Ésta entrada parte de lo escrito en éste texto/This post argues on the basis of the following text: A note on classical-keynesian long period method and technical change
Resumen
La presente nota la redacté a raíz de la visita de Jan Kregel a la Facultad de Economía de la UNAM, donde él mencionó que el enfoque de largo plazo clásico-keynesiano (LPM de ahora en adelante) no podía dar cuenta de la innovación, pues requería estabilidad. Mis argumentos principales contra ello son:
1.- Si se realiza una lectura cuidadosa, no apresurada, del enfoque clásico, se verá que su concepto de persistencia (cualidad clave de las fuerzas de largo plazo), no excluye el estudio de los cambios (entre éstos, el cambio tecnológico). (Secciones I y II del texto).
2.- En el estudio del cambio tecnológico, el LPM nos brinda una explicación de su origen, de lo que lo induce. Lo cual contrasta con el enfoque neo-Schumpeteriano donde se le ve como autónomo. (sección IV del texto).
-------
Abstract
Monday 21st May 2012, Jan Kregel gave a lecture in Mexico's UNAM (Mexico National Autonomous University) (http://t.co/HKod6lBH). He emphasized the role of uncertainty and disequilibrium as key features that a post-recession economic theory should embrace, which led me to ask him about how he visualized the alternative classical-Keynesian long period approach of exogenous distribution and effective demand (LPM from now on), he argued that, since this approach requires stability, it cannot account for technical change, unlike neo-Schumpeterian or evolutionist views; he mentioned Sylos Labini and Alessandro Roncaglia as authors who had emphasized the problems of LPM.
My main arguments against this are:
1.- A careful reading of LPM will show us that, correctly understanding its concept of persistency will allow us, in such approach, to view stability and change not as excluding forces, they can both exist in various points in time, only being separated as objects of study. Thus, technical change can be accounted for in LPM. (Sections I and II).
2.- LPM gives rise to a better understanding as to where technical change arises from. Unlike neo-Schumpeterian views, it doesn't leave it's origins in the vacuum. (Section IV).
-----
Otro texto muy util para éste tema es:
Another key paper for this topic.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario