Minsky's Theory Research Articles

Stabilizing a Keynes-Minsky Model of Financial Fragility

The profound insights provided by Minsky's theory of financial instability are insufficient. On the one hand, as Marxists and other critics have pointed out, they tend to dissociate finance from the instability-creating dynamics of the wider economy. On the other hand, they tend to depict the state as an exogenous, stabilizing, influence. This creates an inherent tension in Minsky's analysis, which also insists, “stability is destabilizing.” A Marxist understanding resolves this tension. The state is an essential and active component of capitalism and its contradictions. State interventions may attenuate some of capitalism's destabilizing processes but these displace rather than eliminate the underlying contradictions and themselves contribute to longer-term instability and crises.

The Economic Sanctions and the Iranian Exchange Rate Crisis of September–December 2012

:The signing of the “Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012” by President Barak Obama on August 17, 2012 resulted in a massive depreciation of the Iranian currency, the rial, by December 2012. The news of new sanctions on the petroleum and financial sectors of the Iranian economy was taken as a “Sudden Stop” in capital inflow into the country and was a “displacement,” which led to the currency crisis.In this article #within the framework of the Minsky's theory of financial fragility of the market economies #we discuss the details of the currency crisis after the imposition of economic sanctions against Iranian petroleum and banking sectors #and the Iranian government's anti-speculative and stabilization policies. The article adds to our stock of knowledge of the occurrence currency crisis despite substantial foreign reserves holding of the Iranian banking system.

Cognitive Models and Narrative Construction

The article deals with the narrative text construction. The study thoroughly analyzes cognitive models that can become the basis of this process. Firstly, the author is studying the theory of rhetoricalcommonplaces. The article shows that this theory is suitable for constructing a rhetorical text, but not a narrative one. The second model discussed is the concept model. The article argues that this model is most convenient for text analysis, but not for its formation. Marvin Minsky's frame theory is analyzed in detail. It is stated that the theory of frames and individual narrative concepts, in particular those formulated by R. Barth, have much in common.
 It is concluded that the theory of frames can be perceived as the ontological basis of the narrative scientific description. In addition, the article briefly discusses the cognitive 
 model by R. Quillian and R. Langacker. Their essence is to highlight the main and secondary content in the text. The possibility of using these models in the text
 analysis and its synthesis is proved by their conceptual similarity with G.Y. Solganik’s analysis of the novel by L. Tolstoy. Special attention is paid to the theory of R. Abelson. It is argued that the proposed hierarchy of cognitive structures has a
 generalizing character and is adequate to the text. The article gives an example based on a local narrative figure analysis undertaken by V.V. Vinogradov. The paper
 indicates the possibility to describe this figure within Abelson's theory. As a result of different cognitive models and narrative conceptscomparison, the article formulates the sequence of stages in the analysis and synthesis of text units found at
 different levels. The first stage of this sequence is the narrative figures analysis. The second one is the analysis of episodes, which are narrative figures associations. The third one is the analysis of the text plot structures. It is proposed to consider text
 units as realizations of cognitive structures. It is argued that the cognitive approach to the narrative provides its holistic and detailed adequate description.

Study on the theoretical framework of monopoly capital school and its comparison with Minsky theory

Abstract. Global financial crisis which broke out in 2008 triggered the great recession of the global economy, making the non-mainstream Monopoly Capital School of economics rise to fame. The mainstream economics attributed the crisis to the different external shocks and policy errors. On the contrary, Monopoly Capital School focused on the process of capital accumulation under the stage of monopoly capitalism, and offered perspective on inherent instability defects of capitalism. Based on teasing out the theoretical framework of Monopoly Capital School, this paper analyzed the standpoints, views and methods of monopoly capitalism through comparing the theory with Minsky theory, not only contributing to the understanding the instability defects of capitalism, but also contributing to the thinking of the future direction of capitalism. Keywords. Monopoly capital, Capital accumulation, Economic surplus, Economic stagnation, Financialization. JEL. D42, L12.

External Instability in Transition: Applying Minsky's Theory of Financial Fragility to International Markets

This inquiry argues that the successful completion of the transition process in the post-Soviet economies is constrained by the prevailing social structure and low levels of technological progress, both of which require institutional reforms aimed at increasing growth in national income, productivity, and the degree of export competitiveness. Domestic policy implementation has not shown significant improvements on these fronts, given its short-term orientation, but instead resulted in stagnating growth rates, continuously accumulating levels of external debt, and decreasing living standards. The key to a successful completion of the transition process is therefore a combination of policies targeted at the dynamic transformation of production structures within an environment of financial stability and favorable macroeconomic conditions.

Application of Minsky's Theory to State-Dominated Economies

The global financial crisis of 2007–2008, consequences of which continue to adversely affect the world economy, is often called a «Minsky crisis». A prominent American economist Hyman Philip Minsky studied capitalist economic system paying special attention to its major properties, in particular, instability and high importance of money. He developed a consistent way to explain the nature of economic crises, which, according to him, are generated through financial mechanisms. Minsky's financial instability hypothesis states that the fragility of financial system increases in periods of booms and thus crises arise from the very structure of business cycles. In this paper we give a short review of Minsky’s ideas and show that the last financial crisis could be persuasively explained in the framework of financial instability hypothesis. Moreover, we provide the extension of Minsky’s hypothesis and apply his insights to the «state-dominated economies». Interesting and vivid examples of such economies are modern Russian economy (characterized by weak institutions, resource curse and dominance of state-related companies in the financial as well as non-financial sectors) and planned economy of the Soviet Union. We analyze the financial crisis 2008–2009 in Russia and the breakdown of the USSR and argue that these events could be interpreted along Minsky’s line of argument.

Minsky cycles in Keynesian models of growth and distribution

his paper provides an alternative formalization of Minsky's theory of financial instability and examines the conditions under which perpetual cycles emerge from endogenous changes in financial practices. The main features of our model are found in its emphasis on (1) the interaction between debt and portfolio dynamics, (2) the importance of margins of safety in the evolution of firms' indebtedness, and (3) the decisive role of the dynamics of capital gains and expectations in asset markets. The general framework of financial instability is combined with two Keynesian models of growth and distribution (Kaleckian vs Kaldorian).

Private sector balance, financial markets, and US cycle: a SVAR analysis

PurposeConsidering the sectoral balance approach of Godley, and focusing only on the two main components of the private sector balance for the US economy (household and non‐financial corporate balance), the purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between these two sectors, the financial variables, and economic cycle. In particular, the paper considers all these relationships endogenously.Design/methodology/approachThe authors estimate a structural VAR model between household and (non‐financial) corporate financial balances, financial markets, and economic cycle and the authors perform an impulse response analysis. All the variables are expressed as cyclical components applying the Hodrick‐Prescott filter.FindingsThe main result is that: household and corporate balances react to financial markets in the way the authors expected and discussed; the economic cycle influences the two financial balances; the corporate balance has a positive impact on the cycle; the economic cycle and financial balances influence the financial variables. In particular, the point that shows that the corporate balance has a positive impact on the cycle shows that the corporate balance is a leading component of the cycle as suggested by Casadio and Paradiso and accords with Minsky's theory of financial instability.Research limitations/implicationsThe analysis does not include the foreign sector (current‐account balance).Originality/valueThis study is an important step forward with respect to the two main contributions in literature which use this approach: the Levy Institute macroeconomic team and Goldman Sachs. Methodologically their models are based on assumptions (such as exogeneity or market clearing price mechanism for the financial markets) that the authors overcome considering all the relationships studied in an endogenous manner.

A simplified stock-flow consistent dynamic model of the systemic financial fragility in the ‘New Capitalism’

In the last few years, many financial analysts and heterodox economists (but even some ‘dissenters’ among orthodox economists) have referred to the contribution of Hyman P. Minsky as a fundamental reading for understanding the current crisis. However, it is well known that the traditional formulation of Minsky's ‘financial instability hypothesis’ raises a number of theoretical issues. Furthermore, Minsky's analysis of capitalism must be updated on the basis of the deep changes which, during the last three decades, have concerned the world economy. In order to address these theoretical and empirical issues, the paper, first, introduces the reader to the ‘mechanics’ of the financial instability theory, according to the formulation of the traditional Minskian literature (Section 2). Second, it shows that Minsky's theory, in this formulation, cannot be regarded as a general theory of the business cycle (Section 3). Third, the paper attempts to supply a consistent, although simplified, updating of Minsky's theory by cross-breeding it with inputs coming from the ‘New Cambridge’ theories and the current ‘formal Minskian literature’. The aim of this is to analyse the impact of both capital-asset inflation and consumer credit on the financial ‘soundness’ of the business sector (Sections 4–7). Some concluding remarks are provided in the last part of the paper (Section 8).

THE PARADOX OF DEBT AND MINSKY'S FINANCIAL INSTABILITY HYPOTHESIS

ABSTRACTSome authors have claimed that the paradox of debt invalidates Minsky's theory of financial instability. Their theoretical frameworks are radically different from Minsky's in several aspects. Important Minskian elements, the role of margins of safety as a basis of financial decisions and the effects of asset prices on debt dynamics, among others, are absent in the critics' frameworks. We maintain that the thrust of the paradox of debt‐based criticism to Minsky's theory has been exaggerated and key insights of Minsky's theory of financial instability can be formalized in an alternative macroeconomic framework. We provide a stock‐flow consistent model of Minskian long waves.

Do We Eat Too Much? The Current Economic Crisis as a Result of Overconsumption

Over the past 15 years, a fairly synchronised and steady increase of the current account deficits of the US and the UK has been witnessed, while at the same time real house prices and real wages in these two economies increased sharply. We analyse the offspring of the economic crisis of 2008 within the framework of Minsky's theory of financial crisis, and identify the reasons behind this development as the global imbalances. Our empirical results show that overconsumption in the US and UK caused unsustainable growth, which manifested first in real wage inflation. Within this development, neither the financial sector nor failed regulation is to blame, as financial intermediaries merely fulfilled their requirements as the vehicle between borrowers and lenders. Instead, we argue, our ‘need’ for overconsumption is to blame, and policy makers are required to address this issue as soon as possible in order to avoid another, probably more severe crisis in the long-run.

Cognition, market sentiment and financial instability

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role for psychology within an open-system structural theory of financial instability, and to consider the implications for policy. While behavioural finance has drawn on ideas from psychology in order to explain evidence of behaviour that deviates from the rationality axioms, it is argued that the way in which psychology is framed by this approach is unduly limiting. Minsky's structural theory of financial instability, with its Keynesian (and ultimately Humean) roots, incorporates psychology into the theoretical foundations. In particular, cognition and sentiment are shown to be interconnected rather than separable. It is concluded that the policy implications for addressing the current crisis, while apparently similar between these different approaches, are in fact very different. The underlying theory involves different methodology, and indeed different framing, from behavioural finance. The way in which the crisis is understood is therefore important for policy. Copyright The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

How Sensitive are Equilibrium Pricing Models to Real-World Distortions?

In both finance and economics, quantitative models are usually studied as isolated mathematical objects - most often defined by very strong simplifying assumptions concerning rationality, efficiency and the existence of disequilibrium adjustment mechanisms. This raises the important question of how sensitive such models might be to real-world effects that violate the assumptions. We show how the consequences of rational behavior caused by perverse incentives, as well as various irrational tendencies identified by behavioral economists, can be systematically and consistently introduced into an agent-based model for a financial asset. This generates a class of models which, in the special case where such effects are absent, reduces to geometric Brownian motion - the usual equilibrium pricing model. Thus we are able to numerically perturb a widely-used equilibrium pricing model market and investigate its stability. The magnitude of such perturbations in real markets can be estimated and the simulations imply that this is far outside the stability region of the equilibrium solution, which is no longer observed. Indeed the price fluctuations generated by endogenous dynamics, are in good general agreement with the excess kurtosis and heteroskedasticity of actual asset prices. The methodology is presented within the context of a financial market. However, there are close links to concepts and theories from both micro- and macro-economics including rational expectations, Soros' theory of reflexivity, and Minsky's theory of financial instability.

A Post-Keynesian Model of Accumulation with a Minskyan Financial Structure

Minsky's theory of financial instability is a strong alternative to neoclassical theory. Many Post-Keynesian authors use this analysis in order to elaborate models that give rise to crises or business cycles. Nevertheless, none of them has directly linked growth and financial structure. This article proposes a simple macroeconomic model linking the accumulation of capital and the state of the financial structure as defined by Minsky. The analysis shows how a capitalist economy may become financially fragile, and it suggests that instability is apt to be the rule.

The Minskyan System, Part I Properties of the Minskyan Analysis and How to Theorize and Model a Monetary Production Economy

This is the first part of a three-part analysis of the Minskyan framework. Via an extensive review of the literature, this paper looks at 12 essential elements necessary to get a good understanding of Minsky's theory, and argues that those elements are central to comprehend how a monetary production economy works. This paper also shows how important these 12 elements are for the modeling of the Minskyan framework, and how the omission of one of them may be detrimental to an understanding of the essential dynamics that Minsky put forward: the Financial Instability Hypothesis.

Minsky's Acceleration Channel and the Role of Money

Hyman Minsky suggested a possible channel through which monetary policy could affect the economy. He asserted that rising interest rates due to contractionary monetary policy compromised the balance sheets of firms that had financed long-term positions in illiquid assets with short-term borrowing. As interest rates rose, the debt service costs of a project increased relative to the present discounted value of its future revenue streams. A model based on Minsky's theory confirms its plausibility. The model also shows that anti-inflationary policy potentially destabilizes if used too aggressively. A vector autoregression analysis suggests that postwar U.S. data are consistent with Minsky's theory.

Integrating Schumpeter and Keynes: Hyman Minsky’s Theory of Capitalist Development

In a number of books and articles, Hyman P. Minsky influenced many of today's institutional and Post Keynesian economists. In fact, Minsky often chose the pages of this journal as the place to present and extend his Wall Street paradigm, financial theory of investment, and investment theory of business cycles, the latter of which is often called the financial instability hypothesis (FIH). Those contributions have all received significant attention in recent years, along with Minsky's writings on what might be called the secular (multi-cycle) dimension of the FIH.1 What has gone almost entirely unnoticed, however, is that during the last decade of his life Minsky adopted, and sought to develop and explore, an even more historical approach to economic analysis-a theory of capitalist development. This article seeks to prompt professional consideration of Minsky's theory of capitalist development by explaining and presenting it. The article begins by describing Minsky's interest in such a theory. The theory is then outlined, both in terms of its essential elements and as it applies to the US economy. Directions for future research are also identified.

Hyman Minsky's Theory of Capitalist Development

During the last decade of his life, Hyman Minsky drew on insights acquired from Joseph Schumpeter in an effort to explore the long-term development of capitalism. He believed such an exploration would underscore the economic implications of postwar financial-system innovations and could encourage a broad discussion regarding the appropriate structure of the U.S. economy. This paper focuses on the theory of capitalist development that Minsky produced during that decade. After describing the purposes of Minsky's exploration, his theory is outlined both in terms of its essential elements and as it applies to the U.S. economy. In addition to emphasizing the relations between finance and business, Minsky identified a transition through at least five distinct stages of capitalism: from the merchant-capitalist era to a recent period dominated by money managers. A concluding section identifies a number of research directions suggested by Minsky's analysis.

Origins of economic instability: Real, financial or both? - Part II: An appraisal of Minsky's financial instability hypothesis

Part I of the paper discussed Hyman Minsky's instability hypothesis and its main critics. Part II now gives a general appraisal of Minsky's theory.

Origins of economic instability: Real, financial or both? - Part I: An account of Minsky's financial instability hypothesis

The 1990s have put the issue of global economic stability under the spotlight. This calls for a re-examination of the economic theory surrounding the subject. Here a three-fold classification is useful. The first grouping locates the source of stability in the workings of the real sector of the economy. A second, following Hyman Minsky, contends that instability arises in the financial sector. A third grouping draws on a distinction by Schumpeter to argue that any effective analysis of stability or instability requires a theoretical framework that integrates both the real and financial sectors at the most basic level. In the light of the current financial crisis which originated in South-East Asia, the second grouping appears most relevant. Part II will give an appraisal of Minsky's theory.