Kaleckian Effective Demand and Sraffian Normal Prices: Towards a reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sraffians and Kaleckians alike reject the belief that higher rates of accumulation need be associated with lower real wage rates or higher propensities to save. The rejection of this proposition is mainly based on the endogeneity of the rate of capacity utilization, both in the short and the long run. This endogeneity often relies on a discrepancy between the realized and the normal rates of profit, or between the realized and the target rate of capacity utilization, a discrepancy which some authors believe is unwarranted in long run analysis. Various models that eliminate this divergence are outlined. In all these models, the normal rate of profit itself is taken as an endogenous variable. In the first two models, the normal rate of profit depends either on the realized profit rate or the rate of interest. Supply-led results may then reappear in long run analysis. In the last model, one introduces the possibility of a divergence between the rate of return as assessed and targeted by firms, and the rate of return that is actually incorporated into prices. This divergence arises because of the bargaining power of workers and their real wage resistance. Under these conditions, the demand-led results of the Kaleckian tradition are recovered in a model with definite solutions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".