İçsel Gelir Dağılımı ve Toplam Talep İlişkisi: Kaleckiyen Yaklaşım Çerçevesinde Dinamik Bir Model Önerisi

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 4, 77 - 110, 15.12.2020

Betül Mutlugün

Abstract

Fonksiyonel gelir bölüşümü ve toplam talep ilişkisi Post-Keynesyen iktisat literatüründe çokça ele alınmasına rağmen dayandıkları teorik modeller çoğunlukla kâr payını dışsal değişken olarak kabul etmekte ve verimliliğin büyüme sürecinde değişmediğini varsaymaktadır. Ancak toplam talep, sermaye birikimi ve ücret veya kâr payının değeri içsel olarak belirlenmekte, talep artışları ve yüksek reel ücretlerin verimliliği arttırıcı etkisi göz önünde bulundurulduğunda bölüşüm ve toplam talep ilişkisi arasındaki etkileşim emek verimliliğine bağlı olarak değişebilmektedir. Bu çalışma; efektif talep, gelir dağılımı ve emek verimliliği arasındaki ilişkiyi teorik yönden Post-Keynesyen/Kaleckiyen teori çerçevesinde araştırmayı amaçlamakta ve dışsal kâr payı varsayımına dayanan Kaleckiyen bölüşüm ve büyüme modellerinin aksine gelir dağılımının içselleştirildiği talep yönlü bir büyüme modelini ele almaktadır. Gelir dağılımı ve emek verimliliği sırasıyla Rowthorn (1977) tarafından geliştirilen enflasyonun çatışan bölüşüm talepleri yaklaşımı ve Kaldor-Verdoorn Yasası yardımıyla içselleştirilebilmektedir. Teorik modelin imaları, reel ücretlerin baskılanması yoluyla gerçekleşen düşük birim iş gücü maliyetlerinin yatırımları arttırmada sınırlı bir rolünün olabileceği, ücret payının düşmesiyle gerçekleşen yetersiz iç talebin ekonomi üzerinde yarattığı daraltıcı etkilerin bertaraf edilemeyebileceğine dikkat çekmektedir. Bu nedenle sermaye lehine yeniden bölüşüm politikaları daha yüksek yatırım ve büyüme oranlarını yakalamada ön koşul değildir.

Keywords

Gelir dağılımı, efektif talep, içsel büyüme, ücret yönlü büyüme, Kaleckiyen modeller

Endogenous Income: Distribution and Aggregate Demand A Proposal of a Dynamic Model from a KaleckianApproach

Abstract

Although the relationship between the functional distribution of income and aggregate demand is widely discussed in Post-Keynesian economics literature, these theoretical models are mostly based on the assumption of exogenous profit share and assume that productivity does not change during the growth process. However, the value of aggregate demand, capital accumulation, and wages or profits are determined endogenously, and the interaction between distribution and aggregate demand may change depending on labor productivity, considering the productivity-enhancing effect of higher aggregate demand and real wages. This study aims to investigate the relationship between effective demand, income distribution, and labor productivity theoretically in the context of Post-Keynesian/Kaleckian theory, and elaborates a demand-led growth model where income distribution is endogenized, in contrast to previous Kaleckian distribution and growth models that mostly based on the assumption of exogenous profit share. Functional distribution of income and labor productivity can be endogenized by Rowthorn’s conflicting claims over distribution by workers and firms and the Kaldor-Verdoon law, respectively. The implications of the theoretical modindicatetes that lowering unit labor costs through the suppression of real wages may have a limited role in increasing investment, and that the contractionary effects of insufficient domestic demand on the economy due to the decrease in the wage share cannot be eliminated. Thus, redistribution of income from labor to capital is not a precondition for achieving higher investment and growth rates.

Keywords

Income distribution, effective demand, endogenous growth, wage-led growth, Kaleckian models.

References

• Acemoğlu, D. ve Restrepo, P. (2016). The race between machines and humans: Implications for growth, factor shares and jobs. https://voxeu.org/article/job-race-machines-versus-humans adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Aghion, P., Caroli, E. ve Garcia-Penalosa, C. (1999). Inequality and Economic growth: The perspective of the new growth theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(4), 1615-1660.
• Alesina, A. ve Perotti, R. (1996). Income distribution, political instability, and investment. European Economic Review, 40(6), 1203-1228.
• Amadeo, E. J. (1986a). Notes on capacity utilisation, distribution and accumulation. Contributions to Political Economy, 5, 83-94.
• Amadeo, E. J. (1986b). The role of capacity utilization in long-period analysis. Political Economy, 2(2), 147-160.
• Amadeo, E. J. (1987). Expectations in a steady state model of capacity utilization. Political Economy, 3, 75-89.
• Barbosa‐Filho, N. H. ve Taylor, L. (2006). Distributive and Demand cycles in the us economy—a structuralist goodwin model. Metroeconomica, 57(3), 389-411.
• Bhaduri, A. ve Marglin, S. (1990). Unemployment and the real wage: The economic basis for contesting political ideologies. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14(4), 375-393.
• Birdal, M. (2018). Bir krizin anatomisi (1. Baskı). Kor Kitap.
• Bivens, J., Gould, E., Mishel, L. ve Shierholz, H. (2014). Raising America’s pay why it’s our central economic policy challenge. Economic Policy Institute.
• Bivens, J. ve Mishel, L. (2015). Understanding the historic divergence between productivity and a typical worker’s pay: Why it matters and why it’s real. Economic Policy Institute.
• Blecker, R. A. (1999). Kaleckian macro models for open economies. J. T. Harvey ve J. Deprez (Ed.). Foundations of international economics: Post-Keynesian perspectives içinde (ss. 116-150). Routledge.
• Blecker, R. A. (1989). International competition, income distribution and economic growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 13(3), 395-412.
• Blecker, R. A. (2002). Distribution, demand and growth in neo-Kaleckian macro-models. M. Setterfield (Ed.). The economics of demand-led growth (chapter 8) içinde. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/1864_8.html adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Blecker, R. (2011). Open economy models of distribution and growth. E. Hein ve E. Stockhammer (Ed.). A modern guide to Keynesian macroeconomics and economic policies içinde. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• Blecker, R. A. (2016). Wage-led versus profit-led demand regimes: The long and the short of it. Review of Keynesian Economics, 4(4), 373-390.
• Bowles, S. ve Boyer, R. (1995). Wages, aggregate demand, and employment in an open economy: An empirical investigation. G. A. Epstein ve H. M Gintis (Ed.). Macroeconomic policy after the conservative era: Studies in investment, saving and finance içinde (ss. 143-171). Cambridge University Press.
• Carvalho, L. ve Rezai, A. (2016). Personal income inequality and aggregate demand. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(2), 491-505.
• Cassetti, M. (2003). Bargaining power, effective demand and technical progress: A Kaleckian model of growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(3), 449-464.
• Diallo, M. B., Flaschel, P., Krolzig, H. M. ve Proaño, C. R. (2011). Reconsidering the dynamic interaction between realwages and macroeconomic activity. Research in World Economy, 2(1), 77.
• Dutt, A. (1984). Stagnation, income distribution and monopoly power. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8(1), 25-40.
• Dutt, A. K. (1987). Keynes with a perfectly competitive goods market. Australian Economic Papers, 26(49), 275-293.
• Dutt, A. K. (1990). Growth, distribution and uneven development. CUP Archive. Ederer, S. ve Stockhammer, E. (2007). Wages and aggregate demand: An empirical investigation for France [Chapters].
• Edward Elgar Publishing. https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/elgeechap/12580_5f6.htm adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Hein, E. (2009). A (Post-) Keynesian perspective on “financialisation”. IMK Study. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/106225 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Hein, E. ve Vogel, L. (2008). Distribution and growth reconsidered: Empirical results for six OECD countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32(3), 479-511. Kaldor, N. (1961). Capital accumulation and economic growth. F. A. Lutz ve D. C. Hague (Ed.). The theory of capital: Proceedings of a conference held by the international economic association içinde (ss. 177-222). Palgrave MacmillanUK.
• Kalecki, M. (1954). Theory of economic dynamics: An essay on cyclical and long-run changes in capitalist economy. Rinehart & Company.
• Kalecki, M. (1971). Class struggle and the distribution of national income*. Kyklos, 24(1), 1-9.
• Karabarbounis, L. ve Neiman, B. (2013). The global decline of the labor share. National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Karabarbounis, L. ve Neiman, B. (2014). Capital depreciation and labor shares around the world: Measurement and implications. National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Keynes, J. M. (1939). Relative movements of real wages and output. The Economic Journal, 49(193), 34-51.
• Kiefer, D. ve Rada, C. (2015). Profit maximising goes global: The race to the bottom. Cambridge Journal of Economics,39(5), 1333-1350.
• Lavoie, M. (1992). Foundations of post-Keynesian economic analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Levy, F. ve Temin, P. (2007). Inequality and institutions in 20th century America. National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Marglin, S. A. ve Bhaduri, A. (1990). The golden age of capitalism: Reinterpreting the postwar experience. ClarendonPress.
• Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. The Review of Economic Studies, 38(2), 175-208.
• Nikiforos, M. ve Foley, D. K. (2012). Distribution and capacity utilization: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence.Social Science Research Network.
• Onaran, O. ve Obst, T. (2016). Wage-led growth in the EU15 member-states: The effects of income distribution on growth, investment, trade balance and inflation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(6), 1517-1551.
• Onaran, O., Stockhammer, E. ve Grafl, L. (2011). Financialisation, income distribution and aggregate demand in the USA. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(4), 637-661.
• Onaran, Ö. ve Galanis, G. (2012). Is aggregate demand wage-led or profit-led? National and global effects. International Labour Organization.
• Palley, T. I. (1994). Debt, aggregate demand, and the business cycle: An analysis in the spirit of Kaldor and Minsky. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 16(3), 371-390.
• Palley, T. I. (2015). The middle class in macroeconomics and growth theory: A three-class neo-Kaleckian–Goodwin model. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39(1), 221-243.
• Rowthorn, B. (1981). Demand, real wages and economic growth. Thames Polytechnics.
• Rowthorn, R. E. (1977). Conflict, inflation and money. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1(3), 215-239.
• Sasaki, H., Sonoda, R. ve Fujita, S. (2013). International competition and distributive class conflict in an open economy Kaleckian Model. Metroeconomica, 64(4), 683-715.
• Shaikh, A. ve Tonak, E. A. (2012). Milletlerin zenginliğinin ölçülmesi. Yordam Kitap.
• Skott, P. (2016). Weaknesses of “wage-led growth”. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
• Steindl, J. (1952). Maturity and stagnation in American capitalism. NYU Press.
• Stockhammer, E., Hein, E. ve Grafl, L. (2011). Globalization and the effects of changes in functional income distribution on aggregate demand in Germany. International Review of Applied Economics, 25(1), 1-23.
• Stockhammer, E. ve Michell, J. (2014). Pseudo-Goodwin cycles in a Minsky model. Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
• Stockhammer, E. ve Onaran, O. (2004). Accumulation, distribution and employment: A structural VAR approach to a Kaleckian macro model. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 15(4), 421-447.
• Stockhammer, E., Onaran, O. ve Ederer, S. (2009). Functional income distribution and aggregate demand in the Euro area. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(1), 139-159.
• Stockhammer, E. ve Wildauer, R. (2016). Debt-driven growth? Wealth, distribution and demand in OECD countries. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(6), 1609-1634.
• Taylor, L. (2004). Reconstructing macroeconomics: Structuralist proposals and critiques of the mainstream. Harvard University Press.