Monetary Policy and Income Distribution: The Post-Keynesian and Sraffian Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the post-Keynesian and Sraffian perspectives on the relationship between monetary policy and income distribution, highlighting their endogenous demand-led money approach and rejection of the neutrality of interest rates, and monetary policy as tool of redistribution among social classes. Both approaches acknowledge that the central bank can influence interest rates and hence, the functional distribution of income. These shared ideas recognize the political nature of interest rates and the distributive impacts of monetary policy. Although all are crucial common points, some differences persist; PK theory often emphasizes the impact of monetary policy on rentiers vs. non-rentier classes, while Sraffians focus more on wage earners vs. non-wage earners. Further, while PK theorists advocate for alternative monetary policy rules, Sraffians favor discretionary policy tailored to each economy's unique institutional framework. The paper concludes by suggesting that these shared critical conceptions, despite minor differences, should stimulate collaborative efforts to further develop heterodox theories of monetary policy and income distribution.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".