This paper attempts to clarify how the European economic crisis from 2007 onwards can be understood from the perspective of a Marxian monetary theory of value that emphasizes intrinsic, structural flaws regarding capitalist reproduction. Chapter two provides an empirical description of the European economic crisis, which to some extent already reflects the structural theoretical framework presented in chapter three. Regarding the theoretical framework Michael Heinrich's interpretation of 'the' Marxian monetary theory of value will be presented. Heinrich identifies connections between production and realization, between profit and interest rate as well as between industrial and fictitious capital, which represent contradictory tendencies for which capitalism does not have simple balancing processes. In the context of a discussion of 'structural logical aspects' of Marx's Critique of the Political Economy, explanatory deficits of Heinrich's approach are analyzed. In the following, it is argued that Fred Moseley's view of these 'structural logical aspects' allows empirical 'applications' of Marxian monetary theories of value. It is concluded that a Marxian monetary theory of value, with the characteristics of expansive capital accumulation and its limitations, facilitates a structural analysis of the European economic crisis from 2007 onwards. In this line of argument, expansive production patterns are expressed, among other things, in global restructuring processes, while consumption limitations are mitigated by expansive financial markets and shifts in ex-port destinations.

The current Great Recession, the worst crisis that capitalism has faced since the Great Depression, has failed, at least so far, to generate a change in the teaching and practice of Macroeconomics. This seems bizarre as if nothing has happened and the economists are just going about doing business as usual. In light of this, the current paper attempts to address how Macroeconomics ought to be taught to students at the advanced intermediate level, which gives them an overall perspective on the subject.

"Could a cooperative market economy, in which firms are owned and controlled by their workers, be a viable and efficient alternative to capitalism?"

Readers of economic and political theory as well as students of economic planning will appreciate this classic, now available for the first time in English. Written eighty years ago, when Sorel became disillusioned with the official socialism of the German and French Marxist parties, this new translation presents Sorel's analysis of the rise and fall of the two great modern ideologies: socialism and liberal capitalism.

Devine begins with an analysis of the theory and practice of capitalist planning, central planning and 'market socialism'. He argues that, while market socialism is currently favoured by many economists who reject both capitalism and the command planning of the Soviet model, it cannot fulfil the promises held out for it.

The book is a collection of 51 texts by different scholars and activists, who each adds a dimension/perspective to the topics of degrowth and societal transformation. A societal transformation towards a degrowth society is dependent on a lot of ideas coming together and creating change from various starting points within a society. Therefore, the authors are quite diverse and their contributions vary from being philosophical, natural science based, economic, sociological and so forth. Some are specfiically focused on a concept and others are a more broad critique of e.g., capitalism or growth.

In this video, Clara Mattei investigates the function of austerity in relation the stabilization of capitalism as a form of social order build around private property, wage labor and class relations. In order to develop this argument, she situates austerity in the history of World War 1 and its revolutionary aftermath. Zooming in on the politicization of the economy and the associated threat to class society that emerged in the period, she highlights how austerity was a „tool of reaction“ that was successful in curtailing demands for economic democracy and a society free from class oppression.

In the first intellectual history of neoliberal globalism, Quinn Slobodian follows neoliberal thinkers from the Habsburg Empire’s fall to the creation of the World Trade Organization to show that neoliberalism emerged less to shrink government and abolish regulations than to deploy them globally to protect capitalism.

Along with addressing core conceptual issues in defining heterodox economics, we will cover in some detail five heterodox traditions in economics: Marxian Economics, Institutional Economics, Post-Keynesian Economics, Feminist Economics, and Ecologi-cal Economics. In the first class meeting, we discuss the structure and goals of the course, as well as the expectations and requirements from the students. In addition, we will discuss the concept of heterodoxy in economics, along with discussing the concepts and key issues in mainstream and neoclassical economics.

The present working paper is dedicated to fill a void in the degrowth literature related to the aspect of planning to achieve post-growth models of societies. The authors propose a new framework that focuses on non-market forms of planning and propose multi-level planning institutions to mediate the local level with society-wide and global institutions.

As the current economic crisis spreads around the globe questions are being asked about what king of capitalist or post-capitalist economy will follow. There is increasing talk of the need for stringent economic regulation, the need to temper greed and individualism, to make the economy work for human and social development.

Mariana Mazzucato explains how we lost sight of what value means and why we need to rethink our current financial systems so capitalism can be steered toward a bold, innovative and sustainable future that works for all of us.

While many are unsatisfied with capitalism and critique it in highly sophisticated ways, there are few concrete proposals for a socialist mode of production that could replace the capitalist one. Daniel E. Saros has developed such a proposal in his book "Information Technology and Socialist Construction – The End of Capital and the Transition to Socialism" which we discuss at length over the course of two episodes.

This episode of the Future Histories Podcast featuring Moira Weigel sets the development of digital capitalism and the right-ward shift in politics and society in relation to one another. It provides a masterful combination of ideology critique and polit-economic analysis grounded in comprehensive knowledge of the digital economy.

Michael Kalecki famously remarked “I have found out what economics is; it is the science of confusing stocks with flows”. Stock-Flow Consistent (SFC) models were developed precisely to address this kind of confusion. The basic intuition of SFC models is that the economy is built up as a set of intersecting balance sheets, where transactions between entities are called flows and the value of the assets/liabilities they hold are called stocks. Wages are a flow; bank deposits are a stock, and confusing the two directly is a category error. In this edition of the pluralist showcase I will first describe the logic of SFC models – which is worth exploring in depth – before discussing empirical calibration and applications of the models. Warning that there is a little more maths in this post than usual (i.e. some), but you should be able to skip those parts and still easily get the picture.

Firms are the primary places where economic activity takes place in modern capitalist economies: they are where most stuff is produced; where many of us spend 40 hours a week; and where big decisions are made about how to allocate resources. Establishing how they work is hugely important because it helps us to understand patterns of production and consumption, including how firms will react to changes in economic conditions and policy. And a well-established literature – led by post-Keynesians and institutionalists – holds that the best way to determine how firms work is to…wait for it...ask firms how they work. This a clearly sensible proposition that is contested in economics for some reason, but we’ll ignore the controversy here and just explore the theory that springs from this approach.

In both economics textbooks and public perceptions central banks are a fact of life. On the wall of my A-level economics classroom there was the Will Rogers quote “there have been three great inventions since the beginning of time: fire, the wheel, and central banking”, summarising how many economists view the institution. There is a widespread belief that there is something different about money which calls for a central authority to manage its operation, a view shared even by staunch free marketeers such as Milton Friedman. This belief is not without justification, since money underpins every transaction in a way that apples do not, but we should always be careful not to take existing institutions for granted and central banking is no exception. In this post I will look at the idea of private or free banking, where banks compete (and cooperate) to issue their own currency.

p>Twenty-first-century economists will have to understand and improve a post-Cold War world in which no single economic theory or system holds the key to human betterment. Heterodox economists have much to contribute to this effort, as a wave of pluralism spawns new lines of research and new dialogues among non-mainstream economists.

Austerity has been at the center of political controversy following the 2008 financial crisis, invoked by politicians and academics across the political spectrum as the answer to, or cause of, our post-crash economic malaise.

Jo Michell discusses some key implications of climate change regarding the standard policy prescriptions of Post-Keynesian economics, particularly relating to the possible necessity of consumption constraints and the presence of recurrent inflation.

In this keynote lecture during the conference „The Spectre of Stagnation? Europe in the World Economy“, Till van Treek presents research on how changes in income distribution lead to macroeconomic instability and crisis, focusing on currents accounts. Treek presents the relative income hypothesis in contrast to other mainstream and Post-Keynesian explanations. The relative income hypothesis proposes that aggregate demand increases and savings decrease with rising personal income inequality due to upward looking status comparison – but effects depend on the quantile where income inequality increases. Treek points to the importance of accounting for both income and functional income distribution and underlines his arguments with data comparing different pattern in Germany and the U.S.

Irene van Staveren, professor of pluralist development economics, presents her pluralist teaching method for the introductory level. Based on her textbook “Economics After the Crisis: An Introduction to Economics from a Pluralist and Global Perspective” she suggests to focus on real-world problems and pari passu apply economic theories such as Social economics, Institutional economics, Post-Keynesian economics as well as Neoclassical economics without wasting time to single out the latter. Besides pointing out advantages of such a pluralist method Irene illustrates her approach based on interesting topics such as growth or feminist economics.

In this talk, Virgil Henry Storr, a Research Associate Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics at George Mason University, talks about his research into to post-disaster recovery and the role that social entrepreneurship plays in rebuilding the communities and social networks that get disrupted, or entirely eliminated.

Le PIB fait l’objet de critiques régulières. En avril dernier, le Parlement a voté, sur la proposition de la députée Eva Sas (EELV), une loi prévoyant que des indicateurs alternatifs au PIB guident les politiques publiques. Mais le choix de ces indicateurs alternatifs soulève un certain nombre de questions. Par Géraldine Thiry (Université de Louvain, Forum pour d’autres indicateurs de richesse) et Adeline Guéret (étudiante à l’ENSAE, stagiaire à l’Institut Veblen). Le gouvernement français publie cette année, parallèlement au dépôt du projet de loi de finances, un rapport présentant " l’évolution, sur les années passées, de nouveaux indicateurs de richesse, tels que les indicateurs d’inégalités, de qualité de vie et de développement durable." Cette publication fait suite à l’adoption définitive au Parlement, en avril 2015, de la proposition de loi visant à prendre en compte de nouveaux indicateurs de richesse dans la définition de politiques publiques. L’article unique de cette loi prévoit "une évaluation qualitative ou quantitative de l’impact des principales réformes engagées l’année précédente et envisagées pour l’année suivante, notamment dans le cadre des lois de finances, au regard de ces indicateurs et de l’évolution du produit intérieur brut." Cette loi marque constitue donc une première étape dans la remise en cause de la centralité du PIB (produit intérieur brut), comme indicateur central du progrès de notre société. Comme l’explique la vice-présidente de la Commission des Finances de l’Assemblée nationale, la députée de l’Essonne, Eva SAS, à l’origine de cette loi, il est nécessaire de " renouveler la pensée économique " parce que nous sommes entrés " dans une période post-croissance qui nous impose de commencer à réfléchir autrement " (…) " Il faut remettre du long-terme dans les politiques publiques et prendre en compte ce qu’on lègue aux générations futures « . En consacrant son rapport annuel 2015 à la question des nouveaux indicateurs, l’Idies s’inscrit pleinement dans le cadre des missions qu’elle s’est donné depuis son origine : agir pour que soient réunies les conditions nécessaires pour que tous les citoyens puissent accéder à une information économique et sociale de qualité. Le choix des indicateurs rendant compte de l’état de notre économie et de notre société a une dimension technique. Mais il est surtout profondément politique. Il ne peut donc être laissé aux seuls experts et doit au contraire être placée au coeur de la délibération démocratique. C’est toute l’ambition de ce rapport que d’y contribuer.

In this post, Rethinking Economics sets out what it means to decolonise economics education and how we can do that. The article first breaks decolonising down into a "mind-set" and a "process", then applies this process to economics education. It finishes with a reading list and some suggested actions to get you started decolonising economics today.

This Blog Post describes the U.S. federal reserve money system from the perspective of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Therefore it presents a theory of money creation, gives simple examples how this influences the economy and the historical process of why the monetary system of the US has developed this way.

The plumbing of the financial system is coming under strain like never before. On this week’s podcast, we speak with two legendary experts on how the money system works: Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse and Perry Mehrling of the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. They explain the extreme level of stress we’re seeing, what the Fed has done to alleviate, what more needs to be done, and what the post-crisis future may look like.

Understanding the financial crisis from four very different economic theories: Social Economics, Institutional Economics, Post Keynesian economics.

How did the industrialized nations of North America and Europe come to be seen as the appropriate models for post-World War II societies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America? How did the postwar discourse on development actually create the so-called Third World? And what will happen when development ideology collapses? To answer these questions, Arturo Escobar shows how development policies became mechanisms of control that were just as pervasive and effective as their colonial counterparts.

The Austrian tradition in economic thought had a profound influence on the development of post-war economics including neoclassical orthodoxy, game theory, public choice, behavioral economics, experimental economics and complexity economics.

This lively introduction to heterodox economics provides a balanced critique of the standard introductory macroeconomic curriculum. In clear and accessible prose, it explains many of the key principles that underlie a variety of alternative theoretical perspectives (including institutionalist economics, radical economics, Post Keynesian economics, feminist economics, ecological economics, Marxist economics, social economics, and socioeconomics).

The book provides an excellent comparative perspective on New Keynesian "New Consensus" economics and Post-Keynesian Economics at a beginner level. It also offers an interactive tool to understand how the economic models work, especially from a heterodox / pluralist perspective.