2013년 1월 17일 목요일

[발췌] From Giblin to Kalecki: The Export Multiplier And the Balance of Payments Constraint On Economic Growth, 1930-1933

지은이: John King


※ 검색 메모:

R.F. Kahn이 그의 Making of Keynes's General Theory 중 승수에 대해 언급한 부분들:
  1. "It is remarkable that the inspired guess of Keynes and Henderson, they made no estimate of the 'multiplier'the ratio of the total additional employment(primary and secondary) to the primary employment"
  2. "He[Kahn] estimated that in Britain the figure lay between 0.56 and 0.94 'and I suggested that the adoption of 0.75 would be erring in the direction of under-statement'" (다른 출처에서 칸을 부분적으로 명시 인용한 부분)
여기서 the figure = multiplier라고 보면 말이 안 됨. (1차적 고용+2차적 고용)/1차적 고용은 1보다 커야 하기 때문. 분명히 the figure는 multiplier와 다른데, 위와 같이 부분 인용하면서 쓴 저자가 중간 맥락을 잘라먹었을 것으로 추정.

※ 발췌:


(...) Strictly speaking, Kahn's [multiplier] is not an export multiplier at all, for it traces the effects of increased government expenditure on public works; moreover Kahn focuses on changes in the level of employment, not (like Giblin) on income. However, Kahn does integrate import leakages into his model, and for that reason it is relevant here. 
  • He denotes by W the wage received by each worker newly employed on public works, and
  • P the associated increase in profits.
  • R is the 'value of the increase in imports of raw materials and unfinished goods that accompanies the employment of each additional man'.
  • Kahn writes (1) 'the net increase in the rate of expenditure on home-produced consumption-goods' out of wages as mW, and (2) that out of profits nP (Kahn 1931, p. 183; original stress). 

Thus in the first round of the multiplier process the total increase in domestic consumption expenditure is mW+nP, while the value of output rises by W+P+R. This induces ‘a further addition to the volume of employment’, in the second round, expressed as a proportion of the initial increase in employment, of

(mW+nP)/(W+P+R) = m W/(W+P+R) + n P/(W+P+R) = k

from which Kahn derives ‘the ratio of secondary employment to primary employment’ as k + k^2 + k^3 +... = k/(1-k) (ibid., p. 183). The familiar 'Keynesian' multiplier (which includes 'primary employment') is of course 1/(1-k). Subsequently Kahn adapts the formular to allow for the loss of unemployment benefit by newly-employed workers.

As Dardi has noted, Kahn's multiplier analysis is more elaborateㅡand from a Post-Keynesian or Kaleckian framework more fruitfulㅡthan Keynes's, since it recognises different savings propensities for capitalists and workers (Dardi 1990, p.11; cf. Goodwin 1994). Even more important for our present purposes, it deals with an open, not a closed economy. The consumption ratios m and n excludes imports of consumer goods by the two classes, while the ratio of R to (W+P) reflects busines decisions to import raw materials and semi-manufacures. In his numerical example Kahn sets m=5/6 and R(W+P+R) [? R/(W+P+R)]=1/10, and explores the implications of a range of values for n, between 1/3 and 3/4. The ratio k/(1-k) ranges from 0.56 to 0.94, implying a 'Keynesian' multiplier of between 1.56 and 1.94 (ibid., pp. 185-6). He continues by considering the possible inflationary effect of public works expenditures, which would rather increase imports (and also reduce exports), thereby lowering foreign investment. 'The expenditure of £50 million per annum for three years might reduce our annual balance of trade by, say, £20 million per annum, resulting in a totoal diminution of our foreign investment of £60 million. The loss of interst from abroad on this £60 million represents, taken by itelf, a real burden on prosperity' (ibid., p. 193), against which must be set the benefits of the public works themselves and of the total reduction in unemployment. This numerical example is purely illustrative. It is not derived in any direct way from Kahn's algebraic model, which is in any case rather cumbersome. There is no single expression corresponding to the marginal propensity to import, which is hidden within the parameters m, n, R/(W+P+R); nor (to repeat) are exports explicitly taken into account.

댓글 쓰기