SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2017 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 33

Great Recession, Financialization and Marxian Political Economy

Büyük Durgunluk, Finansallaşma ve Marksist Politik İktisat

Hasan BAKIR
Görkem BAHTİYAR
Pages
241–259
Publication Date
2017-07-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this light, the aim of this study is to discuss the Marxian take on the 2008 global crisis, focusing on the phenomenon of financialization in this context.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Mainstream economic approaches, such as Keynesian and Neoclassical, agree one another in that the crises of capitalism should be handled within the capitalism.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After the Great Depression in 1930, Keynesian economics gained popularity, while neoclassical economics took over in the 1970s.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this light, the aim of this study is to discuss the Marxian take on the 2008 global crisis, focusing on the phenomenon of financialization in this context.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Krizler · Büyük Buhran · İktisadi Düşünce Okulları

Abstract

Mainstream economic approaches, such as Keynesian and Neoclassical, agree one another in that the crises of capitalism should be handled within the capitalism. While Keynesians defend preemptive state intervention to avoid crises, neoclassical economics believe that the market will solve all problems without the need to resort to state action. After the Great Depression in 1930, Keynesian economics gained popularity, while neoclassical economics took over in the 1970s. Today, Keynesian economics became popular again in the aftermath of 2008 financial crisis. According to them, there is no alternative to the market system. Marxian explanation of 2008 financial crisis presents an alternative to the both. In this light, the aim of this study is to discuss the Marxian take on the 2008 global crisis, focusing on the phenomenon of financialization in this context.

Özet

Keynesyen ve Neoklasik iktisat gibi ana akım yaklaşımlar, kapitalizmin krizinin yine kapitalizm içinde kalınarak çözülebileceği üzerinde anlaşmaktadırlar. Keynesyenler krizi önleme konusunda devlet müdahalesini savunurken, Neoklasik iktisat devlet müdahalesine gerek kalmadan piyasanın bütün problemleri çözeceğine inanmaktadır. Keynesyenler, 1930’larda yaşanan Büyük Buhran sonrasında popüler olmuş fakat 1970’li yıllarda Neoklasik iktisat onların yerini almıştır. Günümüzde, Keynesyen iktisadın popülaritesi tekrar yükselmiştir. Her iki yaklaşım da, piyasa sisteminin bir alternatifi olmadığını ifade eder. Yaşanan kriz sürecine alternatif bir açıklama ise, Marksist teoriden gelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, küresel kriz sürecine yönelik ortaya konan bu alternatif açıklamayı finansallaşma bağlamında tartışmaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAKIR, H., BAHTİYAR, G. (2017). Great Recession, Financialization and Marxian Political Economy. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 33, 241–259. https://ajindex.com/articles/139421

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Clarke, S. (2005), “The Neoliberal Theory of Society”, In: Alfreo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johston (eds.), Neoliberalism A Critical Reader, London,UK: Pluto Press, 50-59.
  2. Crotty, J. 2003, “The Neoliberal Paradox: The Impact of Destructive Product Market Competition and Impatient Finance on Nonfinancial Corporations in the Neoliberal Era”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 35(3), 271-279.
  3. Crouch, C. (2014), The Strange non-death of Neoliberalizm, [trans.] Uğur Gezen, İstanbul, Türkiye: Açılım Kitap. Duménil, G. and Lévy, D. (2004), “The Real and Financial Components of Profitability”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 36 (1), 82-110. Duménil, G. and Lévy, D. (2005), “The Neoliberal (Counter-) Revolution”, In: Alfreo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johston (eds.), Neoliberalism A Critical Reader, London,UK: Pluto Press.
  4. Dunn, B. (2011), “Can Marxism explain the crisis?”, Socialist Review, 363. Federal Reserve Bank of ST. Louis (FRED) Foster, J. B. (2008), “The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis” Monthly Review, 59(11). Harvey, D. (2005),
  5. A Brief History of Neoliberalizm, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
  6. Hossein-zadeh, I. (2014), “Flaws in the Marxian Explanations of the Great Recession”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 46(4), 473-480.
  7. Keynes, J.M. (1937), “Some Economic Consquences of a Declining Population”, Eugenics Review, 29(1), 13-17.
  8. Keynes, J.M. (2008) [1936],
  9. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, [trans.] Uğur Selçuk Akalın, İstanbul, Türkiye: Kalkedon. Kliman, A. (2015), “The Great Recession and Marx’s Crisis Theory”, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 74(2), 236-277.
  10. Kotz, D. M. (2009), “The Financial and Economic Crisis of 2008: A Systemic Crisis of Neoliberal Capitalism”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 20(10), 1-13.
  11. Krippner, G. R. (2005), “The Financialization of the American Economy”, Socio-Economic Review, 3(2), 173-208.
  12. Lapavistas, C. (2005), “Mainstream Economics in the Neoliberal Era” In: Alfreo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johston (eds.), Neoliberalism A Critical Reader, London,UK: Pluto Press, 30-40.
  13. Lapavistas, C. (2011), “Theorizing financialization”, Work, Employment and Society, 25(4), 611-626.
  14. Lucarelli, B. (2004),
  15. Monopoly Capitalism in Crisis, New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. Luxemburg, R. (2004) [1913], Die Akkumulation des Kapitals [trans.] Tayfun Ertan, İstanbul, Türkiye: Belge Yayınları.
  16. Marx, K. (2009) [1894], Capital A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, volume III,