Carolina Alves

Can Joan Robinson鈥檚 ideas cast some light on today’s profound economic challenges?

November 21, 2021November 19, 2021 Carolina AlvesLeave a comment

By Carolina Alves and Jan Toporowski

Cambridge Journal of Economics Special Issue / Deadline for submitting papers via CJE refereeing process: 30th April 2022.

2023 marks the fortieth year since the passing of Joan Robinson and her one-hundred-and-twentieth anniversary. This special issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics aims at presenting a collection of papers that reflect the extraordinary breadth of Robinson鈥檚 career and examine what insights these might offer the economics profession and policy makers to address our seemingly most intractable problems of inadequate demand, rising margins with falling competition, and widespread and seemingly intransigent inequality and its consequences. For Robinson the purpose of our discipline is in understanding the real world to enable all global citizens to enjoy life to the full. It is therefore fitting that we follow her lead and demand that we ask of ourselves whether we have done enough to address her challenges to economic theory.

Despite making her international reputation in the Marshallian tradition of economics, she came to regard her generalisation of John Maynard Keynes鈥檚 theories and their integration with Kaleckian and Marxian insights as her more substantial contribution, along with a vigorous defence of rigorous evidence-based thought over inductive mathematical modelling. Among an impressive body of work, three books by Robinson mark key moments in the evolution of her ideas: The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933), An Essay on Marxian Economics (1942), and The Accumulation of Capital (1956) (Marcuzzo, 2003).

In 1933, she made her international reputation with brilliant work within the orthodoxy on imperfect competition, offering an internal critique of the marginalist theory of distribution. Only a decade later, her reflections on reading Karl Marx persuaded Robinson to question the Marshallian methodology, in particular its polite theory of income distribution which became so incongruous during and after the depression (Marcuzzo, 2003).1 Finally, in 1956, she had the courage to follow the logic of her argument to examine the whole neoclassical theory of income distribution and its predominant method, facing the might of the now dominant American economics profession in the [in]famous capital controversy. She had to accept the pyrrhic victory of her interlocutors accepting she was right, yet the profession moving on regardless.

The Washington Counterfactual: don’t believe the Washington Consensus resurrection

April 8, 2021April 8, 2021 Carolina Alves4 Comments

By Carolina Alves, Daniela Gabor and Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven

Decades of research have documented the devastating impacts of the Washington Consensus in the developing world. Yet revisionist accounts of this story have emerged in recent years. Remarkable amongst these, a recent blog post by the Peterson Institute for International Economics – 鈥溾€� – draws on research that is jaw-droppingly ideological and flawed.

Cambridge Journal of Economics Special Issue on Financialisation in developing and emerging economies: Manifestations, Drivers and Implications Deadline 31st August 2020

May 30, 2020May 21, 2020 Carolina AlvesLeave a comment

In December 2018, we organised a two-day workshop on 鈥淗ow to Conceptualise Financialisation in Developing and Emerging Economies? Manifestations, Drivers and Implications鈥� at Girton College, University of Cambridge. The idea behind this event was to move away from a significant focus on developed economies when discussing financialisation phenomena and give more space to find out what is happening in developing and emerging economies (DEEs). Existing studies on DEEs have often focussed on particular case studies. Investigating empirical aspects already observed in developed economies, There have been both limited attempts to engage with the concepts and perspectives from the Global South and at systematising the literature and in analysing particularities of DEEs.

The workshop was a success in many fronts, such as attendance, quality of papers and exchange of ideas. Five roundtables attempted to encompass key crucial aspects of this discussion in the context of DEEs, namely, Financialisation and The Global Economy, Financialisation and Production, Variegated Financialisation, Financialisation and the State, and Micro-financialisation. This was complemented by two excellent plenaries approaching both the theorisation of financialisation in DEEs and the avenues for future research. See the programme聽.Read More »

Brazil鈥檚 Election in the Shadow of the Impeachment

August 24, 2018August 24, 2018 Carolina AlvesLeave a comment

Manifesta莽茫o_em_S茫o_Paulo_contra_corrup莽茫o_e_o_governo_Dilma_em_13_de_mar莽o_de_2016_(3).jpg

Earlier this month the final deadline arrived for political parties in Brazil to register their candidates for the presidential election in October 2018. The official launch of candidates allows us to discuss more concretely the political forces and players that will be shaping the election. It means that coalitions, alliances, and vice-president choices have taken place. So we asked, what can be said about the first candidates leading the polls? What are the main political forces underlying this election?

The Brazilian political landscape has been extremely polarised since the impeachment of president Dilma Rousseff in 2016. If the left-right dichotomy has recently been considered blurry or outdated, in Brazil one can argue that, due to the impeachment, this dichotomy has a new face, with the coup winners on one extreme and the coup losers on the other.

The nuances between right and left on the political spectrum have largely been overshadowed due to this dichotomy, with one side leading a for a clean and corruption-free country and the other side highlighting the . The political mayhem reached its peak with Lula’s trial and conviction in April, which has led to a great deal of uncertainty over this period (see recent Lula鈥檚 from prison in the NYT).

President Termer may have been able to 鈥渒eep the markets calm in鈥� throughout such political instability, but Brazil鈥檚 economic recovery has been , hardships for many families have increased (see IBGE indicators for increases in , , and ) and the country has just set a new record for homicides at in 2017, with violence against women also increasing. There is a lot at stake in this election.Read More »

An Alternative Economics Summer Reading List

July 1, 2018July 1, 2018 Carolina Alves10 Comments

by Carolina Alves, , and Ingrid H. Kvangraven

This is a response list to recommending Economics books of 2018 for summer reading. While there are many good books listed, we were struck by the consistent monism in his choices, as the books are all by scholars based in either the UK or the US, 12/13 of the authors are men and most of them come from the same theoretical tradition. Such lists perpetuate the strong white male – and mainstream – biases in our field (the recent list by suffers from the same biases).

To counter these biases, and with the purpose of broadening our field to become more inclusive of diverse approaches and perspectives, we have put together an alternative list. We deliberately chose books by scholars approaching Economics with alternative theoretical frameworks and by scholars from groups that tend to be excluded from the field, namely women, people of color, and scholars from the Global South. We recognize that no one is exempt from biases, which is why we are providing an explanation for the motivation behind our selection. Due to institutional and language barriers we were unable to include as many scholars from the Global South as we would have liked. For example, we would love to read the new book by Laura Carvalho, but we are still waiting for the English translation. We hope you enjoy it and welcome more suggestions in the comments section.

Marx鈥檚 Birthday and the Dismal Science: A Few Observations

May 29, 2018 Carolina Alves3 Comments

by Carolina Alves and Ingrid H. Kvangraven

With 2017 marking the 150th anniversary of and 2018 marking the bicentennial of the birth of Karl Marx, it is not a surprise that the number of events and exhibitions celebrating Marx’s work and exploring the significance of Marxism in the world today have gone through the roof. A little sample,,, and (see also The Guardian鈥檚 of exhibitions, books 鈥� and pub crawls)! And it would be unfair to not mention the British Library鈥檚 offered last summer, which aimed to develop ideas for events and activities that would engage the public and research communities with Marx鈥檚 life and his wider legacy (with a brilliant emphasis on – a writer and political activist in her own right). Some of the results can be seen,, and.

Of course, Friedrich Engels鈥� far-reaching contributions have not been ignored ( and ); and neither should contributions, who, like Mary Burns, have never been a[1] and, before falling in love with the Jewish romantic rebel, was a woman interested in French socialism and German romanticism, engaged in an early feminist views on women鈥檚 equality, and committed to the struggle for the working-class (influenced by her father). Hence, Jenny鈥檚 possible allusion that Marx was 鈥淕oethe鈥檚 Wilhelm Meister and Schiller鈥檚 Karl von Moor, and he would be Shelley鈥檚 Prometheus, chained to a precipice because he dared to challenge a tyrannical god鈥� (, p. 20).

Putting aside this rich line-up of events, what has caught our attention is the equal proliferation of pieces celebrating Marx鈥檚 birthday, for the better or for the worse. From misleading and derogatory articles such as the published by The Economist to educational short pieces such as Cooper鈥檚, it is difficult to not wonder about the reasons behind such opposing views. Similarly, it is difficult to resist the temptation to add a little contribution to the debate. So here we are.

We will not dwell on Marx鈥檚 contributions and current relevance, which has been done effectively by so many academics, political activists and journalists. Neither will we unpack and discuss the issues with value-laden opinions on Marx鈥檚 economic theory, and simple-minded association of Marx鈥檚 political ideas with historical events of the 20th century. We will, however, for the sake of being one more blog post on Marx鈥檚 200th birthday, reiterate and explore Marx鈥檚 work鈥檚 undeniable and vital influence in contemporary thought, politics and political practice. Further, and perhaps the main inspiration that led us to write this blog post, we wish to add some more thoughts on Marx鈥檚 influence (or lack thereof) 聽in modern times, namely the effects of the marginalization of his ideas in the field of Economics.Read More »

Unanswered Questions on Financialisation in Developing Economies

April 5, 2018April 4, 2018 Carolina Alves2 Comments

The discussions of the processes behind the growing importance of finance, financial transactions and financial motives, as well as the sustainability of the financial systems, have been located in the critical political economy debate of financialisation and neoliberalism (; ; ; ; ; ; ).

The analysis of financialisation in developing and emerging economies (DEEs) is relatively novel (). It is rooted in earlier discussions about the risks of financial globalisation and liberalisation (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ), including the Latin American Structuralist literature on the hegemonic role of the US dollar and its financial and monetary implications for DEEs (; ; ; ; ); the debate on capital account liberalisation and capital market integration (; ; ; ); and the Minsky-inspired currency and boom bust dynamics of financial crisis in developing economies (; ; ; ; ).Read More »

The Financialization Response to Economic Disequilibria: European and Latin American Experiences

July 9, 2017July 11, 2017 Carolina AlvesLeave a comment

Book review of N. Levy-Orlik & E Ortiz (2016), The Financialization Response to Economic Disequilibria: European and Latin American Experiences, Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham UK

Levy and Ortiz鈥檚 is a timely book. It critiques mainstream economic theory and its limitations in explaining how economic conditions change or the transition from one state of equilibrium to another. Its analyses rely on Keynes, Kalecki, Kaldor, Minsky, Prebish, Furtado, and Marxists such as Luxemburg, Marini and Lapavitsas. Macroeconomic teachers interested in a heterodox approach may benefit from Levy and Ortiz鈥檚 book as complementary material with experiences showing the dysfunctionality of the global economy from the specific prism of financial disequilibria.

黑料社区