Meine Forschungsschwerpunkte liegen im Bereich Geldtheorie, Makroökonomie, Finanzmärkte und Ungleichheit. Ausgewählte Publikationen finden Sie unten. Meine Forschung können Sie Sich auch ansehen ...

bei Ideas/REPEC ansehen:, bei ResearchGate: oder 
bei Academia:

Unten finden Sie ausgewählte Publikationen, u. a. meine Bücher zu Geld und Kredit bzw. Modern Monetary Theory und einige Veröffentlichungen aus den letzten Jahren.

Artikel in Fachzeitschriften, Kapitel in Büchern, Arbeitspapiere

Die folgenden Veröffentlichungen sind eine Auswahl aus meiner Forschung.

From Wicksell to Le Bourva to Modern Monetary Theory: a Wicksell connection 

(mit Nicolas Barbaroux)

IPE Berlin working paper 72/2016

In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), and within the context of significant macroeconomic imbalances in the world economy, economists have shown renewed interest in the way central banks and financial systems work. The rise of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has relied on the examination of balance sheets, which has led to advancements in the understanding of the nuts and bolts of the financial system and the fundamental role of taxes, reserves, and deposits. While the school is associated with Post-Keynesian economics, we make the case that it could just as well be called Post-Wicksellian. The aim is not to argue for or against some label, but to make explicit the Wicksellian connection. In doing this, we bring forward old discussions and insights, which can be integrated into recent debates. MMT authors emphasize the importance of endogenous money and the examination of assets and liabilities in balance sheets. In our inquiry, we demonstrate that a horizontalist approach - adopted by MMT scholars - was already present in Wicksell (1898) and in the writings of French economist Jacques Le Bourva (1959, 1962). We examine the essential publications of the two authors and compare their views with the insights of MMT. By doing this, we hope to show continuity in monetary thought. MMT should not be seen as an intruder from the outside of monetary theory, but rather as a continuation and expansion of certain ideas that have long been part of the discipline. Identifying areas of disagreement between the three views should help bring clarity to the issues that are still disputed.

Samuelson and Davidson on ergodicity: A reformulation 

(mit Miguel Carrión Álvarez)

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 39 (1), 2016

The concept of ergodicity in economics seems to have the qualities of a shibboleth-a word or saying used by adherents of a party, sect, or belief, and usually regarded by others as empty of real meaning. It is in use by both neoclassical economics-after Samuelson (1965Samuelson, P. A. "Proof That Properly Anticipated Prices Fluctuate Randomly." Industrial Management Review, 1965, 6 (2), 41-49.[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar], p. 43), who used the term in his paper on what later became a foundation of the efficient market hypothesis-and post Keynesian economics-after Davidson, who picked up the term in order to highlight methodological differences. Considering the origin of the concept in statistical physics and its use in the topology of dynamical systems, which most economists are not conversant with, the importance ascribed to ergodicity in economic debate seems mystifying. We deconstruct the meaning of the term in the major contributions of Samuelson and Davidson. We suggest an alternative to (non)ergodicity to discuss the nature of randomness in the real world. While neoclassical theory assumes stochastic randomness, post Keynesians assume nonstochastic randomness, a term developed by the mathematician Kolmogorov (1986Kolmogorov, A.N. "On the Logical Foundations of Probability Theory."In K. Ito, and J.V. Prokhorov (eds.), Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Moscow, 1986, pp. 467-471. [Google Scholar], p. 467). We argue that even in an ergodic world there is a problem with the idea that stochastic randomness can be dealt with by the financial system.

The Present State of Economics: Errors and Omissions Excepted (mit Fritz Helmedag)

Chapter in: "Post-Crash Economics: Plurality and Heterodox Ideas in Teaching and Research", by O. Feraboli and C. Morelli (eds.), 2018

More and more often, confidence in the professional qualifications of individuals representing certain occupational groups which formerly were held in high esteem has started to erode. Dismissing scientific evidence and ignoring expert opinion has become a feature of political discourse around alternative truth. In part this is self-inflicted as various statements that are publicized with the aura of academic certainty do not stand up to closer scrutiny. Alas, this applies particularly to economics, which is often held up as the supreme discipline of social sciences. This chapter explores some of these truths and demonstrates what they spread across both micro- and macroeconomics.

The euro zone crisis: what would John Maynard do?

IPE Berlin working paper 72/2016

In his letter to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt Keynes (1933) wrote about "the technique of recovery itself‟. An increase in output is brought about by an increase in purchasing power, Keynes argues, which can come from three sectors: households, firms and government. Using the IS/MY macroeconomic model developed by Ehnts (2014), which features sectoral balances and endogenous money, the situation of some euro zone members is examined with a focus on the three techniques of recovery: increases in debt of the respective sectors as defined by Keynes. A fourth technique, an increase in spending by the rest of the world, is added. The conclusion is that the policy recommendation given by Keynes in his letter also holds for the euro zone at present: a rise in debt-financed government expenditure. Some reform at the institutional level in Europe would enable "the technique of recovery‟ to work via the TARGET2 payment system, which is organized along Keynes‟ International Clearing Union proposal and a solid foundation to build on.

Die Krise der VWL und die Vision einer Pluralen Ökonomik 

(mit Lino Zeddies)

Wirtschaftsdienst, 96 (10), 2016

Die andauernde Finanzkrise hat tiefliegende Probleme des ökonomischen Mainstreams offengelegt und lässt Forderungen nach einer Erneuerung des ökonomischen Denkens lauter werden. Die Autoren beschreiben die Kritik am Status quo und gehen dabei auf die Vorwürfe von Einseitigkeit, blinden Flecken, Realitätsferne und impliziter Normativität ein. Als vielversprechender Gegenentwurf wird die Vision einer Pluralen Ökonomik vorgestellt und anhand von fünf charakteristischen Säulen beschrieben: Theorienpluralismus, Methodenpluralismus, historische Fundierung, wissenschaftstheoretische und ethische Reflexion sowie Interdisziplinarität.