The Nature of Money in Post-Keynesian Institutionalists: Turkey Case

Year 2015, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 277 - 287, 01.02.2015

Başak Aktakaş Cemil Akın Okyay Uçan

Abstract

It is evident that the views of Post Keynesian and Institutionalist Economics regarding the money and credit are hard to be separated from one another; moreover, considering their similarities, it is observed that they are good examples of the topic. The fact that the studies on money and credit are performed within the framework of the institutions leads them to be one of the most striking features of combining the two approaches. The financial institutions, which launch the basic features of money, change as well as reflecting it, form one of the main parts of Post-Keynesian theory of money and finance. In the present study, Post-Keynesian Institutional approach and their perspectives on money emerging as the combination of Post-Keynesian and Institutional economics along with performing an opposing view to the orthodox economic analyses are discussed both theoretically and empirically. The empirical study based on the VEC model is conducted on the determinants of the amount of money throughout Turkey. Accordingly, taking 1987: Q1 2011: Q1 period into account, the endogeneity of money supply in Turkey was investigated. The findings obtained as a result of the study is consistent with the the Post-Keynesian Institutionalist approach.

Keywords

-

References

• Arestis, P. and A.S Eichner (1988), ‘The Post-Keynesian and institutionalist theory of money and credit’, Journal of Economic Issues, 22 (4), 1003-1021.
• Arestis, P. (1996), ‘Post-keynesian Economics: Towards Coherence’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20, 111-135.
• Arestis, P., S. Dunn and M. Sawyer (1999) ‘Post-Keynesian Economics and Its critics’, Journal Of Post Keynesian Economics 21 (4), 527-549.
• Badarudin, Z. E., M. Ariff and A.M. Khalid (2009), ‘Bank stock returns under money supply endogeneity: Empirical evidence using panel data’, paper presented at The 22nd Australasian Finance and Banking Conference 2009, Sydney, Australia.
• Brazelton, W.R. (1981), ‘Post Keynesian Economics: An Institutional Compatibility?’, Journal of Economic Issues, 15 (2), 531-542.
• Cin F. and G.Demirel (2007). ‘Post Keynesian National Income And Money Supply Model: The Case of Turkey, 1980-2003’. İktisat, İşletme ve Finans. 22(252), 135-143.
• Davanzati, G.F. and R.Realfonzo (2009), ‘Money, Capital Turnover, and The Leisure Class: Thorstein Veblen’s Tips For A Monetary Theory Of Production’, in J.F.Ponsot and S.Rossii (eds.), The Political Economy of Monetary Circuits, New York: Palgrave Macmillan , pp.116-137.
• Davidson, P. (1994), Post Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Davidson, R. and J.G. MacKinnon (1993), Estimation and inference in econometrics, New York:Oxford University Pres
• Dillard, D. (1980), ‘A Monetary of Production: Keynes and Institutionalists’, Journal of Economic Issues 14 (2), 255-273.
• Dillard, D. (1987), ‘Money As An Institution of Capitalism’, Journal of Economic Issues, 15 (2), 1623-1647.
• Gedeon, S.J. (2009), ‘Money Supply Endogeneity Under A Currency Board Regime: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 32(1), 97-114.
• Howells, P. and K. Hussein (1998), ‘The Endogeneity of Money: Evidence From The G7”. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 45 (3), 329-340.
• Işık, S. (2010), Money, Finance and The Crisis-Post-Keynesian Aprroach. Ankara, Turkey: Palma Publishing.
• Işık, S. and H. Kahyaoğlu (2011), ‘The Endogenous Money Hypothesis: Some Evidence From Turkey (1987-2007)’, Journal of Money, Investment and Banking, 19, 61-71.
• Jespersen, J. (2009), Macroeconomic Methodology- A Post-Keynesian Methodology. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Johansen S. and J.K. Juselius (1990), ‘Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration with Applications to Demand For Demand’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169-210.
• Lavoie, M. (2006), An Introduction To Post-Keynesian Economics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lavoie, M. (2010) ‘Eichner’s Monetary Economics: Ahead of Its Time’, in M.Lavoie, L.P.Rochon and M. Seccareccia (eds.), Money And Macrodynamics, New York: M.E.Sharpe, 155-171.
• MacKinnon, J.G., A.A. Haug and L. Michelis (1990), ‘Numerical Distribution Functions of Likelihood Ratio Tests for Cointegration’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 14 (5), 563-77.
• Peterson, W. (1977), ‘Institutionalism, Keynes and The Real World’, Journal of Economic Issues 21 (4), 201-221.
• Pressman, S. (2003), ‘Institutionalism’, in J.E.King (ed.), Post Keynesian Economics, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 196-200.
• Robinson, J.(1978), ‘Keynes and Ricardo’, Journal Of Post Keynesian Economics 1 (1): 12-18.
• Shanmugam B., M. Nair and O. Wee Li (2003), ‘The Endogenous Money Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 25 (4), 599-611.
• Toporowski, J. (2003), ‘Kaleckian Economics’, in J.E.King (ed.), Post Keynesian Economics, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 226-229.
• Veblen, T. (1898), ‘Why Is Economics Not An Evolutionary Science?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, July, 373-397.
• Vera, A.P. (1998), ‘The Endogenous Money Hypothesis: Some Evidence From Spain (1987-1998)’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 23 (3), 509-526.
• Whalen, C. (2008), ‘Toward ‘Wisely Managed’ Capitalism: Post-Keynesian Institutionalism and The Creative State’, Forum for Social Economics, 37, 43-60.