sAnalysisofStagflationinthe1970s. . . . . . . . . 31 3.4 ShigenobuKishimoto’sTheTheoryoftheCapitalistEconomic SystemandAnalysesoftheJapaneseEconomyandSociety.. . . .. 32 3.4.1 Kishimoto’sTheTheoryoftheCapitalistEconomic SystemasCitizens’Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.4.2 KishimotoCriticized“The100MillionAllintheMiddle Class”asanIllusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4 YoshikazuMiyazakiandMitsuharuItoh:ResearchonKeynes andContemporaryCapitalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.2 MiyazakiandItohonKeynesandMiyazaki’sTheHistorical DevelopmentofModernEconomics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.2.1 ComprehensiveUnderstandingofKeynes’sTheoryin Commentary:Keynes,TheGeneralTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.2.2 Miyazaki:TheHistoricalDevelopmentofModern Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.3 AnalysesofContemporaryCapitalismbyMiyazakiandItoh. . . . . 46 4.3.1 Itoh’sStudyofModernPriceTheories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.3.2 Itoh’sInstitutionalAnalysisofContemporary Capitalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.3.3 Miyazaki’sStudyofContemporaryCapitalism:Company Groups,HighEconomicGrowth,andMultinational Corporations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.4 TheJapaneseEconomyin“theComplexDepression”and “TransnationalCivilSociety”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 References..... ...... ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... ..... .. 54 Contents xi 5 HirofumiUzawaandTsuneoIshikawa:Institutionalism, MacroeconomicAnalysis,andSocialCommonCapital. . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5.2 HirofumiUzawa’sMacroeconomicDynamicsand“Social CommonCapital”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5.2.1 Uzawa’sTurningPoint,TheRe-examinationofModern Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.2.2 Uzawa’sTheoryofDisequilibriumDynamics. . . . . . . . . . 61 5.2.3 TheEconomicThoughtof“SocialCommonCapital” andInstitutionalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.2.4 MarketImbalanceandSocialImbalance:The MacroeconomicEffectofSocialCommonCapital. . . . . . . 64 5.3 TsuneoIshikawa’s“EconomicsofDistribution”andDynamic AnalysisofContemporaryCapitalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.3.1 BasicTypesofDynamicsinContemporaryCapitalism. . .. 66 5.3.2 IncomeandWealthintheJapaneseEconomy. . . . . . . . . . 68 5.3.3 TheDualLaborMarketinJapan. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 68 5.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6 SocialPreferenceandCivilSocietyintheInstitutionalAnalysisof Capitalisms:IntegratingSamuelBowles’TheMoralEconomyand RobertBoyer’sRégulationTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 6.2 Bowles’TheMoralEconomyandCivicSocialPreference. . . . . . . 75 6.2.1 Bowles’EconomicThought:SocialPreferencesandthe MoralEconomy. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 76 6.2.2 TheInseparabilityofIncentivesandSocialPreferences BasedonBehavioralSciences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.2.3 CivicSocialPreferencesin“LiberalSociety”: “Crowdingin”or“Crowdingout”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 6.2.4 TheLaborMarketTheoryBasedonIncomplete Contracts. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. 80 6.2.5 TheRoleofLegislators:PromotingLegislationandCivic Mentality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 6.3 Boyer’s“CivilSociety”andCivicSocialDemocracy. . . . . . . . . . 82 6.3.1 DomainsofCoordination:Market,Firm,State, Community,andCivilSociety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 6.3.2 DynamicInteractionsbetweentheEconomicandPolitical Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 6.3.3 “EconomicPolicyRegime”intheRégulationTheory: TheGrowthRegimeandtheCompromiseofSocial Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6.3.4 Boyer’s“CivilSociety(societécivile)”andNewSocial Democracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
The list of books you might like
