Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 336 items :

  • Money and Banking x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Dirk Schoenmaker

This content is available to you

Marc Lavoie

This content is available to you

Louis-Philippe Rochon

This content is available to you

Marc Lavoie

This content is available to you

Geoffrey Poitras

This content is available to you

Edited by Hassan Bougrine and Louis-Philippe Rochon

This content is available to you

Louis-Philippe Rochon and Hassan Bougrine

The names of Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia have been associated with one another for well over four decades, during which time they made important contributions to post-Keynesian economics in general, but have also been associated with an array of more specific topics, including the theory of the monetary circuit, economic growth, fiscal policy, monetary policy/theory and endogenous money, growth theory, and microeconomics, among others. Individually or together, they contributed a vast arsenal of both critical and constructive papers and books: close to 300 journal and book articles, as well as a number of books, authored and edited, including the Canadian version of the American micro–macro textbook by Baumol and Blinder (see Baumol et al., 2009a; 2009b). Throughout their long and distinguished careers, their contributions have pushed post-Keynesian and heterodox economics in many interesting and fruitful directions, and they have influenced a number of scholars as well as students around the world. Steadfast in their criticism of neoclassical – or orthodox or mainstream – economic theory, as well as their rejection of mainstream policies, in particular fiscal austerity and fine-tuning monetary policy, Lavoie and Seccareccia have shared a vision of a more real-world view of economics, where institutions mattered.

This content is available to you

Louis-Philippe Rochon and Hassan Bougrine

Over a century ago, in an aptly-titled article, Innes (1913) asked what we believe is one of the most important questions in monetary theory: ‘What is money?’ – a question Smithin (1999) would later revisit. While on the surface this question may appear to be simple enough, the answer, however, is far from simple. Indeed, many answers have been provided, from a number of perspectives and disciplines. Money can mean something very different to different scholars, and the answers provided often reflect the focus of one’s research, thereby leading to different aspects of the same issue or question being explored in various degrees of detailed analysis. Indeed, money has many dimensions. The study of money has certainly perplexed economists for decades, if not centuries, with no consensus in sight. However, two general approaches can be identified, which, following Schumpeter (1954/1994, p. 277), can be labelled real and monetary analyses respectively (see also Rogers, 1989, Ch. 1) – although other labels can also be used: orthodox versus heterodox, exogenous versus endogenous. Rochon and Rossi (2013) have further identified two distinct approaches to endogenous money within post- Keynesian theory, referring to what they call the ‘evolutionary’ (Chick, 1986) and ‘revolutionary’ (Lavoie, 1992, 2014; Rochon, 1999) approaches to endogenous money.

This content is available to you

Andreas Dombret

This content is available to you

Andreas Dombret