칼렉키와 케인즈의 經濟理論에 關한 比較 硏究

蔡斗柄 인제대학교 1989 仁濟論叢 Vol.5 No.2

작품노트 - KT대전지사

채두병,Chae, Du-Byeong 대한건축사협회 2003 建築士 Vol.2003 No.9

M. Kalecki의 投資 및 景氣循環理論에 關한 一考

蔡斗炳 인제대학교 1991 仁濟論叢 Vol.7 No.2

다국적기업의 조직무화유형의 직무만족

채두병,김철용 한국무역통상학회 2010 무역통상학회지 Vol.10 No.4

國際收支制約型 成長모델에 대한 再考

蔡斗炳 인제대학교 인문사회과학연구소 1997 인문사회과학논총 Vol.4 No.1

To understand properly growth rate differences between countries it is essential to understand why the growth of factor supplies differs between countries and. in Post-Keynesian view, this can only be understood with reference to the overall strength of demand. In an open economy, according to Post-Keynesian, demand for exports relative to imports is the crucial component of autonomous demand because the balance of payments position determined by export and import sets the limit to the growth of effective demand and, thereby, the overall growth of the economy. Therefore, they present a demand-orientated model of economic growth which is called the balance-of-payments constrained growth model as an alternative to the supply-orientated approach of neoclassical theory. Their conclusion is that a country's long run growth rate depends on its income elasticities of demand for exports and imports. The basis of this argument is that, in the post-war period changes in relative price have played a quantitatively small role in determining the growth of a country's trade, especially when compared with the impact of the differences in non-price aspects of competition. Consequently it is argued that it is primarily output that alters to keep import and export in equilibrium rather than relative prices in international trade. The balance-of-payments constrained model is an efficient framework of analyzing economic growth in relation to a country's international payments position. Its roots are located in mercantilism of the 16th and 17th century and Harrod's foreign trade multiplier of 1933. The policy implication of this model is quite clear. In an open economy, relevant economic management is the one that manipulates the income elasticities of demand for exports and imports which reflect the non-price aspects of competition.

사교춤으로 대중사회에 활력을 전하는 2007년 한국예술종합학교 최고경영자 문화 · 예술과정 무용반 스토리

채두병,이영주,곽경석,김은수,백광숙,신현우,안영균,윤형관,이영수,장성혜,지태정,채계복,채수일,허은경,이행로,정혜승 한국예술종합학교 세계민족무용연구소 2007 민족무용 Vol.12 No.-

칼렉키의 獨占度理論에 대한 再考

蔡斗柄 인제대학교 1987 仁濟論叢 Vol.3 No.2

The Polish Economist Michal Kalecki focused attention on the distribution of national income in building his economic theory. And Kalecki stressed the importence of conflict of intersts between different individuals, so that he undertook his analysis at the level of classes rather than individuals. These facts mean that his economic theory is genealogically in Ricardian-Marxian tradition. Especially, Kalecki's approach contrasts sharply with neo-classical approcach in three aspects which are as follows. First, Kalecki considered that the assumption of perfect competition was unrealistic and inappropriate for modern capitalist economies. Thus his theory was derived from the precepts of imperfect competition. Second, for Kalecki's theory, there is no short run equilibrium position to be analysed nor is there any underlying long run equilibrium to which the economy will tend. Kalecki viewed the capitalist economy as inherently cyclical and changeful. Thus the approach of Kalecki is generally concerned with the evolution of an economic system through time. Third, Kalecki rejected the U-shaped cost curve, the technologically determined production function and the impact of relative prices on the demand for inputs. Kalecki also made no use of any type of the utility function which operated at the level of individual. The contribution of Kalecki's degree of monopoly theory seems to lie not only in bringing the strength of the forces of marcket imperfection(or degree of monopoly) in touch with the mode of behaviour and pricing policy of the firm and process of price formation in an industry, but also in incorporating forces of marcket imperfection in macro-distribution model between wages and profits. In other words, he built a macro-distribution theory on firmer foundations of a more plausible micro-model. According to the conclusion of Kalecki, the ratio of prices of raw materials to unit wage costs, the degree of monopoly and industrial composition are the determinants of the relative share of wages in the gross income of the private sector. Thus, ceteris paribus, the higher the degree of monopoly is, the lower the relative share of wages in the value added is. He also argued that the process of concentration in industry, the development of sales promotion through advertising, selling agents and so on, the level of overheads and the activity of trade union are the factors which influence the degree of monopoly. Although Kalecki's approach still requires much more empirical supports, his analysis is seen as consistent with empirical evidences of today. Especially in recent years, there has been many attempts to develop and extend Kalecki's analysis in the belief that his analysis provides useful foundation of the new paradigm in economics. In this context, Kalecki's degree of monopoly theory should be modified and complemented in the directions which are as follows. Of course, the need of modification is partly attributed to the post-war change of economic circumstance. First, the impact of investment by firms on unit costs and thereby on price and competitive position of firms should be considered. Second, over the past fifty years there has been substantial changes in the relative roles of wages and salaries. Thus which labour payments are prime costs may now be different. One way to answer this problem would be to include salary of clerks in prime cost, and include salary of managements in overheads. But it requires further discussion. Third, It requires amendments to allow for some interdependence between degrees of monopoly of firms. And the effects of the growth of International trade and of multinational enterprises on degree of monopoly should also be considered. Fourth, it needs to be incorporated into Kalecki's analysis to analyse the historical and industrial factors which influence the extent and the form of tacit agreement amongst firms.

帝國主義論에 관한 一考察

蔡斗柄 인제대학교 1988 仁濟論叢 Vol.4 No.1

국제수지제약형 성장모델

채두병 인제대학교 1997 仁濟論叢 Vol.13 No.1

The balance-of-payments constrained growth model is Post-Keynesian open-economy endogenous growth theory which is first presented by Thirlwall and extended by McCombie. It is a demand-orientated model of economic growth as an alternative to the supply-orientated approach of neoclassical growth theory. The supply orientated approach to economic growth, which has been largely dominated by the neoclassical paradigm, stresses the exogenous growth of factor supplier, together with exogenous technical progress, as the determinants of economic growth. The alterative demand orientated or Post-Keynesian approaches, on the other hand, considers increases in the labour force, capital stock, and technical change to be mainly endogenous, adjusting passively to the changes in economy that are brought about by changes in demand. Therefore, this approach stresses the role of demand factors, together with the balance of payments, as the crucial determinants of economic growth. Thirlwall has argued that the driving force behind economic growth is the rate of expansion of effective demand with the supply side generally reacting passively. Furthermore, according to Thirlwall, the balance of payments position sets the limit to the growth of effective demand and, thereby, the overall growth of the economy. He has also argued that over the long run the impact of relative prices on trade flows is quantitatively small. Consequently, given that in the long run the current account must be in equilibrium, it is income adjustments that ensure this occurs. He concludes that a country's long run growth rate will be determined by the ratio of its rate of growth of exports to its income elasticity of demand for imports. The balance-of-payments constrained growth model of Thirlwall is an efficient framework of analyzing economic growth in relation to a country's international payments position. Its significant contributions toward the growth economics are as follows. First, by explaining growth performance with a demand-driven model of economic growth, it can throw off the analytical shackles that bind mainstream economists to attribute all economic growth solely to supply factors. Second, with bringing to the fore the importance of the balance between exports and imports, it shows that balance of payment difficulties can have severe real growth consequences. Third, it demonstrates that money is not neutral in an open economy under the capitalism which is characterized by a market-oriented monetary economy. For this theory to be more convincing, however, much more work now needs to be done on illustrating and testing the endogeneity of factor supplies, and showing how the relief of foreign exchange bottleneck increases the supply and productivity of domestic resources.

케인즈와 마르크스의 貨幣的 生産理論

蔡斗柄 인제대학교 1995 仁濟論叢 Vol.11 No.2

There are undeniably deep differences between Marx's and Keynes's ideological and political thoughts. And because of these differences, with few exceptions, neither Marxists nor Keynesian economists have paid much attention to the relationships between Marx and Keynes. There are, however, some significant similarities between Marx and Keynes, especially in terms of fundmental characteristics of a capitalist economy when viewed from analytical perspective. The essential characteristc of actual capitalism is understood as monetary economy by both Keynes and Marx. They regarded capitalism as a social system of production based on a private money making under which the direct objective of society - the production of goods and services - is subordinated to the money making objective of capitalist entrepreneurs. Thus both claimed that an adequate analysis of actual capitalism must take into account money and its specific role within the capitalist economy. According to them, money is not a mere means of circulation in a capitalist economy. Money is also the best store of value in a system in which all transactions require money. Capitalist entrepreneurs, whose decesions and actions are the crucial factor in captalism, may spend money to start productive processes, or they may keep it idle. The profitability of production and investment is the essential factor determining how money is used. If capitalists' expectations as to the profitability of their productive processes are pessimistic, the demand for idle money increases while the demand for commodities decreases. If this happens, aggregate demand falls short of supply and as a result the ecomomy as a whole suffers the simultaneous existence of unused productive capacity and unemployed labour. To sum up, in both Keynes's theory and Marx's theory, money which is not only a means of circulation but also a store of value and a means of payment, plays a direct, causal role in determining real output and employment by affecting entrepreneurs' motives and decesions. In short, money plays an operative role. And not only Keynes's theory but also Marx's theory on an effective demand problem is associated with the role of money in a monetary economy, In this sense, the economic principles of Keynes and Marx may be described as monetary theories of production. In other words, Marx and Keynes share one very importent view, that is, an adequate analysis of the capitalist economy must be based on a monetary theory of production.