Trwająca właściwie do dzisiaj dyskusja na temat przyczyn wielkiego kryzysu z okresu międzywojennego pokazuje, jak trudno sformułować na tego typu pytania odpowiedzi, które znalazłyby powszechną akceptację. Kryzysy, szczególnie o takiej skali, jak wspomniany wcześniej wielki kryzys z lat 30., bądź ten, którego końca obecnie wypatrujemy, prowadzą do intensywnie zadawanych pytań "dlaczego", głównie chyba z tego powodu, że pojawienie się takich zjawisk nie było oczekiwane (przynajmniej przez ekonomię głównego nurtu i opartą na niej politykę gospodarczą). Dla wielu obserwatorów oznacza to oczywiście słabości i braki tworzących ten główny nurt koncepcji i modeli ekonomicznych. Odkrywanie przyczyn kryzysów, również tego ostatniego, nie jest jednak zadaniem prostym, także i z tego powodu, że kryzys ma złożoną naturę. Co więcej, chęć zachowania poprawnej metodyki badań ekonomicznych w poszukiwaniu odpowiedzi na pytanie o przyczynę oznacza najprawdopodobniej, że odpowiedź ta musi mieć postać zestawu stosunkowo wielu odpowiedzi na pytania o skutki zjawisk podejrzewanych o bycie przyczynami kryzysu.
EN
The more progressive of current trends in economics and policymaking outlined in the paper reflect a welcome shift away from the entrenched practice of positing and proving abstruse macroeconomic models and articulating the anticipated consequences of policy decisions, and towards an approach that sets out to more rigorously identify the causality underlying economic phenomena and, more importantly, contribute in a meaningful way to resolving pressing practical problems. This is cause for guarded optimism because as the ongoing debate on the causal factors behind the current, persistent crisis continues to expose the gaps and inadequacies of mainstream economic models and concepts, so too is a re-examination of the State's regulatory impact on the financial sector taking place. Notable in this regard is questioning the validity of such pre-crisis legislation-shaping assumptions as financial market efficiency, as well as positing that banking sector regulations should be differentiated across varying categories of bank operating models, or applying to the introduction of new financial instruments procedures modeled after regulatory mechanisms that govern the pharmaceutical industry's marketing of drugs. The caveat downgrading the degree of optimism comprises such factors as the lethargic pace of introduction of the European banking union, regulatory divergence between the US and Europe, as well as the sluggish pace and varied scope of adopting Basel III solutions across jurisdictions.
Despite successive failures in its application the incomes policy as a tool in the fight with inflation is an object of animated discussion in the USA both among economic theoreticians and in wide social circles. A comparative analysis performed in the article on two different attitudes to the question of J. K. Calbralth and Milton Friedman allows to state that apart from theoretical differences In the discussion on adaptability of the incomes policy of great significance are ideological differences consisting in different approaches to the most important problems of the contemporary capitalism, its prospects and directions of structural transformations. The article consists of three parts. The first part contains a basic set of information including a definition of the incomes policy and discussion of the most typical ways in which its application is theoretically justified. The second part encompasses presentation of the postwar episodes in application of the incomes pollcy; government "guidelines" from the period 1962-1968, Nixon's New Economic Policy as well as "principles" of procedure in the sphere of wages and prices announced by Jimmy Carter in 1978 and being in force till 1980. Finally, in the third part Calbralth's and Friedman's views are confronted which is followed by summing-up of analysis and formulation of conclusion, and here especially conclusions concerning the character of causes accounting for different views on the analyzed problem.
The model of a competitive market with the Walrasian auctioneer is the starting point and a basic element of neoclassical theory. In spite of a number of modifications it has in principle been relevant till today. Keynes abandoned the analysis in Walrasian categories, pointing out that it is incorrect both to limit the analysis to trade-off effects of changes in price relations and to reduce the analysis of social relations to conditions of general equilibrium in a competitive economy. However, he did not reject - probably not without reasons - the homo economicus paradigm. He stopped half way in his work on restructring the market theory, which gave his followers different interpretation possibilities. Referring among others to the writings of M. Kalecki and J. Robinson, post-Keynesianism departed from neoclassical microeconomics and adopted as the starting point of reflections the model of the oligopolistic market where the inflation rate replaced the price relations as the key category. Neo-Keynesianism (R. Clower, A. Leijonhufvud) attempts to derive Keynesian macroeconomic implications from essentially neoclassical microeconomic bases. The teoretical core of that direction is the hypothesis of dual decisions within the framework of which on the adopted assumptions of high costs of information acquisition and a non-auction procedure of search, the market coordination o f actions of economic units breaks down. Communication between representatives of neo- and post-Keynesianis is, however, fairly limited because of the essentially different frames of analysis, which hinders progress in building a market model which would be both realistic and theoretically satisfactory.
The article presents basic theses at monetarism both in the sphere of economic theory end policy. As the author is interested, first of all, in outlining differences in relation to the contemporary Keyneaiam the article does not discuss in an exhaustive, manner the internally hierarchized structure of monetaristic views with the main attention being focused on problems accounting for a distinct character of the presented trend.
This study contains a review and presentation of critical analysis of the concepts explaining the nature and causes of inflation in the contemporary capitalism, which prevail in the Anglo-American literature. The first chapters discus s both " traditional concepts of inflation" i .e . demand and cost inflation. They both derive from the same Keynesian theoretical roots , and they interpret - in the author ’s opinion - inflationary phenomena in a rather complementary than mutually exclusive way. Discussions among supporters of both concepts constituted a fundamental issue in inflation theories of the sixties . Later on, the polemics were focused around the so-called Phillips ' curve and different interpretations of the unemployment-inflation trade-off . Accordingly, consecutive chapters of the study have been devoted to discussion of these problems. The monetarist hypothesis of natural unemployment rate is opposed to Philips’ curve, which from the illustration of statistical correlation was transformed (not quite accurately) in to an important element of the Keynesian employment and inflation theory. The former represents a contemporary version of neoclassical vision of the self – regulating market economy. The essence of a controversy in the inflation theory of the last few years lies in confrontation of Keynesianiam and neoclassical economy represented by the monetarism. Quite a big digression has been made when discussing the latest trend in studies on inflation - analysis of inflationary expectations. The study ends with final remarks, in which the author has outlined basic elements of model within the framework of which ( in the author ’s opinion) there should be analyzed the causes and the very essence of inflation. This model carries some features of a structural approach, and cooperation of its following elements: ( 1 ) monopolistic marked structures , ( 2 ) massive economic intervention of the state and its integral part - the system of paper money, and ( 3 ) all major dynamic processes accounts for creation and consolidation of inflationary processes.
In this article the author describes the evolution of theoretical views appearing in Western economy on the relationship between inflation and unemployment, and makes an attempt at commenting on and evaluating basic points of controversy against the background of the present economic problems faced by higly-developed capitalist states. There is discussed the concept based on the so-called Phillip's curve with a special emphasis laid on its theoretical and practical significance, - and the hypothesis of "natural unemployment rate", which while constituting the nert interpretation of the inflation-unemployaent relationship, is deeply rooted in the neo-classical theory. As a kind of digression the author describes the thesis presented by M. Friedman in 1976 about a positive correlation between the unemployment level and the Inflation rate. The author perfores a confrontation of the main views on the subject in question i. e. of the doctrine based on Phillip's curve, considered today to be a counterpart of Keynes' theory of wages and eaployment, and the natural concept of the unemployment rate being a contemporary version of the position held by the neo- -classical economy. A special attention is devoted to the fact that both Keynes' and neo-classical approach to the unemployment and full employment problems do not create a satisfactory framework for analysis of significant phenomena occurring in the labour market in capitalist states - and namely creation of a substantial unemployment margin of structural character.
The following theses of the research method adopted by M. Friedman arouse major doubts: — falsification ot hypotheses constitutes the only tost of their truthfulness, — main role of the theory consists in formulating forecasts. The principle of falsification „through implications" means that realism of assumptions of theoretical hypotheses remains outside the framework of the verification procedure, which — taking into account practical difficulties in comparing forecasts and implications of hypotheses with the economic reality resulting from the very essence of economic sciences — causes that a danger arises of transforming a scientific theory into an unquestionable economic doctrine. In turn, stressing the exclusive forecasting function of science implies abandoning attempts at explicating the reality, which consequently causes that we tend to deal with analysis not of cause-effect relationships but rather correlations, that cannot provide a basis for understanding phenomena. The knowledge obtained in this way is of necessity of „temporary” character and it arouses only limited confidence. In the case of the economic theory, wo are usual ly dealing then with lack of substantiation ot macroeconomic theories by solid macroeconomic foundations. Friedman does not try to conceal relationships between methodological deliberations and his economic doctrine. The aim of his research method is to facilitate defence of the two crucial elements of the neoclassical analysis — the profit maximization concepL and the perfect competition concept. They are more sensitive of critique ensuing from their direct confrontation with the reality while, on the other hand, it is much more difficult to underming them „through implications.
From among concepts explaining the sources of inflation, manuals of political economy list generally demand, cost, and quantitative (monetaristic) theories, which roughly corresponds to the structure of studies on this problem in the early sixties and naturally does not include, to any major extent, the scientific contributions of the last few years. The traditional approach has, among others, the following shortcomings: — Particular concepts are presented in isolation from the theoretical context; no attempts are made at confronting them with one another and distinguish the most important differences or similarities between them. — Manner of presentation of inflation problems fully omits the monetary aspect i.e. problem of financing price rises. The author proposes that the hitherto applied division should be replaced by another one, and mentions three basic concepts of inflation: — Keynesian concept based on Phillips curve. — Natural unemployment rate concept combining the monetaristic theory of inflation and unemployment. — Structural concepts representing the most consistent continuation of the costpush theory of inflation.
The problem of inflation bold a crucial position in Friedman'a works. According to him, intensifying inflationary trends constitute a major threat for the future of capitalism both as regards effectiveness of its economics functioning and prospects of undisturbed social development. Friedman's theory of inflation is represented, in fact, by the hypothesis about a natural unemployment rate, which combined with the neo-quantitetive theory of nominal income is to explain the mechanism and causes of a general growth of prices. In the final account, Friedman believes that the cause of inflation is an erroneous state policy permitting for appearance of an excessive quantity of money in circulation. Consequently the observance of the so-called monetary rule principle i.e. maintenance of a steady growth rate of money supply in circulation is considered by him to be the most appropriate policy of price stabilization.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.