## Abstract

One of the most debated questions in alternative macroeconomics regards whether demand policies have permanent or merely transitory effects. While demand matters in the long run in (neo-) Kaleckian economics, both economists operating within other Keynesian traditions (e.g. Skott 1989) as well as Classical economists Duménil and Levy (1999) argue that in the long-run output growth is constrained by an exogenous natural growth rate. This paper attempts to bridge the gap by analyzing the role of firm beliefs about the state of the economy in a labor-constrained growth and distribution model based on Kaldor (1956) and Goodwin (1967) that is also compatible with the evolutionary perspective on coordination (or the lack thereof) within markets by Metcalfe et al. (2006). The main innovation is the inclusion of beliefs about economic activity in an explicitly dynamic choice of capacity utilization at the firm level. We show that: (i) the relevance of such beliefs generates an inefficiently low utilization rate and labor share in equilibrium, but (ii) the efficient utilization rate can be implemented through fiscal policy. Under exogenous technical change, (iii) the inefficiency does not affect the equilibrium employment rate and growth rate, but expansionary fiscal policy has positive level effects on both GDP and the labor share. However, (iv) with endogenous technical change à la Verdoorn (1949), fiscal policy has also temporary growth effects. Finally, (v) the fact that the choice of utilization responds to income shares has a stabilizing effect on growth cycles, even under exogenous technical change, that is analogous to factor substitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

## Notes

- 1.
- 2.
However, Foley (1985) notes that reasons for these lags differ between Marx and Keynes. For Keynes, spending lags are due to speculation arising from changing expectations in conditions of fundamental uncertainty. For Marx, these spending lags—and thus the possibility of inadequate aggregate demand—result from liquidity and spending constraints inherent to the nature of capitalist production.

- 3.
Crotty (2019) similarly emphasizes the

*General Theory*’s contribution to*microeconomic*analysis: “[T]o understand Keynes’s thinking about the nature of financial markets, we must first understand the revolution he created in micro theory or the theory of agent choice, a revolution not recognized by or incorporated in Mainstream Keynesian theory or in neoclassical micro theory” (p.13). - 4.
Similar reasoning applies to the assumption of competitive firms: the results of the model do not depend on slow price adjustments, as Skott (2017) has argued to be the case in neo-Kaleckian growth models.

- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Setting

*τ*= 0 amount to impose a deficit-financed user cost subsidy. - 8.
We leave the evaluation of growth effects with fully endogenous technical change to future research.

- 9.
- 10.
The figure uses the same parameter calibration as the baseline model, plus a value of

*ϕ*that ensures a long-run growth rate of 3%. It is displayed for illustrative purposes, and it is not meant to argue that demand policies can boost labor productivity growth to over 12% as a literal interpretation of the figure would suggest. - 11.
The proof goes along the same lines as Proposition 4.

- 12.

## References

Arestis P (1996) Post-keynesian economics: Towards coherence. Camb J Econ 20:111–135

Azariadis C (1981) Self-fulfilling prophecies. J Econ Theory 25:380–396

Carabelli A (1988) On Keynes’s method. London: Macmillan

Cass D, Shell K (1983) Do sunspots matter? J Polit Econ 91:193–227

Colander D (ed) (1996) Beyond microfoundations: Post Walrasian macroeconomics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Cooper R, John A (1988) Coordinating coordination failures in Keynesian models. Quarterly Journal of Economics 103(3):441–463

Cooper R (1999) Coordination games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Cornwall J, Setterfield M (2002) A neo-Kaldorian perspective on the rise and decline of the golden age. In: Setterfield M (ed) The Economics of Demand-Led Growth: Challenging the Supply Side Vision of the Long Run. pp. 67–86. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

Crotty J (2019) Keynes against capitalism: His economic case for liberal socialism. New York: Routledge

Davidson P (1991) Is probability theory relevant for uncertainty? A post Keynesian perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1):129–143

Davidson P (1996) Reality and economic theory. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 18(4):479–508

Dosi G, Napoletano M, Roventini A, Treibich T (2017) Micro and macro policies in the Keynes-Schumpeter evolutionary models. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 27(1):63–90

Davis J (1993) Keynes’s philosophical development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Dornbush E (1976) Expectations and exchange rate dynamics. J Polit Econ 84:1161–1176

Duménil G, Levy D (1999) Being Keynesian in the short term and classical in the long term: The traverse to classical long-term equilibrium. Manchester School 67(6):684–716

Elster J (1989) Solomonic judgments: Studies in the limitations of rationality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Erixon L (2005) Combining Keynes and Schumpeter. Ingvar Svennilson’s contribution to the Swedish growth school and modern economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 15(2):187–210

Fatas A (2019) Fiscal policy, potential output and the shifting goalposts. Paper presented at the Euro 20 academic conference organized by the IMF and Bank of Ireland. Available at:. https://faculty.insead.edu/fatas/euro20.pdf

Foley DK (1985) Say’s law in Marx and Keynes. Cahiers d’economie politique 10-11:183–194

Foley DK (2003) Endogenous technical change with externalities in a classical growth model. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 52:167–189

Foley DK (2014) Varieties of keynesianism. International Journal of Political Economy 43(1):4–19

Foley DK, Michl TR, Tavani D (2019) Growth and distribution, Second edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Goodwin R (1967) A growth cycle.. In: Socialism, Capitalism, and Economic Growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Goodwin R (1991) Schumpeter, Keynes, and the theory of economic evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1(1):29–47

Greenwod J, Hercowitz Z, Huffman G (1988) Investment, capacity utilization, and the real business cycle. American Economic Review 78(3):402–417

Jones CI (1995) R&d-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 103(4):759–784

Jones CI (1999) Growth: with or without scale effects? American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings) 89(2):139–144

Julius AJ (2005) Steady state growth and distribution with an endogenous direction of technical change. Metroeconomica 56(1):101–125

Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Kaldor N (1956) Alternative theories of distribution. Review of Economic Studies 23(2):83–100

Keynes JM (1936) The General theory of employment, interest and money. London: MacMillan

Knell M (2015) Schumpeter, Minsky, and the financial instability hypothesis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 25(1):293–310

Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA

Lavoie M (1994) A post Keynesian approach to consumer choice. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 16(4):539–562

Lavoie M (2015) Post-Keynesian economics: New foundations. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA

Lima G, Setterfield M (2008) Inflation targeting and macroeconomic stability in a post Keynesian economy. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 30 (3):435–461

Metcalfe JS, Foster J, Ramlogan R (2006) Adaptive economic growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics 30:7–32

Metcalfe JS, Foster J (2010) Evolutionary growth theory. In: Setterfield M (ed) Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar

Michl TR (2017) Profit-led Growth and the stock market. Review of Keynesian Economics 5(1):61–77

Michl TR, Oliver KM (2019) Combating hysteresis with output targeting. Review of Keynesian Economics 7(1):6–27

Naastepad CWM (2006) Technology, demand and distribution: A cumulative growth model with an application to the Dutch productivity growth slowdown. Camb J Econ 30:403–434

Nell E (1998) The General theory of transformational growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Petach LA, Tavani D (2019) No one is alone: Strategic complementarities, capacity utilization, growth, and income distribution. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 50:203–215

Pissarides C (1985) Short-run equilibrium dynamics of unemployment, vacancies, and real wages. American Economic Review 75(4):676–690

Rada C (2007) Stagnation or transformation of a dual economy through endogenous productivity growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics 31:711–740

Rosser JrJ B (1997) Speculations on nonlinear speculative bubbles. Nonlinear Dynamics. Psychology, and Life Sciences 1:175–200

Rosser JrJ B (2001) Alternative Keynesian and post Keynesian perspectives on uncertainty and expectations. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 23 (4):545–566

Romer P (1987) Growth based on increasing returns due to specialization. American Economic Review 77:56–62

Sargent T (1993) Bounded rationality in macroeconomics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK

Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Setterfield M (2006) Thirlwall’s law and Palley’s pitfalls: a reconsideration. In: Arestis P, McCombie J, Vickerman R (eds) Growth and Economic Development: Essays in Honour of A.P. Thirlwall. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

Setterfield M (2018) Long-run variation in capacity utilization in the presence of a fixed normal rate. Cambridge Journal of Economics 43(2):443–463

Setterfield M, Arvitzer J (2019) Hysteresis in the normal rate of capacity utilization: A behavioral explanation. NSSR Working Paper, June, 2019

Shah A, Desai M (1981) Growth cycles with induced technical change. Economic Journal 91:1006–1010

Shackle GLS (1955) Uncertainty in economics and other reflections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Shackle GLS (1972) Epistemics and economics. A critique of economic doctrines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Shiller R (1989) Market volatility. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Shulman S (1997) What’s so rational about rational expectations? Hyperrationality and the logical limits to neoclassicism. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 20(1):135–148

Simon H (1955) A Behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1):99–118

Skott P (1989) Conflict and effective demand in economic growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Skott P (2010) Growth, instability and cycles: Harrodian and Kaleckian models of accumulation and income distribution. In: Setterfield M (ed) Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth. London, UK: Edward Elgar

Skott P (2012) Theoretical and empirical shortcomings of the Kaleckian investment function. Metroeconomica 63(1):109–138

Skott P (2017) Weaknesses of wage-led growth. Review of Keynesian Economics 5(3):336–359

Steindl J (1952) Maturity and stagnation in American capitalism. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

Svennilson I (1954) Growth and stagnation in the European economy. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva

Tavani D, Zamparelli L (2015) Endogenous technical change, employment and distribution in the Goodwin model of the growth cycle. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics 19(2):209–226

Tavani D, Zamparelli L (2017) Endogenous technical change in alternative theories of growth and distribution. Journal of Economic Surveys 31 (5):1272–1303

Tavani D, Zamparelli L (2018) Growth, income distribution, and the ‘entrepreneurial state.’ Journal of Evolutionary Economics 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-018-0555-7

Taylor L, Foley DK, Rezai A (2018) Demand drives growth all the Way: Goodwin, Kaldor, Pasinetti and the steady State. Cambridge Journal of Economics bey045. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bey045

Thaler R (1994) The winner’s curse: Paradoxes and anomalies in economic life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

van der Ploeg R (1985) Classical growth cycles. Metroeconomica 37(2):221–230

Verdoorn PJ (1949) Fattori che regolano lo sviluppo della produttività del lavoro. L’Industria 1:3–10

Vickers D (1978) Financial markets in the capitalist process. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

## Acknowledgments

We thank participants at the 2018 Analytical Political Economy Workshop, Renzo Cavalieri, and Luca Zamparelli for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. Addressing comments by two anonymous Referees greatly improved the paper. All errors are ours.

## Author information

### Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Ethics declarations

###
**Conflict of interests**

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

## Additional information

### Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Appendices

### Appendix A: The capitalists’ optimization problem

Suppose that the representative capitalist household has logarithmic preferences over consumption streams, and discounts the future at a constant rate *ρ* > 0. Then, the household solves:

Observe first that this problem involves a strictly concave objective function to be maximized over a convex set. Thus, with co-state variable *μ*(*t*), the standard first-order conditions on the associated current-value Hamiltonian

will be necessary and sufficient for an optimal control. They are:

Solving (24) for the rate of utilization under the specific functional form (1) gives equation (3). To obtain the Euler equation for consumption, differentiate (23) with respect to time and use (23) and (25) to get:

Using both equations (3) and (1) while imposing a balanced growth path where consumption and capital stock grow at the same rate gives equation (4).

### Appendix B: The efficient solution

A benevolent planner solves the accumulation problem under the additional constraint that \(u=\tilde u\) at all times. Accordingly, the control problem (22) is solved under the modified accumulation constraint, omitting the time-dependence for notational simplicity:

The first-order condition on consumption is the same as (23) above. On the other hand, the choice of utilization and the co-state equation satisfy the first-order conditions which, once again, are necessary and sufficient for an optimal control:

Solving equation (28) for utilization gives (13). To obtain the efficient accumulation rate (14), simply impose balanced growth (*g*_{c} = *g*_{K}).

### Appendix C: Stability analysis

### C.1 Equilibrium path: Proof of Proposition 2

The Jacobian Matrix evaluated at a steady state has the following structure:

Thus, it has a negative trace and a positive determinant. It follows that its eigenvalues are of the same sign and sum to a negative number, which can only occur if they both have uniformly negative real parts. We conclude that the steady state is locally stable.

### C.2 Efficient path

The Jacobian Matrix evaluated at the efficient steady state is:

again, with negative trace and positive determinant, so that the efficient steady state is locally stable, too.

### Appendix D: Proofs

###
**Proposition 3**

Consider that that, using (5) and (13),

since 0 < *γ* < 1 − *β* by assumption.

###
**Proposition 4**

Showing that *ω*^{∗} > *ω* is tantamount to showing that \(\ln (1-\omega )-\ln (1-\omega ^{*})>0\). We have that

and

Hence, the difference *D*_{ω} increases in *γ* provided that the term in brackets is negative. This is certainly true under 0 < *γ* < 1 − *β*, since \(\partial \ln (1-\beta -\gamma )/\partial \gamma <0\).

###
**Proposition 5**

First, observe that the first-order necessary condition for the choice of utilization with the tax and subsidy solves for the firm-level utilization as

Imposing the equilibrium condition \(u=\tilde u\), we find

The comparison with Equation (13) makes it clear that *s* = *γ* achieves the efficient utilization rate.

To prove the second claim, differentiate Equations (31) and (30) (after taking logs for simplicity) with respect to the subsidy *s* to see that

The size of the fiscal multiplier *m* can be recovered by dividing the aggregate response by the individual response. We have that

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Tavani, D., Petach, L. Firm beliefs and long-run demand effects in a labor-constrained model of growth and distribution.
*J Evol Econ* (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00680-w

Published:

### Keywords

- Beliefs
- Capacity utilization
- Factor shares
- Growth cycles

### JEL Classification

- D25
- E12
- E22
- E25
- E62