YANG Yang;

• 1:Liaoning Provincial Party School of CPC

Abstract：

In the 1930s, when the Great Depression hit, Michal Kalecki and John Maynard Keynes respectively put forward their own theories of effective demand. This article starts from Michal Kalecki to compare the two economists, explore their disputes, and examine the similarities and differences. Regarding Kalecki and Keynes, due to different perspectives in existing literature, the understanding is naturally different. Kalecki's followers emphasize more on “Kalecki's criticism of Keynes”, thereby highlighting Kalecki's superiority. However, this is only one side of the coin; the other side is “Keynes' criticism of Kalecki”. Ignoring the latter aspect may lead researchers to have a biased evaluation of Kalecki. Kalecki and Keynes have differences in theoretical construction, argumentation methods, and ideology. Nevertheless, their relationship should be complementary rather than competitive. For researchers, what is truly important is how to integrate Kalecki and Keynes to enable economic theory analysis to have a more complete picture. This is the common intellectual legacy left by the two economists to future generations.

Key Words： Michal Kalecki;John Maynard Keynes;post Keynesian economics

Abstract:

Keywords:

Foundation:

Authors: YANG Yang;

References：

• 陈英.1993.卡莱斯基与凯恩斯论有效需求[J].南开经济研究，(5):34-39.CHEN Y.1993.Kalecki and Keynes on effective demand[J].Nankai Economic Studies,(5):34-39.(in Chinese) 樊弘.2018.凯恩斯和马克思关于资本积累、货币和利息理论的比较[J].政治经济学报，12(2):91-105.FAN H.2018.Keynes and Marx on the theory of capital accumulation,money and interest[J].The Chinese Journal of Political Economy,12(2):91-105.(in Chinese) 凯恩斯.2009.就业、利息和货币通论[M].重译本.北京：商务印书馆.(original language) KEYNES J M.1936.General theory of employment,interest and money[M].London:Macmillan. 克鲁格曼.2012.现在终结萧条![M].罗康琳，译.北京：中信出版社.(original language) KRUGMAN P.2012.End this depression now![M].New York:W.W.Norton & Company. 李帮喜，夏锦清.2019.新卡莱茨基经济学研究新进展[J].经济学动态，(11):97-111.LI B X,XIA J Q.2019.New research progress on Neo-Kaleckian economics[J].Economic Perspectives,(11):97-111.(in Chinese) 钱颖一，李强.2011.老清华的社会科学[M].北京：清华大学出版社.QIAN Y Y,LI Q.2011.Old Tsinghua social sciences[M].Beijing:Tsinghua University Press.(in Chinese) 琼·罗宾逊.1962.论马克思主义经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆.(original language) ROBINSON J.1947.An essay on Marxism economics[M].London:Macmillian Co.Ltd. 杨扬.2023a.卡莱斯基：一个“孤立”的经济学家——托普洛夫斯基的两卷本“卡莱斯基传”评述[J].政治经济学季刊，2(3):143-166.YANG Y.2023a.Michal Kalecki:An “isolated” economist—Review of the two-volume biography of Michal Kalecki by Jan Toporowski[J].Political Economy Quarterly,2(3):143-166.(in Chinese) 杨扬.2023b.卡莱斯基的支出配给评述[J].经济思想史研究，(1):81-96.YANG Y.2023b.Review of Kalecki's expenditure rationing[J].Research on Economic Thought,(1):81-96.(in Chinese) 杨扬.2024.投资、储蓄和融资再审视——20世纪80年代后凯恩斯经济学者之间争论的评述[J].政治经济学季刊，3(2):127-150.YANG Y.2024.Reassessment of investment,saving and finance—A review of the debate among Post-Keynesian economists in the 1980s[J].Political Economy Quarterly,3(2):127-150.(in Chinese) ASIMAKOPULOS A.1990.Kalecki and Keynes:Their correspondence[J].History of Political Economy,22(1):49-63. BRONFENBRENNER M.1976.Review of the intellectual capital of Michal Kale■ki,A study in economic theory and policy by G.R.Feiwel,L.R.Klein[J].The Journal of Economic History,36(2):464-466. BRUS W.1999.Great debt and a few grievances:A note on Michal Kalecki as my adopted mentor[J].Review of Political Economy,11(3):257-260. ESHAG é.1977.Kalecki's political economy:A comparison with Keynes[J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,39(1):79-85. FEIWEL G R.1975.The intellectual capital of Micha? Kalecki:A study in economic theory and policy[M].Knoxville:University of Tennessee Press. FEIWEL G R.1989.The legacies of Kalecki and Keynes[M]//SEBASTIANI M.Kalecki's Relevance Today.London:Palgrave Macmillan:45-80. HARCOURT G,KRIESLER P.2011,The influence of Micha? Kalecki on Joan Robinson's approach to economics[M]//ARESTIS P.Microeconomics,macroeconomics and economic policy:Essays in honour of Malcolm Sawyer.London:Palgrave Macmillan:153-169. KALECKI M.1990.Collected works of Michal Kalecki.Vol.Ⅰ,Capitalism:Business Cycles and Full Employment[M].OSIATYNSKI J,ed.Oxford:Clarendon Press. KALECKI M.1991.Collected works of Michal Kalecki.Vol.Ⅱ,Capitalism:Business Cycles and Full Employment[M].OSIATYNSKI J,ed.Oxford:Clarendon Press. KALECKI M.1997.Collected works of Michal Kalecki Volume Ⅶ,Studies in Applied Economics 1940—1967 Miscellanea[M].OSIATYNSKI J,ed.Oxford:Clarendon Press. KEYNES J M.1939.Relative movements of real wages and output[J].The Economic Journal,49(193):34-51. KEYNES J M.1983.The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes:volume 12:Economic articles and correspondence:investment and editorial[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. KRIESLER P.2002.Was Kalecki an “imperfectionist”?Davidson on Kalecki[J].Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,24(4):623-629. ■.Michal Kalecki[J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,39(1):69-77. LóPEZ G J.2002.Two versions of the principle of effective demand:Kalecki and Keynes[J].Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,24(4):609-621. LóPEZ G J,ASSOUS M.2010.Michal Kalecki[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan. MARCUZZO M C,ROSSELLI A.2013.Economists in Cambridge:A study through their correspondence,1907—1946[M].London:Routledge. MINSKY H P.2013.The relevance of Kalecki:The useable contribution[J].PSL Quarterly Review,67(265):95-106. PASINETTI L L.2007.Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians:A ‘revolution in economics’ to be accomplished[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. ROBINSON J.1972.The second crisis of economic theory[J].The American Economic Review,62(1/2):1-10. ROBINSON J.1977a.Michal Kalecki on the economics of capitalism[J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,39(1):7-17. ROBINSON J.1977b.Portrait:Michal Kalecki[J].Challenge,20(5):67-69. ROBINSON J.1978.Contributions to modern economics[M].London:Academic Press. SAWYER M C.1985.Economics of Michal Kalecki[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan. SEBASTIANI M.1989.Long-period perspectives on unemployment in Kalecki and in Keynes[M]//SEBASTIANI M.Kalecki's Relevance Today.London:Palgrave Macmillan,81-97. STEINDL J.1981.A personal portrait of Michal Kalecki[J].Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,3(4):590-596. STEINDL J.1990.Economic papers 1941—88[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan. TOPOROWSKI J.2013.Micha? Kalecki:An intellectual biography:volume 1 rendezvous in Cambridge 1899—1939[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan. TOPOROWSKI J.2018.Micha? Kalecki:An intellectual biography:volume Ⅱ:by intellect alone 1939—1970[M].Cham:Palgrave Macmillan.
• (1)文章最初发表于1964年,后收录在罗宾逊夫人1978年的Contributions to Modern Economics。 (2)罗宾逊夫人1955年在印度德里大学经济学院(Delhi School of Economics)的讲座,收录在1978年的Contributions to Modern Economics。 (3)帕西内蒂(Luigi L.Pasinetti)在2007年《凯恩斯和剑桥凯恩斯主义》(Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesian)中写道:“(和凯恩斯相比),卡莱斯基是相当不同的,几乎和凯恩斯相同的时间,他(卡莱斯基)是在研究经济周期的宏观经济学时,相当独立地偶然发现了有效需求原理……但他基本上源自和发展了马克思的方法,卡莱斯基的情况不能称之为一个智力上的‘革命’。”(Pasinetti,2007,p.22n)帕西内蒂着重指出,凯恩斯《通论》改变了传统理论学说的方向,从交换转向生产,这是凯恩斯革命的深远意义,如果就这一点而言,那么很显然卡莱斯基不具有“革命性”。尽管如此,帕西内蒂承认:“这一(马克思)渊源可能很大程度上解释了他(卡莱斯基)被长期低估的原因,相比凯恩斯,不管怎样他(卡莱斯基)总是处在一个次要的位置。”(Pasinetti,2007,p.39n) (4)即卡莱斯基1936年发表在波兰经济学期刊Ekonomista的“凯恩斯理论的评述”(Some Remarks on Keynes's Theory)。由于是用波兰语发表的,这篇评述文章在当时没有产生影响,直到1982年被翻译成英语才被学界知晓,哈考特(Geoff Harcourt)对这篇文章的翻译厥功至伟。而且在哈考特看来,卡莱斯基1936年发表的对《通论》的评述文章“提供了卡莱斯基独立发现有效需求理论的更加毫无疑问的证据”(Harcourt and Kriesler,2011,p.155)。 (5)罗宾逊夫人指出了三点差异,前两点是关于投资决定的,后一点是关于收入分配的,后者将在下一节探讨。 (6)本文所引《通论》选自高鸿业译本原文。此处的“现在值”即为现值。 (7)徐毓枬(1913—1958),1935年毕业于清华大学经济系,之后留学英国剑桥大学,1940年获经济学博士学位,回国后执教于西南联大和清华大学,1952年院系调整后任北京大学经济系教授,1958年去世。《老清华的社会科学》中写道:“他是最早在剑桥大学获得经济学博士学位的中国人,听过凯恩斯等著名经济学家的课程,他当时还深受马克思主义的影响,与左翼经济学家琼·罗宾逊交往密切,他的毕业论文是研究大萧条对英国纺织工业的影响。”(钱颖一和李强,2011) (8)关于卡莱斯基剑桥研究,参见Toporowski(2013,chapter 13)以及Kalecki(1991,pp.253-255)。 (9)鲍利是剑桥研究计划监督委员会的成员。 (10)尽管不太为人所知,但卡恩是卡莱斯基剑桥时期的一个重要人物,他不仅极力帮助卡莱斯基寻求工作机会,而且也是卡莱斯基剑桥研究的批评者。当然,和罗宾逊夫人一样,卡恩也是卡莱斯基和凯恩斯之间联系的纽带。 (11)这里凯恩斯提到辛格或许是因为,卡莱斯基1938年在Economic Journal发表“布鲁姆实验的教训”之后,辛格对卡莱斯基的文章提出了反驳,这一反驳文章同样发表在Economic Journal。 (12)在1939年6月9日写给卡恩的一封信中,卡莱斯基写道:“在仔细考虑了您昨天告诉我的事情之后,我得出了明确结论,即我不应该留在剑桥继续下一年了……我不能冒这两年被认为是浪费的风险……完全的……我只是认为在研究结果不令人满意的情况下,我们必须得出结论……今年剩下的时间里,我应致力于整理已完成的研究,并对结果进行理论解释。”(Toporowski,2013,p.133) (13)在动态框架下,这一点与卡莱斯基对凯恩斯投资决定的批评在本质上是一致的。 (14)这篇文章发表在波兰经济学期刊Ekonomista,详细介绍参见Toporowski(2013,pp.69-71)。 (15)此外,很多学者关于卡莱斯基的回忆文章或多或少都会涉及卡莱斯基和凯恩斯之间的比较,例如Steindl(1981)等。 (16)由于其现实性,卡莱斯基1943年关于政治因素的文章无疑更加容易引起研究者的共鸣。例如,克鲁格曼(Paul Krugman)在其《现在终结萧条!》(End This Depression Now)中援引了卡莱斯基1943年文章之后写道:“我第一次读到这段话的时候,觉得它很极端,但是现在看起来它似乎合情合理。”(克鲁格曼,[2012]2012,p.96) (17)利平斯基(Edward Lipiński)在其回忆文章中指出:“对经济生活的现实观察使卡莱斯基形成了一种明显的过敏症……他不喜欢丰收,因为丰收会使计划者兴高采烈,如果这一喜悦出现在长期决策制定时,后果将是灾难性的。”(Lipiński,1977,p.75) (18)李帮喜和夏锦清(2019,p.97)写道:“但相比凯恩斯的思想,卡莱斯基更具‘革命性’。”两位作者是比较谨慎的,他们给革命性加上了引号。