 |
Sluggish economic performance has been a hallmark of developed economies at least since the Global Financial Crisis. Against this background, Larry Summers's 2013 speech at the IMF Research Conference relaunched the long-standing hypothesis that advanced capitalist economies are prone to secular stagnation, triggering a major debate. According to him, the sluggishness of the developed economies can be traced back to the steady lowering of the natural rate of interest, which in turn is due to reducing investment demand coupled with an increase of savings. Influential mainstream authors like Robert Gordon, Paul Krugman, Olivier Blanchard, and Barry Eichengreen have approached the problem from a closely related theoretical position. On the other hand, heterodox authors such as Eckard Hein, Peter Skott, and Robert Blecker have suggested that the shortcomings of the mainstream approach point to the need for ruptures with prime orthodox notions. Also, since most mainstream authors neglect fundamental alternative contributions, such as those of Karl Marx, Michal Kalecki, Joseph Steindl, Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Baran, and Paul Sweezy, to name a few, there remains a need for the construction of rather theoretical comprehensive views for the understanding of the meaning of the current economic dynamics and its causes. For the deepening of mutual understanding within the heterodox tradition this paper aims to present and compare the contributions of three of these schools, namely, the Steidlian/Kaleckian theory, considering especially Eckard Hein's elaborations, the Harrodian + functional finance approach, mainly in Peter Skott's discussion, and the Marxist tradition based on the monopoly capital theory associated with Sweezy and Baran. Despite acknowledging the existence of other important works in the heterodox traditions these three have been chosen for being a restricted, nevertheless representative, sample of different approaches. The first grasps the related phenomena from a Steindlian view on how mature economies tend to the growth slowdown, whereas the second is based on Harrod's and Abba Lerner's models, and the third, from Marx, focuses on the tendency for the rise of problems of excess capacity and surplus absorption. In spite of not betting on any single general synthesis of the heterodox strands, intellectually honest conversation can only yield richer theories, stronger for the understanding of the current economic dynamics, and capable of pointing to effective alternative policies. This paper is organized as follows: In the first part, the theories and models of the chosen authors will be presented. In the second, comparisons will be drawn. The third part syntheses the considered heterodox contributions and their interconnectedness.
