ABSTRACT

This paper presents a methodological discussion of two recent ‘endogeneity critiques’ of the Kaleckian model and the concept of distribution-led growth. From a neo-Keynesian perspective, it is criticized because it treats distribution as quasi-exogenous, while in Skott (2017. Weaknesses of ‘wage-Led growth.’ Review of Keynesian Economics, 5(3), 336–359), distribution is viewed as endogenously determined by a series of (exogenous) institutional factors and social norms, and therefore one should focus on these instead of the functional distribution of income per se. The paper discusses how abstraction is used in science and economics, and uses the criteria proposed by Lawson (1989. Abstraction, tendencies and stylised facts: A realist approach to economic analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 13(1), 59–78) and Mäki (1992. On the method of isolation in economics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 26, 19–54; 1994. Isolation, idealization and truth in economics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 38, 147–168) for what constitutes an appropriate abstraction. Based on this discussion, it concludes that the criticisms are weak, although some of the issues raised by Skott provide some interesting directions for future work within the Kaleckian framework.

摘要

本文介绍了对Kaleckian模型的两个最近的“内生性批判”以及分布导向的增长概念的方法论性讨论。从新凯恩斯主义的角度来看，它受到批评是因为它把分配视为准外生的，而在斯科特（2017年，《工资主导型增长的弱点》，凯恩斯主义经济学评论，5（3），336–359），分布被认为是由一系列（外在）制度因素和社会规范内生决定的，因此人们应该关注这些因素，而不是收入本身的功能分配。本文讨论了科学和经济学中如何使用抽象，并使用了Lawson（1989）提出的标准。抽象，趋势和程式化的事实：一种现实主义的经济分析方法。剑桥经济学杂志，13（1），59-78）和希（1992在隔离的经济学方法波兹南研究，在科学的哲学与人文，26，19-54; 1994隔离，理想化和真理经济学。波兹南研究在科学哲学与人文，38，147-168）什么构成一个合适的抽象。基于此讨论，可以得出结论，批评是微弱的，尽管Skott提出的一些问题为Kaleckian框架内的未来工作提供了一些有趣的方向。