Income distribution and development: Celso Furtado’s theory in a context of global economic changes and its proximity to neo(post)-Kaleckian literature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3643/18411Keywords:
Celso Furtado, neo(post)-Kaleckian theory, income distributionAbstract
The objective of the present article is to analyse the elements proposed by Celso Furtado regarding the process of overcoming underdevelopment – before and after “industrial civilization” – and to determine whether such attributes can characterize him as a neo(post)-Kaleckian. To accomplish this objective, we will carry out a detailed analysis of growth patterns led by profits and wages based on the neo-Kaleckian literature. The relationship between income distribution, demand, and capital accumulation was always present in Furtado's analyses, even before these approaches were formalised theoretically. This analysis is important to understand two main points of Furtado’s thought: i) the reason for Furtado's emphasis on distributive conflict as an engine of structural transformations and, in turn, as a driver of economic development; ii) the challenges imposed over underdeveloped economies in the face of a new world economic order, based on the increase in dependency relations as a result of the huge capital flows in the form of foreign direct investment of developed economies in underdeveloped regions.
References
Amadeo E. J. (1986), “The role of capacity utilization in long-period analysis”, Political Economy, 2 (2), pp. 147-160.
Bhaduri A. and Marglin S. (1990), “Unemployment and the real wage: The economic basis for contesting political ideologies”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14 (4), pp. 375-393.7
Blecker R.A. (1989), “International competition, income distribution and economic growth”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 13 (3), pp. 395-412.
Blecker R.A. (2002), “Distribution, demand and growth in neo-Kaleckian macro-models”, in Setterfield M. (ed.), The Economics of Demand-Led Growth, Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.
Blecker R and Setterfield M. (2019), Heterodox Macroeconomics: Models of Demand, Distribution and Growth, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Boianovsky M. (2010), “A view from the tropics: Celso Furtado and the theory of economic development in the 1950s”, History of Political Economy, 42 (2), pp. 221-266.
Dutt A.K. (1984), “Stagnation, income distribution and monopoly power”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8 (1): pp. 25-40.
Dutt A.K. (1987), “Alternative closures again: A comment on growth, distribution and inflation”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11 (1): pp. 75-82.
Furtado, C. ([1961] 2016), Desenvolvimento e Subdesenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Contraponto.
Furtado C. ([1964] 1971), Teoria e política do desenvolvimento econômico, São Paulo: Editora Nacional.
Furtado C. (1974), O Mito do Desenvolvimento Econômico, 3rd ed., São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Furtado C. (1977), Prefácio a nova economia política, São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Furtado C. (1978), Criatividade e dependência na civilização industrial, São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Furtado C. (1999a), “A busca de novo horizonte utópico”, Belo Horizonte: Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de Minas Gerais, (Palestra apresentada ao Fórum Políticas Macroeconômicas, julho, 1999)
Furtado C. (1999b), “Brasil: Os caminhos da reconstrução”, in O longo amanhecer: reflexões sobre a formação do Brasil, São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Hein E. (2014), Distribution and Growth after Keynes: A Post-Keynesian Guide, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kalecki M. ([1954] 2013), Theory of Economic Dynamics, London: Routledge.
Kalecki M. (1937), “The principle of increasing risk”, Economica, 4 (16), pp. 440-447.
Lavoie M. and Stockhammer, E. (2013), “Wage-led growth: Concept, theories and policies”, in Wage-Led Growth (pp. 13-39), London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oreiro J.L. (2018), Macrodinâmica pós-keynesiana: crescimento e distribuição de renda, Rio de Janeiro: Alta Books.
Rowthorn B. (1981), Demand, Real Wages and Economic Growth, London: Polytechnic.
Taylor L.A (1985), “Stagnationist model of economic growth”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 9 (4), pp. 383-403.
Veblen, T. (1898). “Why is economics not an evolutionary science?”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4), pp. 373-397.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Felipe Orsolin-Teixeira, Daniel Arruda Coronel, José Luis Oreiro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.