Similitudes and Discrepancies in Post‐Keynesian and Marxist Theories of Investment: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a substantial amount of convergence between post‐Keynesian and Marxist economics, the writings of Kalecki being common ground for both traditions. Still, some differences remain. While authors in both traditions seem to agree to a large extent on short‐period issues, long‐period matters relating to the role of saving, the rate of profit, inflation, crowding out, excess money supply, are still contentious. All this seems to depend on the exact form taken by the investment function, more specifically the role of capacity utilization. Four different equations are set up to be tested, two of which correspond to two variants of the Marxist view, while the other two equations correspond to a naive and a sophisticated Kaleckian view, the latter being based on hysteresis. The equations are tested on three sets of annual Canadian data. Various statistical tests are applied to all four equations in an effort to rank them, notably information and encompassing tests. The Kaleckian equation with hysteresis generally comes out empirically with the preferred statistical properties, when manufacturing data on actual rates of capital accumulation are considered separately or when both realized and intended rates of investment for the total industrial sector are used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it