Editorial introduction

Featured paper section

The two papers in the featured section discuss the development of Marxian money theory in the tradition of the Uno School.

Kei Ehara & Akihito Imai, The Japanese history of Marxian value-form analysis: Focusing on the Unoist approach

Ehara and Imai follow the development of money theory in the Japanese Uno tradition. Kozo Uno developed the well-known three-level approach to Marxian Political Economy: basic theory of capitalism, stage theory of capitalist development, and empirical analysis of the present state of capitalism. Uno insisted that the historical tendency of purification of the capitalist economy in 19th-century England must be extended to describe the capitalist economy’s basic theory (or pure theory). Ehara and Imai write, “In Uno’s case, the principles were portrayed as unchanging economic laws based on a consistent commodity economic logic.” and “It was the work of the “stages theory” to provide a complementary explanation for the gap between the basic theory and the actual capitalist development.”

Uno’s followers, such as Yamaguchi and Obata, questioned these assumptions, which are characteristic of Uno’s three-level approach. Yamaguchi (1985) argued that in the theory of forms of value, the convergence of the value expressions of commodities into a single equivalent form cannot be explained solely via the logic of the pure commodity economy. Obata (2012, 58) reexamined the relation between basic theory and stage theory from the polymorphic approach point of view.

“The principles should provide a general framework for explaining transformations. Such a theory, which is deductively constructed on the premise of a given ‘internal condition,’ such as the existence of a player dedicated to the pursuit of profit, contains multiple points of divergence that cannot be determined on their own. If we call such a branching point an ‘aperture,’ external conditions act on each aperture to determine the branching direction.”

Obata developed the polymorphic approach by applying it to the value-form analysis. He pointed out that commodity money has two openings (or apertures) where external conditions determine material money (such as gold) and credit money (such as bank notes). Obata (2009) argued that the theory of value forms can explain material and credit money. Following Obata, Ehara (2021) elaborated on the evolution of material money into credit money in the theory of value form.

This paper is a good entry point into Unoist monetary theory for people unfamiliar with Japanese Marxism.

Tsuyoshi Yuki, Unoist contribution to the triangular debates of the money theory in Japan

Based on Obata’s polymorphic approach, Yuki divides Unoist into old and neo-Unoist. The old-Unoists adopt a model of pure capitalism as the basis for an analytical framework, while neo-Unoists adopt a polymorphic approach. A group of old Unoists consider money to be gold, regard contemporary money as irregular, and consider contemporary money free from the constraints of gold. As a result, a strange collaborative relationship has emerged between the old Unoists and MMT proponents in Japan. Yuki criticizes the old-Unoists who favor MMT by drawing on Obata’s polymorphic approach to commodity money. For neo-Unoist, all money (material money and credit money) is commodity money regardless of whether it is convertible into gold. Yuki argues that, unlike MMT, commodity money is never created “from nothing” and that the amount of credit money is limited by the value of claims acquired by debt-bearing banks, commodity inventory, and productive capacity held by borrowers.

Research paper section

Arne Heise, Keynes and the drunkard under the lamp post: Making sense of Palley

Arne Heise questions whether social conflict is the sole ontological fault line, as Palley (2023) suggests. He highlights the distinction between Keynes’ economics and Keynesian economics, challenging Palley’s lumping these together as part of a liberal project. He concludes that Palley’s assertions regarding the absence of social conflict in Keynesian economics and its implications for economic laws lack foundation.

Thomas Palley, Keynes’ denial of conflict: A reply to Professor Heise’s critique of my article

Thomas Palley replies to Heise’s critique (2024) and clarifies the four intentions of his paper. Conflict is essentially absent in Keynes’ General Theory; conflict was absent in the Neo-Keynesian interpretation of The General Theory; conflict is critical to understanding capitalism; calling for a revival of the economics of Keynes in bad times is a problematic approach.

Nor-Eddine Oumansour & Zainab Azghour, Exchange rate misalignment and trade fluctuations in Morocco: Empirical evidence

Oumansour and Azghour examine the relationship between the exchange rate and the return of foreign trade by analyzing the impact of its misalignment on Morocco’s trade balance from 1980–2021. They found that the long-term effect of the exchange rate in stimulating economic growth through the export channel did not have the expected positive impact on trade volume. They argue that the trade balance is profoundly influenced by the interaction between income and relative price variations, which shape import and export decisions.

Charis Vlados & Dimos Chatzinikolaou, War and the emerging new globalisation: A critical review of relevant research

Vlados and Chatzinikolaou propose the “Evolutionary Structural Triptych” (EST) framework for international political economy, which highlights three core dimensions derived from a combined analysis of political, economic, and technological structures, focusing on geopolitical stability, economic development and innovation progress. Based on this framework, four distinct phases emerge in the historical evolution of postwar capitalism: the “first postwar international growth and national development period” (1945–1973); the “crisis and pre-globalisation period” (1973–1980); the “globalisation period” (1980–2008); and the “quest for a new or restructured globalisation period” (post-2008). They propose the following performance scenarios for the post-2008 phase: Low, Medium-Low, Medium-High, and High-Performance Scenario. They conclude that the Russo-Ukrainian War predominantly aligns with the medium-low performance scenario. The emerging global socioeconomic system seems intricate and fluid, rapidly transforming due to disruptive events.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).