[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ipewps/1112018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Overhead labour costs in a neo-Kaleckian growth model with autonomous expenditures

Author

Listed:
  • Won Jun Nah
  • Lavoie, Marc
Abstract
One of the most notable features of income distribution is the widening wage differential among workers: there is a redistribution in favor of top management at the detriment of ordinary workers. The paper incorporates this distinction between overhead managerial labour and direct labour into a neo-Kaleckian growth model with target-return pricing, where an autonomously growing demand component ultimately determines the long-run path of an economy. Our aim is to explore the role of overhead labour costs in the coevolution of income distribution and economic growth. When overhead labour is taken into account, the share of profits becomes an increasing function of the rate of utilization of capacity. This implies that empirical research based on the post-Kaleckian specification of the investment function may fail to isolate the pure profitability effects and is likely to be biased in finding a profit-led regime. Our model features convergence to a fully-adjusted position in the long run. This is achieved by simultaneous path-dependent adjustments, both in the normal rate of utilization of capacity and in the growth rate of sales expected by firms. We examine the parametric conditions under which the model achieves a wage-led growth regime, in the restricted sense that both the average rates of accumulation and utilization decrease during the transitional dynamics arising from an upward adjustment of the normal rate of profit. Moreover, it is shown that a more equitable wage distribution between the "working rich" and the "working poor" will strengthen the wage-led nature of the economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Won Jun Nah & Lavoie, Marc, 2018. "Overhead labour costs in a neo-Kaleckian growth model with autonomous expenditures," IPE Working Papers 111/2018, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ipewps:1112018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/188924/1/1041257600.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Lavoie & Gabriel Rodriguez & Mario Seccareccia, 2004. "Similitudes and Discrepancies in Post-Keynesian and Marxist Theories of Investment: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 127-149.
    2. Brett Fiebiger, 2018. "Semi-autonomous household expenditures as the causa causans of postwar US business cycles: the stability and instability of Luxemburg-type external markets [Cycles and trends in US net borrowing fl," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 42(1), pages 155-175.
    3. Olivier Allain, 2015. "Tackling the instability of growth: a Kaleckian-Harrodian model with an autonomous expenditure component," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 39(5), pages 1351-1371.
    4. Lavoie, Marc, 1995. "The Kaleckian Model of Growth and Distribution and Its Neo-Ricardian and Neo-Marxian Critiques," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(6), pages 789-818, December.
    5. Marc Lavoie, 2014. "Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations," Post-Print hal-01343652, HAL.
    6. Mark Setterfield (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12814.
    7. Asimakopulos, A, 1970. "A Robinsonian Growth Model in One Sector Notation-An Amendment," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(15), pages 171-176, December.
    8. Thomas I. Palley, 2015. "The middle class in macroeconomics and growth theory: a three-class neo-Kaleckian–Goodwin model," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 39(1), pages 221-243.
    9. Laura Carvalho & Armon Rezai, 2016. "Personal income inequality and aggregate demand," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 40(2), pages 491-505.
    10. Eckhard Hein, 2018. "Autonomous government expenditure growth, deficits, debt, and distribution in a neo-Kaleckian growth model," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 316-338, April.
    11. Marc Lavoie, 2016. "Convergence Towards the Normal Rate of Capacity Utilization in Neo-Kaleckian Models: The Role of Non-Capacity Creating Autonomous Expenditures," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 172-201, February.
    12. Olivier Allain, 2013. "Tackling the instability of growth: A Kaleckian model with autonomous demand expenditures," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00821080, HAL.
    13. Fabio Freitas & Franklin Serrano, 2015. "Growth Rate and Level Effects, the Stability of the Adjustment of Capacity to Demand and the Sraffian Supermultiplier," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 258-281, July.
    14. Mario Cassetti, 2006. "A note on the long-run behaviour of Kaleckian models," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 497-508.
    15. Won Jun Nah & Marc Lavoie, 2017. "Long-run convergence in a neo-Kaleckian open-economy model with autonomous export growth," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 223-238, April.
    16. Eckhard Hein & Marc Lavoie & Till van Treeck, 2012. "Harrodian Instability And The ‘Normal Rate’ Of Capacity Utilization In Kaleckian Models Of Distribution And Growth—A Survey," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 139-169, February.
    17. Marc Lavoie, 2010. "Surveying Short-run and Long-run Stability Issues with the Kaleckian Model of Growth," Chapters, in: Mark Setterfield (ed.), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Marc Lavoie & Stockhammer Engelbert, 2013. "Wage-Led Growth: An Equitable Strategy for Economic Recovery," Post-Print hal-01343664, HAL.
    19. Thomas I. Palley, 2017. "Wage- vs. profit-led growth: the role of the distribution of wages in determining regime character," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(1), pages 49-61.
    20. E. Stockhammere & J. Michell, 2017. "Pseudo-Goodwin cycles in a Minsky model," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(1), pages 105-125.
    21. Weisskopf, Thomas E, 1979. "Marxian Crisis Theory and the Rate of Profit in the Postwar U.S. Economy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 3(4), pages 341-378, December.
    22. Bhaduri, Amit & Marglin, Stephen, 1990. "Unemployment and the Real Wage: The Economic Basis for Contesting Political Ideologies," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 14(4), pages 375-393, December.
    23. Harris, Donald J, 1974. "The Price Policy of Firms, the Level of Employment and Distribution of Income in the Short Run," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(22), pages 144-151, June.
    24. Marc Lavoie, 2017. "The origins and evolution of the debate on wage-led and profit-led regimes," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 14(2), pages 200-221, September.
    25. Steven M Fazzari & Piero Ferri & Anna Maria Variato, 2020. "Demand-led growth and accommodating supply," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(3), pages 583-605.
    26. Marc Lavoie, 1992. "Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 275.
    27. Michalis Nikiforos & Duncan K. Foley, 2012. "Distribution And Capacity Utilization: Conceptual Issues And Empirical Evidence," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 200-229, February.
    28. Michalis Nikiforos, 2017. "Uncertainty and Contradiction: An Essay on the Business Cycle," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 49(2), pages 247-264, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eckhard Hein & Ryan Woodgate, 2021. "Stability issues in Kaleckian models driven by autonomous demand growth—Harrodian instability and debt dynamics," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 388-404, May.
    2. Parui, Pintu, 2021. "Financialization and endogenous technological change: A post-Kaleckian perspective," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 221-244.
    3. Eckhard Hein, 2019. "Harrodian instability in Kaleckian models and Steindlian solutions," FMM Working Paper 46-2019, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eckhard Hein, 2017. "Post-Keynesian macroeconomics since the mid 1990s: main developments," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 14(2), pages 131-172, September.
    2. Robert A. Blecker, 2016. "Wage-led versus profit-led demand regimes: the long and the short of it," Review of Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 4(4), pages 373-390, October.
    3. Gahn, Santiago José, 2021. "On the adjustment of capacity utilisation to aggregate demand: Revisiting an old Sraffian critique to the Neo-Kaleckian model," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 325-360.
    4. Guilherme Spinato Morlin & Nikolas Passos & Riccardo Pariboni, 2024. "Growth Theory and the Growth Model Perspective: Insights from the Supermultiplier," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 1130-1155, July.
    5. Eckhard Hein, 2019. "Harrodian instability in Kaleckian models and Steindlian solutions," FMM Working Paper 46-2019, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    6. Eckhard Hein & Valeria Jimenez, 2022. "The macroeconomic implications of zero growth: a post-Keynesian approach," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 19(1), pages 41-60, April.
    7. Eckhard Hein & Ryan Woodgate, 2021. "Stability issues in Kaleckian models driven by autonomous demand growth—Harrodian instability and debt dynamics," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 388-404, May.
    8. Daniele Girardi & Riccardo Pariboni, 2019. "Normal utilization as the adjusting variable in Neo‐Kaleckian growth models: A critique," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 341-358, May.
    9. Botte, Florian & Dallery, Thomas, 2019. "Analyse systématique du modèle de Bhaduri et Marglin à prix flexibles : « Ça dépend de la valeur des paramètres » [Systematic analysis of the Bhaduri-Marglin Model with flexible prices: « It depend," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 26.
    10. Ettore Gallo & Maria Cristina Barbieri Góes, 2023. "Investment, autonomous demand and long-run capacity utilization: an empirical test for the Euro Area," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 40(1), pages 225-255, April.
    11. Pedrosa, Ítalo & Brochier, Lídia & Freitas, Fabio, 2023. "Debt hierarchy: Autonomous demand composition, growth and indebtedness in a Supermultiplier model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    12. Nah, Won Jun & Lavoie, Marc, 2019. "The role of autonomous demand growth in a neo-Kaleckian conflicting-claims framework’," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 427-444.
    13. Santiago José Gahn & Alejandro González, 2022. "On the empirical content of the convergence debate: Cross‐country evidence on growth and capacity utilisation," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 825-855, July.
    14. Lídia Brochier & Antonio Carlos, 2019. "A supermultiplier Stock-Flow Consistent model: the “return” of the paradoxes of thrift and costs in the long run?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(2), pages 413-442.
    15. Roberto Veneziani & Luca Zamparelli & Amitava Krishna Dutt, 2017. "Heterodox Theories Of Economic Growth And Income Distribution: A Partial Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 1240-1271, December.
    16. Hein, Eckhard & Prante, Franz, 2018. "Functional distribution and wage inequality in recent Kaleckian growth models," IPE Working Papers 110/2018, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Institute for International Political Economy (IPE).
    17. Mark Setterfield & Joana David Avritzer, 2020. "Hysteresis in the normal rate of capacity utilization: A behavioral explanation," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(4), pages 898-919, November.
    18. Sasaki, Hiroaki, 2012. "Is the long-run equilibrium wage-led or profit-led? A Kaleckian approach," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 231-244.
    19. Steven M Fazzari & Piero Ferri & Anna Maria Variato, 2020. "Demand-led growth and accommodating supply," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(3), pages 583-605.
    20. Daniele Girardi & Riccardo Pariboni, 2020. "Autonomous demand and the investment share," Review of Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 8(3), pages 428-453, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    neo-Kaleckian; growth; overhead labour; autonomous expenditures; targetreturn pricing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E11 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Marxian; Sraffian; Kaleckian
    • E37 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles - - - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
    • O41 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ipewps:1112018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iphwrde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.