John Maynard Keynes Principal Contribution to Political Economy - Essay Example

?To what extent was John Maynard Keynes’ principal contribution to political economy a re-conceptualisation of optimal relationships between the and the market? Introduction There is often an inconsistency on the minds of political scientists between what an author articulates and what his theories turn out to be. This is always an inducement to the mind to go deep in search of more plausible and more believable source of information on which academia can rely on. In most cases and very often, obvious anomalies are merely discarded as miscalculations, leaving the initial elucidation unaffected. This is often the case between Keynesian economists and other reformists’ theories. Keynesianism or Keynesian economics is an economic theory based on the ideas John Maynard Keynes, as put forward in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, available in 1936 as an answer to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Keynesianism advocates for a mixed economy, in which the state as well as the market or the private sector have both significant functions to operate. It should be noted that the advent and eventual rise of Keynesianism saw the collapse of laissez-faire economics which was of the view that both the state and the market could function, each on its own. Keynesianism also emphasizes of the significance of aggregate demand for goods as the lashing factor of the economy, particularly in periods of recession. For this reason, government plans or policies could be made use of to promote demand at a macro level, to counter high unemployment as well as deflation. A significant conclusion of Keynesianism is that there is not a tough and automatic propensity for output and employment to move to full employment levels. Effective demand is therefore the fundamental idea underlying Keynesianism. Post Keynesian Criticisms After Keynes, a good amount of concentration has been dedicated to the problem of probability and uncertainty in Keynes’s General Theory by a set of economists frequently called ‘Post-Keynesians’. Over the years, there have risen a lot of economic theories and propositions which no longer see Keynesianism as a spur. As Chick and Tily (2004) mentions in mainstream economics, Keynes is dead1. Leijonhufvud (2008)2 gives explanations on the hypothetical blindness of the economic profession vis a vis interpretations from Keynesianism of the present financial crisis to conventional reliance on market efficiency theory, expectations based on reason as well as the representative agents3. Wray and Teymogne (2008) make us reminiscent of the fact that “the efficient market hypothesis, like all approaches derived from the old neoclassical theory, relegates money and finance to the sidelines.4” A latest volume, cataloguing the commentary of twelve prominent economists on Keynes’s Economic possibilities for our Grandchildren5, offers an outstanding incident to assess the space between conventional Keynesian views of capitalism with ‘love of money’. Keynes’s disapproval for the money drive and the demanding “purposeful money-makers (who) may carry all of us along with them into the lap of economic abundance” is dismissed as the befuddled and elitist phrase of moralistic narrow-mindedness and an ideal case in point of an irrational approach to economics. For example, Boldrin and Levine (2009) challenge Keynes for not being clear between real and monetary factors6. On his part, Phelps (2009) considers Keynes condescending approach towards the pursuit for wealth as unusual for an economist7, representative of anti-materialism as well as obscure to every scholastic satisfaction in business. Ohanian (2009) illustrates Keynes’ approach as that of a judgmental and critical social commentator who uses his economist’s pulpit to make a rather puritan-based vision of the future8. Fitoussi (2009) acknowledges that Keynes’ negative response to capitalism, with its acquisitiveness and inconsiderate conduct, is not so badly founded9. He however goes on to coin Keynes’ attitude, Elite Communism and disapproves Keynes’ disapproval for capitalism. On Keynes’s disapproval of love of money, he is portrayed to be either meaningless or incorrect because: 1. Every normal economic instrument, exempt from the illusions of money, is paying attention to maximizing utility in addition to profit functions rather than balance for money. 2. Everything being equal, nominal money holdings should be maintained to a minimum, for yield-bearing assets and proper risk-hedging strategies. 3. As a store of value, money is barely a brief store of value. 4. ‘Love of money’ when considered in relation to high saving and wealth, and the appropriate CEOs are taken to the appropriate management positions, there is every need for “love of money” to be widely accepted. These post Keynesian critics have not gone unanswered. Fundamental insecurity is a response to the first two parts of these critics. The third criticism may be answered by using the words of Meltzer in his analysis of Pecchi and Piga (2009). Keep in mind that none of the above critics make mention of Keynesian thoughts about material wealth, money, avarice, and greed10; and Keynes’ own words when he writes: “I also want to emphasize strongly the point about economics being a moral science. I mentioned before that it deals with introspection and with values. I might add that it deals with motives, expectations, psychological uncertainties. One has to be constantly on guard against treating the material as constant and homogeneous”11. Responding to the last condemnation, Friedman and Friedman (2009) recall that Joan Robinson had earlier articulated this point about thirty years ago stating that the quest of self-interest could be detrimental to society at large and that there is no need connecting Adam Smith to this principle12. Smith assumed that society will be unable to manage survival under the weight of people who are ready at all times to prey on others. However, self-interest devoid of a base of ethics is not what Adam Smith bases his principle on. Robinson concluded with the caution: “I hope … that you will find that the doctrines of Adam Smith are not to be taken in the form in which your professors are explaining them to you”13. Another disapproval of Keynesianism comes as a monetarist critic of Keynesianism Monetarism is sort of macroeconomic hypothesis that centres its attention on the function of money in the market. There is greatly a variance with Keynesian economics, which stresses on that fact that the market can only be ensured by a formalized government. Monetarists uphold the view that managing the supply of money is needed to ensure a stable market. The market on its part is best to look after the state and the rest of the society. Therefore, the market is well organized to deal with inflation and unemployment. The brainchild of this theory is Milton Friedman. Measuring the potency of a state rests on the force of the market. Given the rational nature of a state’s potency, the contextual quality of the application of the market forces and the difficulty in trying to understand how this relates to Keynes’ contribution to political economy, it is not surprising to realize that one of the major debates in political economy relates to the relationship between the state and the market. It is therefore necessary to look at the legal practicalities of a market system in addition to the state's responsibility in putting right, every form of market failure. To begin with, the principal function of the state is to point out and shore up rights over property, to ensure that business agreements are respected, to ensure that people actually work and receive benefit from what they put in and to stop as well as punish any act which is injurious to the free existence of the state. But we must also recall minding that the state is an indispensable provision for the institution of an efficient market system. For this reason, it is only the state that can guarantee a free market environment. On the other hand, it is equally the state that stands as the greatest threat to a market system. Consequently the constitutional order ought to be such that it is meant to limit the coercive authority of the state "to instances where it is required to prevent coercion by private individuals."14 It is true that Keynes was of the view that aggregate demand settled below full employment. For this reason, there is supposed to be an urgent call for action. It should be recalled that Keynes believed inadequate demand was the principal reason at the back of unemployment. Therefore, if there was an increase in demand, there would be a repositioning of the economy, back to its normal position of full employment. Where would demand come from? This could be from investment or consumption. He believed that if this failed to happen, the only solution would be for the state to prime the pump by involving into some spending. Re-Conceptualizing the State and the Market Where does the Keynesian theory stand today in the re-conceptualization of the relationship between markets and state? It has been criticized that the development of labour-based macroeconomics theory of Keynes since it can either be inappropriate or outmoded to present day situation. Garrison holds that Keynesian contribution was never a diversion but a “spur”15. Since present day political economic theories of the state have been propounded and these have come largely from an investigation of the experiences from developed states, it can be true to utter the pint that Keynesian contribution merely rested on certain assumptions. A lot of these assumptions have faced stiff challenges from successive endeavours encountered in the application of the Keynesian theory to developing economies; and the very controversy is that this theory is constantly still being applied. The experiences gotten from capitalist states are lucid examples to illustrate this point. First and foremost, every study about the issue on the state starts with the assertion that the purpose of study—the modern state— is already in existent as a moderately fixed as well as consolidated body. If we have to place more stress on outcomes, a lot of theories relating to state formation will owe their analytical focus on the consolidated compositions of the state and will go further to assume the course of actions that gradually led to these outcomes16. In the same way, theories concerned with how the modern state functions are based on a view of the state as an established entity. While they differ markedly in their depiction of the state as either an instrument of the bourgeoisie17; a mediator between broad interests groups18; a set of centralized, cohesive, and autonomous decision-makers19; or a revenue-maximizing ruler20, they all share the assumption that there exists an identifiable set of actors or institutions that exert legitimate authority over a given territory21. Most states that relied on the Keynesian theory have proven to be in want of stability or consolidation22. The process in which such states intend to better themselves is not yet conclusive. They are still in the state-building process. This is there more reason why such preoccupations may tend to compel state actors to shove aside the issue of re-conceptualization between state and market, an issue which must not be ignored. If such occurs, the states will find itself disengaged from the market as well as the demands of the society One more assumption on which Keynes contribution bases itself is the assumption that every state is an established actor and as such, every established actor ought to be a unitary actor. The Keynesian analysis is more and more being confronted, both by political economists making an attempt to “bring people back into the state,”23 as well as scholars basing their research on developing and emergent markets. 13 But the study of the image of the state as a coherent and unitary actor spread through current studies. For instance, the utilization of “autonomy” with “capacity” to illustrate as well as appraise the state accepts a unitary, discrete and intentioned actor. This study is of the view that an anthropomorphic conceptualization of the state as a political instrument that could intentionally put together consistent objectives and would then be active to its implementation of policy preferences. In the “statist” literature in particular, the state was frequently evaluated on the basis of its ability to make decisions autonomously from various social as well as market forces in addition to its ability to essentially put into operation its decision across every sector of the market or economy24. Similarly and in spite of their negative response of the state as any fixed political entity or a unitary player, political thoughts from the developing countries have frequently operationalised the state to be a precise institution and have move further to make an evaluation of states with regards to what they are capable or doing and what they are not able to do, and with particular emphasis on the state’s ability to implement principles of market advantage, within the confines of the territory which is has control over25. Keynesian theories would be impropriate to be applied in post communist states for the simple reason that such states have multiple actors, both internal and external, who are putting all stakes to have the greatest influence over the market. Keep in mind that leader, business organizations, multinationals and even individuals wield a lot of influence on the organs of the state and will want to exert pressure on how the market should be controlled by the state. The reality in today’s political economic context is that there is not a single agent that can claim to have uniform control over what obtains in the market sector. What is more to this is that the actions through which a state shows its control are neither centralized nor coherent. Most emerging economies will therefore be said to have multiple sources of control within different capabilities as well as different degrees of influence. Keep in mind that agents who have control over sectors of the market that are economically significant such as natural resources and manufacturing crucial to the country’s existing market, often exert considerably control in the state-building process than agents who have power over less vital sectors. A glaring case is the case of Eastern Europe where the post-communist state-building process strengthens the more modern efforts to disaggregate the state rationally into actors at a variety of levels of decision-making as well as administration26. Another assumption that Keynes raises, and which is more related to the above, is that there is clear border between the state and the market, logically, if not empirically. There are so many new theories of the formation of states and they challenge the above position. A good example is their argument that the principal objective of every state builder is to set up and maintain an apparent distinction between what makes up the state as well as what makes up the market. One thing worthy of note is that most theorists after Keynes took for granted the reality of such a border27. If truth be told, implied postulation of an obvious border between the state and society or the market lies beneath functionalist28 in addition to constructivist29 meanings of the state. It also permeates the literature on the meaning of states within developing economies, which over and over again, gives emphasis to the responsibility of society as well as the market in obstructing or making possible, the progress of the growth of an effective state30. Scholars who uphold the view that state and market should be assessed as entirely distinct bodies treat the state as a single agent that freely situates itself contained by the market in an effort to revolutionize the market or accomplish its policy objectives, which obviously is economic growth31. Yet the state and the market should stay disconnected as challenging agents engaged in the fight for supremacy32. It is therefore impossible to erase that distinction between the state and the market in post communist as well as developing economies unlike the case of the developed world where it is impossible to erase the distinction between state and market33. Given the present political dispensation in most post communist and developing countries, it is sometimes right to say that no sufficient time has become apparent for a comprehensible division between state and market to materialize as well as consolidate34. For this reason, it is impossible for us to complete assume that the state is clearly a separate entity from the market The investigative focal point of early studies of the state was based on an ordinary set of recognized institutions that had been developed throughout the years. This was still obtained at the time of Keynes. In those ordinary set of recognized institutions, there was the existence of rules as well as established bodies that were meant for the application and regulation of these rules. This does not however mean that the market or state at this time was void of informal practices. Likewise, there was an assortment of informal organizations. During the days of the existence of formal institutions, it was an understandable issue if the state could impose itself on the market and override market values. Keep in mind that this was considered legitimate authority of the states because the state was urgently in need of this for the sake of its citizens. An example was the use of resources to defend territories or to acquire new territories. Another issue that was common was that these formalized institutions were the only institutions that were visible. It was almost unheard of to talk of informal institutions. However, there has been a gradual sweep of change. For example, in the post-communist world, the concept of change is fast and distinguished not by the institution or establishment of formal institutions, but by a combination of the formal as well as the informal35. With regards to the developing world and in a good number of cases, the point of departure is not the non-existence of a central administration but a subsistence of an all-embracing and politicized state machinery, in which there is both infrastructural as well as coercive authority at its disposal and this has existed for more than five decades36. In many countries of eastern Europe, there was an inheritance of complicated and tough set of informal structures as well as rules that were often made use of by political leaders, business leaders and even individuals37. Within the developing world, there is a recognition of some form of formal structures as seeds sown from colonialism and these have gone a long way to establish the foundations on which their moderns states rests on38. The situation is a bit different in Eastern Europe where elites fighting for political assertion still make recourse to these informal structures and this is often a constraint on effective state building. In the days of Keynes, state-builders also had to be confronted with pressures from within and without and they had to build up strong armies as well as establish a strong market39. Economic alliances were also formed. The emphasis today is on the capability to fight economically, which regularly mandates definite representative in addition to market institutions. This will mean institutions dependable on an egalitarian political system, market economy, free market that guarantees property rights and restrict voracious rulers40. Different countries today may look at the Keynesian theory of a formalized system of government and the market in completely different ways. This is because their starting points are remarkably different. For example, external demands on states to democratize can persuade elites to put up state institutions, for instance, electoral rules along with a parliamentary system, that are officially democratic but these institutions may be time and again and calculatingly be destabilized by overriding informal practices41. Keynesianism and the Great Depression In 1926 in the End of Laissez faire Keynes illustrated that capitalism depended on a passionate demand to the money-making and money-loving characteristics of people to be the thriving force behind the ‘force of the economic machine’ and ‘love of money’, ‘one of the most powerful of human motives’ which ‘is harnessed to the task of distributing economic resources in the way best calculated to increase wealth …acting through the pursuit of profit, as an adjutant to natural selection, to bring about the production on the greatest possible scale of what is most strongly desired as measured by exchange value’42. Later on in the Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, relating a potential world without economic concerns delineated, Keynes wrote “The love of money as a possession - as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life - will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental diseases”43. Similar to Freud, Keynes foresaw the quest for money as a mode of guiding insistent desires “Dangerous human proclivities can be canalised into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for money-making and private wealth, which if they cannot be satisfied in this way, may find their outlet in cruelty, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self-aggrandisement. It is better that a man should tyrannise over his bank balance than over his fellow-citizens; and whilst the former is sometimes denounced as being but a means to the latter, sometimes at least is an alternative”44, and, money the, ‘subtle device for linking the present to the future’45, what's more is a safeguard in opposition to fear of insecurity and death. He stated the “Our desire to hold money as a store of wealth is a barometer of the degree of our distrust of our calculations and conventions concerning the future. Even though this feeling about money is itself conventional or instinctive, it operates, so to speak at a deeper level of our motivation. It takes charge at the moments when the higher more precarious conventions have weakened. The possession of actual money lulls our disquietude”46. To have a better understanding how Keynes is related to the great depression, it is foremost to make mention of the fact that Keynes is often referred to as the "father of modern economics" for the reason that Keynes became the first economist to explain the causes and alleviations for recessions and depressions. He advocated that there must always be a circular flow of money. Money flows in a system where the spending of every one becomes the earning of everyone and vise versa and there are all probabilities that this circular flow can weaken. When this weakens, there is a tendency for people to begin accumulating money, which may lead to recession. Even if the central bank decides to expand the supply of money, people will not be deterred at accumulating money. The best for the government to do at such times is "priming the pump" of the economy, a term Keynes used to refer to government spending. Resurgence of Keynes – The Current Financial Crises “The fact is – a fact not yet recognized by the great public – that we are now in the depth of a very sever international slump, a slump which will take its place in history amongst the most acute ever experienced. It will require not merely passive movements of bank rates to lift us out of the depression of this order, but a very active determined policy”47. The meaning of these words by Keynes himself resonates in the mind of every scholar or ardent reader of this subject as being what is presently being experienced. Farmer supports this view of the relevance of Keynesianism in the re-conceptualization of optimum relationship between state and market when he writes on the topic. According to Farmer “As the world economy spirals into a deep recession, Keynesian economics has once more become fashionable”48. In 1931, Keynes wrote: “If today a really conservative valuation were made of all doubtful assets, quite a significant proportion of the banks of the world would be found to be insolvent; and with the further progress of deflation, this proportion will grow rapidly. (…) It is obvious that the present trend of events cannot go much further without something breaking”49. Nobody would have imagined the resurgence of Keynesianism with regards to relationship between the state and the market. How Does Keynesianism Explain The Occurrence Of The Financial Crises? To begin with, Leijonhufvud’s (2009b) explanation of the economic environment on the advent of the financial crisis is a very appropriate departure to explain how the current financial crisis is connected to the ‘love of money’50. As soon as leverage goes on the increase, everyone begins to pay with credit. It becomes easy for everyone to get into the market. As profits are made, more and more people are attracted into the market and the cycle moves on. For a time being, securitization of loans with credit default substitutions only serves up to murky rising risk. Even those who are sceptical about following the order of the day are forced to follow the crowd, for fear of being kicked out of the market. They jump in, void of fear of the rising risks. It becomes extremely difficult to refuse to go along with every other person. Any government intrusion will be severely challenged. And as rising risk climb steadily.”…the financial system as a whole becomes steadily more fragile until eventually it is so fragile that when it finally breaks it can be difficult to identify what exactly made it happen”51. because of securitization, it became easy and convincingly to give out loans. Loans officers and bank managers were greedily pushed by the “love for money” because of the bonuses they expected to take home. Conclusion Keynes did not write without advocating remedies to the current financial crises. As far back an 1926, Keynes was well aware what such an unfettered laissez-fare, with particular emphasis on banking and finance might cause to the world. This is the more reason why some post Keynesians such as Dorstaler (1999) found inherent in Keynesianism, a censure of laissez-faire52. In his essay, The end of laissez-faire in which he states that the limit of laissez-faire are very much pertinent with regards to the current financial crises. He observed that: “Many of the greatest economic evils of our time are the fruits of risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. It is because particular individuals, fortunate in situation or in abilities, are able to take advantage of uncertainty and ignorance, and also because for the same reason big business is often a lottery, that great inequalities of wealth come about; (…) Yet the cure lies outside the operations of individuals; it may even be to the interest of individuals to aggravate the disease”53. Keynes goes further to advocate that “I believe that the cure for these things is partly to be sought in the deliberate control of the currency and of credit by a central institution, and partly in the collection and dissemination on a great scale of data relating to the business situation (…) Even if these measures prove insufficient, nevertheless, they will furnish us with better knowledge than we have now for taking the next step. My second example relates to savings and investment. I believe that some coordinated act of intelligent judgement is required as to the scale on which it is desirable that the community as a whole should save, the scale on which these savings should go abroad in the form of foreign investments, and whether the present organization of the investment market distributes savings along the most nationally productive channels. I do not think that these matters should be left entirely to the chances of private judgement and private profits, as they are at present”54. Keynes therefore believes that time should not be wasted for cosmetic interventions except for purposeful currency management which should be done by the state. This will call for a major rigid attempt which ought to be championed by two agents of development, the state and the market, calling for appropriateness in the re-conceptualization of the state and the market. Perhaps, this is the only way to rein laissez-faire. The state and the market should join forces to battle the largest economic burst of this century, relying of the theories of John Maynard Keynes as a starting point. Little wonder therefore, while since the 1930s, there has been the use of fiscal policies by the state to create an effective market. Should Keynes insights on political economy be relied upon to re-conceptualize optimal relationships between the state and the market? The answer would therefore be in the affirmative. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, The State and Social Transformation; Jackson and Rosberg, “Why Africa’s Weak States Persist”; Atul Kohli, The State and Poverty in India: The Politics of Reform (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); and Migdal, Strong States and Weak Societies. Boldrin M., D. K. Levine, 2009 ‘All the Interesting Questions, Almost All the Wrong Reasons’, contained in L. Pecchi, G. Piga (eds) Revisiting Keynes. Economic possibilities for our grandchildren, Ch. 12, pp. 151-68 CHICK V., G. TILY, 2004‚ ‘Transfiguration and Death: Keynes’s Monetary Theory’ available at www.uwe.ac.uk/bbs/aheconference/Papers/Chick-Tily.doc Dostaler G., (1999) “Keynes and economics: the early stages”, UQAM Economics Department, Working paper series No. 9901, January Emile Durkheim, Durkheim on Politics and the State (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986) Eric A. Nordlinger, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981); Krasner, Defending the National Interest; and Skocpol, “Bringing the State Back In.” Farmer R., 2009a “Confidence, crashes and animal spirits”, NBER Working Paper Series, 13, 2009b “Why Keynes was right and wrong and why it matters”, Financial Times, May 27, 2009 F Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (I960) p 21 Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009 ‘The End of (Economic) History’, contained in Pecchi and Piga (2009), Ch. 11, pp. 151-60 Friedman H.H., and Friedman, L.W. 2009. ‘The Global Financial Crisis of 2008: What Went Wrong?’, Working paper, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1356193 Garrison, Roger W. 1986. “From Lachmann to Lucas: On Institutions, Expectations, and Equilibrating Tendencies.” In Subjectivism, Intelligibility, and Economic Understanding. Israel M. Kirzner, ed. New York: New York University Press. Pp.87–101.. 2001. Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure. New York: Routledge. Grzegorz Ekiert, The State against Society: Political Crises and Their Aftermath in East Central Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). Harrod, The Nation (1972), p. 469 John P. Nettl, “The State as a Conceptual Variable,” World Politics 20, no. 4 (July 1968): 559-92. Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, Selected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1968); and Bob Jessop, State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in Their Place (University Park: Penn State Press, 1990). Keynes J.M 1926, The End Of Laissez-Faire, London, Hogarth Press, Reproduced In Collected Writings vol. 9, Pp. 272-94 Keynes J.M, 1930 ‘Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren’, Nation And Athenaeum, 48, 11 And 18 October, 36-37, 96-8, Reproduced In Collected Writings vol. 9, Pp. 321-32 Keynes J.M, 1931 ‘The Consequences To The Banks Of The Collapse Of Money Values’, Reproduced In Collected Writings Vol. IX, Pp. 168-78 Keynes J.M, 1936, The General Theory Of Employment, Interest And Money, London, Macmillan, p. 374 Keynes J.M, 1937 ‘The General Theory Of Employment’, Quarterly Journal Of Economics, Vol. 51, February, Pp. 209-23, Reproduced In Collected Writings Vol. XIV, p. 116 Keynes J.M, 1938 ‘Letter to Harrod’, Reproduced In Collected Writings Vol. XIV, pp. 300 Leijonhufvud A., 2008 “Keynes and the crisis”, CEPR Policy Insight No. 23, Leijonhufvud A., 2009b “Spreading the Bread Thin on the Butter”, contained in L. Pecchi, G. Piga (eds) Revisiting Keynes. Economic possibilities for our grandchildren, Ch. 7, pp. 127-34 Lisa Anderson, The State and Social Transformation in Tunisia and Libya, 1830- 1980 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); Malkiel B.G., 2003 “The efficient market hypothesis and its critics” , CEPs Discussion Paper No. 91, January Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982); and Douglass North and Barry Weingast, “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in 17th Century England,” Journal of Economic History 49, no. 4 (1989): 803-32. Meltzer, A. 2009 Review ‘Revisting Keynes: economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren’, History of Political Economy, vol. 41, pp760-762 Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 2 (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1993), chap. 3, for details. Migdal, Strong States and Weak Societies; and Thomas M. Callaghy, The State Society Struggle: Zaire in Comparative Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984). Ohanian, L.E. 2009 ‘Back to the Future with Keynes’, in chi and Piga (2009), Ch. 6 pp. 105-15 Pecchi L., G. Piga 2009, Revisiting Keynes: Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, New York, MIT Press, Princeton University Press Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995); and Vivienne Shue, The Reach of the State: Sketches of the Chinese Body Politic (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988) Phelps, E.S. 2009 ‘Corporatism and Keynes: His Philosophy of Grwoth’, contained in Pecchi and Piga (2009), Ch. 5, pp. 95-104 Robert Jackson and Carl Rosberg, “Why Africa’s Weak States Persist,” World Politics (October 1992): 1-24; and Lisa Anderson, “The State in the Middle East and North Africa,” Comparative Politics 20, no. 1 (October 1987): 1- Robinson, J. 2007. ‘Morality and economics’. Commencement Address. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from Economist’s View http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/morality-and-ec.html Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960); and Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956) S. N. Eisenstadt and Stein Rokkan, eds., Building States and Nations (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1973); and Charles Tilly, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975). Wray, L.R. 1992. “Alternative theories of the rate of interest.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 16(1): 69–89. Read More