Skip Navigation

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2006 30(6):981-984; doi:10.1093/cje/bel025
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Michl, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B51 - Socialist; Marxian; Sraffian
Right arrow H55 - Social Security and Public Pensions
Right arrow J26 - Retirement; Retirement Policies
Right arrow J32 - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; [...]
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

Notes and Comments

Comments on Cesaratto's ‘Transition to fully funded pension schemes: a non-orthodox criticism’

Thomas R. Michl*

* Colgate University

Address for correspondence: Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346, USA; email: tmichl{at}mail.colgate.edu

Abstract

Cesaratto's critique of the neoclassical approach to pension reform is valuable, but he has overextended his argument in applying it to proposals to use pre-funding as a mechanism for achieving greater public ownership and for redistributing wealth progressively. The fiscal surpluses needed to pre-fund the public pension system could increase investment, provided that they are offset by an appropriately stimulating monetary policy. The post-Keynesian investment literature descending from Kalecki's principle of increasing risk motivates on non-neoclassical grounds the interest sensitivity of investment required to make this policy mix effective.

Key Words: Social security • Pensions • Pre-funding • Post-Keynesian theory

JEL classifications: H55, J26, J32, B51

Manuscript received March 6, 2006; final version received June 13, 2006.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
S. Cesaratto
A reply to Michl
Camb. J. Econ., November 1, 2006; 30(6): 985 - 987.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.