Michael Kalecki
Political Aspects of Full Employment1 [1]Political Quarterly, 1943
I
1. A solid majority of economists is now of the opinion that, even in acapitalist system, full employment may be secured by a government
spending programme, provided there is in existence adequate plan toemploy all existing labour power, and provided adequate supplies ofnecessary foreign raw-materials may be obtained in exchange for exports.
If the government undertakes public investment (e.g. builds schools,
hospitals, and highways) or subsidizes mass consumption (by family
allowances, reduction of indirect taxation, or subsidies to keep down theprices of necessities), and if, moreover, this expenditure is financed byborrowing and not by taxation (which could affect adversely private
investment and consumption), the effective demand for goods andservices may be increased up to a point where full empolyment isachieved. Such government expenditure increases employment, be it
noted, not only directly but indirectly as well, since the higher incomescaused by it result in a secondary increase in demand for consumer andinvestment goods.
2. It may be asked where the public will get the money to lend to thegovernment if they do not curtail their investment and consumption. To
understand this process it is best, I think, to imagine for a moment thatthe government pays its suppliers in government securities. The suppliers
will, in general, not retain these securities but put them into circulation
while buying other goods and services, and so on, until finally thesesecurities will reach persons or firms which retain them as interestyielding assets. In any period of time the total increase in government
securities in the possession (transitory or final) of persons and firms will beequal to the goods and services sold to the government. Thus what the
1 This article corresponds roughly to a lecture given to the Marshall Society in Cambridge inthe spring of 1942.

1

economy lends to the government are goods and services whose production
is 'financed' by government securities. In reality the government pays forthe services, not in securities, but in cash, but it simultaneously issues
securities and so drains the cash off; and this is equivalent to the imaginary
process described above.
What happens, however, if the public is unwilling to absorb all the increasein government securities? It will offer them finally to banks to get cash (notesor deposits) in exchange. If the banks accept these offers, the rate of interest
will be maintained. If not, the prices of securities will fall, which means a risein the rate of interest, and this will encourage the public to hold moresecurities in relation to deposits. It follows that the rate of interest depends
on banking policy, in particular on that of the central bank. If this policy
aims at maintaining the rate of interest at a certain level, that may be easily
achieved, however large the amount of government borrowing. Such was
and is the position in the present war. In spite of astronomical budget
deficits, the rate of interest has shown no rise since the beginning of 1940.
3. It may be objected that government expenditure financed by borrowing
will cause inflation. To this it may be replied that the effective demand
created by the government acts like any other increase in demand. If
labour, plants, and foreign raw materials are in ample supply, the increasein demand is met by an increase in production. But if the point of full
employment of resources is reached and effective demand continues toincrease, prices will rise so as to equilibrate the demand for and the supply
of goods and services. (In the state of over-employment of resources such as
we witness at present in the war economy, an inflationary rise in prices has
been avoided only to the extent to which effective demand for consumer
goods has been curtailed by rationing and direct taxation.) It follows that if
the government intervention aims at achieving full employment but stops
short of increasing effective demand over the full employment mark, there
is no need to be afraid of inflation.22
2 Another problem of a more technical nature is that of the national debt. If full employment

is maintained by government spending financed by borrowing, the national debt willcontinuously increase. This need not, however, involve any disturbances in output andemployment, if interest on the debt is financed by an annual capital tax. The current income,after payment of capital tax, of some capitalists will be lower and of some higher than if thenational debt had not increased, but their aggregate income will remain unaltered and theiraggregate consumption will not be likely to change significantly. Further, the inducement toinvest in fixed capital is not affected by a capital tax because it is paid on any type of wealth.
Whether an amount is held in cash or government securities or invested in building a factory,
the same capital tax is paid on it and thus the comparative advantage is unchanged. And if

II
1. The above is a very crude and incomplete statement of the economic
doctrine of full employment. But it is, I think, sufficient to acquaint thereader with the essence of the doctrine and so enable him to follow thesubsequent discussion of the political problems involved in the achievementof full employment.
In should be first stated that, although most economists are now agreed
that full employment may be achieved by government spending, this was byno means the case even in the recent past. Among the opposers of this
doctrine there were (and still are) prominent so-called 'economic experts'
closely connected with banking and industry. This suggests that there is apolitical background in the opposition to the full employment doctrine,
even though the arguments advanced are economic. That is not to say thatpeople who advance them do not believe in their economics, poor though
this is. But obstinate ignorance is usually a manifestation of underlying
political motives.
There are, however, even more direct indications that a first-class politicalissue is at stake here.[2] In the great depression in the 1930s, big businessconsistently opposed experiments for increasing employment bygovernment spending in all countries, except Nazi Germany. This was to beclearly seen in the USA (opposition to the New Deal), in France (the Blum
experiment), and in Germany before Hitler.[3] The attitude is not easy to
explain. Clearly, higher output and employment benefit not only workers but
entrepreneurs as well, because the latter's profits rise. And the policy of full
employment outlined above does not encroach upon profits because it does
not involve any additional taxation. The entrepreneurs in the slump are
longing for a boom; why do they not gladly accept the synthetic boom which
the government is able to offer them? It is this difficult and fascinating
question with which we intend to deal in this article.
The reasons for the opposition of the 'industrial leaders' to full employment
achieved by government spending may be subdivided into three categories:(i) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as
such; (ii) dislike of the direction of government spending (public
investment is financed by loans it is clearly not affected by a capital tax because if does notmean an increase in wealth of the investing entrepreneur. Thus neither capitalist
consumption nor investment is affected by the rise in the national debt if interest on it isfinanced by an annual capital tax. [See 'A Theory of Commodity, Income, and Capital
Taxation']2

investment and subsidizing consumption); (iii) dislike of the social andpolitical changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment. We
shall examine each of these three categories of objections to the government
expansion policy in detail.
2. We shall deal first with the reluctance of the 'captains of industry' toaccept government intervention in the matter of employment. Everywidening of state activity is looked upon by business with suspicion, but thecreation of employment by government spending has a special aspect whichmakes the opposition particularly intense. Under a laissez-faire system thelevel of employment depends to a great extent on the so-called state ofconfidence. If this deteriorates, private investment declines, which results
in a fall of output and employment (both directly and through thesecondary effect of the fall in incomes upon consumption and investment).
This gives the capitalists a powerful indirect control over government
policy: everything which may shake the state of confidence must be carefully
avoided because it would cause an economic crisis. But once thegovernment learns the trick of increasing employment by its own
purchases, this powerful controlling device loses its effectiveness. Hencebudget deficits necessary to carry out government intervention must be
regarded as perilous. The social function of the doctrine of 'sound finance'
is to make the level of employment dependent on the state of confidence.
3. The dislike of business leaders for a government spending policy grows
even more acute when they come to consider the objects on which themoney would be spent: public investment and subsidizing massconsumption.
The economic principles of government intervention require that public
investment should be confined to objects which do not compete with theequipment of private business (e.g. hospitals, schools, highways). Otherwise
the profitability of private investment might be impaired, and the positiveeffect of public investment upon employment offset, by the negative effect ofthe decline in private investment. This conception suits the businessmenvery well. But the scope for public investment of this type is rather narrow,and there is a danger that the government, in pursuing this policy, may
eventually be tempted to nationalize transport or public utilities so as togain a new sphere for investment.33
3 It should be noted here that investment in a nationalized industry can contribute to thesolution of the problem of unemployment only if it is undertaken on principles different
from those of private enterprise. The government must be satisfied with a lower net rate of

One might therefore expect business leaders and their experts to be more infavour of subsidising mass consumption (by means of family allowances,subsidies to keep down the prices of necessities, etc.) than of public
investment; for by subsidizing consumption the government would not beembarking on any sort of enterprise. In practice, however, this is not thecase. Indeed, subsidizing mass consumption is much more violently opposedby these experts than public investment. For here a moral principle of thehighest importance is at stake. The fundamentals of capitalist ethics
require that 'you shall earn your bread in sweat'—unless you happen tohave private means.
4. We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policyof creating employment by government spending. But even if this opposition
were overcome—as it may well be under the pressure of the masses—themaintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes
which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.
Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' wouldcease to play its role as a disciplinary measure. The social position of theboss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousnessof the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases andimprovements in conditions of work would create political tension. It istrue that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment thanthey are on the average under laissez-faire; and even the rise in wage rates
resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to
reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only therentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are
more appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells
them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, andthat unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.
III
1. One of the important functions of fascism, as typified by the Nazi system,
was to remove capitalist objections to full employment.
The dislike of government spending policy as such is overcome underfascism by the fact that the state machinery is under the direct control of apartnership of big business with fascism. The necessity for the myth of'sound finance', which served to prevent the government from offsetting a
return than private enterprise, or it must deliberately time its investment so as to mitigate
slumps.
3

confidence crisis by spending, is removed. In a democracy, one does notknow what the next government will be like. Under fascism there is no next
government.

activity—or towards subsidizing mass consumption; (iii) opposition tomaintaining full employment and not merely preventing deep andprolonged slumps.

The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or
consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure onarmaments. Finally, 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability'
under full employment are maintained by the 'new order', which ranges
from suppression of the trade unions to the concentration camp. Politicalpressure replaces the economic pressure of unemployment.

Now it must be recognized that the stage at which 'business leaders' could
afford to be opposed to any kind of government intervention to alleviate aslump is more or less past. Three factors have contributed to this: (i) very full
employment during the present war; (ii) development of the economic
doctrine of full employment; (iii) partly as a result of these two factors, theslogan 'Unemployment never again' is now deeply rooted in the
consciousness of the masses. This position is reflected in the recent
pronouncements of the 'captains of industry' and their experts.[5] The
necessity that 'something must be done in the slump' is agreed; but thefight continues, firstly, as to what should be done in the slump (i.e. whatshould be the direction of government intervention) and secondly, that itshould be done only in the slump (i.e. merely to alleviate slumps rather thanto secure permanent full employment).

2. The fact that armaments are the backbone of the policy of fascist full
employment has a profound influence upon that policy's economic
character. Large-scale armaments are inseparable from the expansion of
the armed forces and the preparation of plans for a war of conquest. They
also induce competitive rearmament of other countries. This causes themain aim of spending to shift gradually from full employ ment to securing
the maximum effect of rearmament. As a result, employment becomes 'overfull'; not only is unemployment abolished, but an acute scarcity of labour
prevails. Bottlenecks arise in every sphere, and these must be dealt with by
the creation of a number of controls. Such an economy has many featuresof a planned economy, and is sometimes compared, rather ignorantly, withsocialism. How ever, this type of planning is bound to appear whenever an
economy sets itself a certain high target of production in a particularsphere, when it becomes a target economy of which the armament economy
is a special case. An armament economy involves in particular thecurtailment of consumption as compared with that which it could have been
under full employment.[4]The fascist system starts from the overcoming of unemployment, develops
into an armament economy of scarcity, and ends inevitably in war.
IV
1. What will be the practical outcome of the opposition to a policy of full
employment by government spending in a capitalist democracy? We shalltry to answer this question on the basis of the analysis of the reasons for this
opposition given in section II. We argued there that we may expect the
opposition of the leaders of industry on three planes: (i) opposition on
principle to government spending based on a budget deficit; (ii) opposition
to this spending being directed either towards public investment—which
may foreshadow the intrusion of the state into the new spheres of economic

2. In current discussions of these problems there emerges time and again
the conception of counteracting the slump by stimulating private
investment. This may be done by lowering the rate of interest, by the
reduction of income tax, or by subsidizing private investment directly in thisor another form. That such a scheme should be attractive to business is not
surprising. The entrepreneur remains the medium through which theintervention is conducted. If he does not feel confidence in the politicalsituation, he will not be bribed into investment. And the intervention does
not involve the government either in 'playing with' (public) investment or'wasting money' on subsidizing consumption.
It may be shown, however, that the stimulation of private investment does
not provide an adequate method for preventing mass unemployment.
There are two alternatives to be considered here, (i) The rate of interest or
income tax (or both) is reduced sharply in the slump and increased in theboom. In this case, both the period and the amplitude of the business cycle
will be reduced, but employment not only in the slump but even in theboom may be far from full, i.e. the average unemployment may beconsiderable, although its fluctuations will be less marked, (ii) The rate ofinterest or income tax is reduced in a slump but not increased in thesubsequent boom. In this case the boom will last longer, but it must end in a
new slump: one reduction in the rate of interest or income tax does not, ofcourse, eliminate the forces which cause cyclical fluctuations in a capitalist
economy. In the new slump it will be necessary to reduce the rate of4

interest or income tax again and so on. Thus in the not too remote future,
the rate of interest would have to be negative and income tax would have tobe replaced by an income subsidy. The same would arise if it wereattempted to maintain full employment by stimulating private investment:
the rate of interest and income tax would have to be reduced
continuously.44
In addition to this fundamental weakness of combating unemployment bystimulating private investment, there is a practical difficulty. The reactionof the entrepreneurs to the measures described is uncertain. If thedownswing is sharp, they may take a very pessimistic view of the future, andthe reduction of the rate of interest or income tax may then for a long time
have little or no effect upon investment, and thus upon the level of output
and employment.
3. Even those who advocate stimulating private investment to counteract
the slump frequently do not rely on it exclusively, but envisage that itshould be associated with public investment. It looks at present as if
business leaders and their experts (at least some of them) would tend toaccept as a pis aller public investment financed by borrowing as a means ofalleviating slumps. They seem, however, still to be consistently opposed tocreating employment by subsidizing consumption and to maintaining full
employment.
This state of affairs is perhaps symptomatic of the future economic regimeof capitalist democracies. In the slump, either under the pressure of themasses, or even without it, public investment financed by borrowing will be
undertaken to prevent large-scale unemployment. But if attempts are
made to apply this method in order to maintain the high level of
employment reached in the subsequent boom, strong opposition bybusiness leaders is likely to be encountered. As has already been argued,
lasting full employment is not at all to their liking. The workers would 'get outof hand' and the 'captains of industry' would be anxious to 'teach them alesson'. Moreover, the price increase in the upswing is to the disadvantage
of small and big rentiers, and makes them 'boom-tired'.
In this situation a powerful alliance is likely to be formed between big
business and rentier interests, and they would probably find more than one
economist to declare that the situation was manifestly unsound. The
pressure of all these forces, and in particular of big business—as a rule
4 A rigorous demonstration of this is given in my article to be published in Oxford Economic
Papers. [See 'Full Employment by Stimulating Private Investment?']

influential in government departments—would most probably induce thegovernment to return to the orthodox policy of cutting down the budget
deficit. A slump would follow in which government spending policy would
again come into its own.
This pattern of a political business cycle is not entirely conjectural;
something very similar happened in the USA in 1937-8. The breakdown of
the boom in the second half of 1937 was actually due to the drastic reductionof the budget deficit. On the other hand, in the acute slump that followed thegovernment promptly reverted to a spending policy.
The regime of the political business cycle would be an artificial restoration of
the position as it existed in nineteenth-century capitalism. Full employment
would be reached only at the top of the boom, but slumps would be relatively
mild and short-lived.[6]V
1. Should a progressive be satisfied with a regime of the political businesscycle as described in the preceding section? I think he should oppose it on
two grounds: (i) that it does not assure lasting full employment; (ii) thatgovernment intervention is tied to public investment and does not embracesubsidizing consumption. What the masses now ask for is not the
mitigation of slumps but their total abolition. Nor should the resulting fuller
utilization of resources be applied to unwanted public investment merely
in order to provide work. The government spending programme should be
devoted to public investment only to the extent to which such investment
is actually needed. The rest of government spending necessary to maintainfull employment should be used to subsidize consumption (through family
allowances, old-age pensions, reduction in indirect taxation, andsubsidizing necessities). Opponents of such government spending say thatthe government will then have nothing to show for their money. The replyis that the counterpart of this spending will be the higher standard ofliving of the masses. Is not this the purpose of all economic activity?
2. 'Full employment capitalism' will, of course, have to develop new socialand political institutions which will reflect the increased power of theworking class. If capitalism can adjust itself to full employment, afundamental reform will have been incorporated in it. If not, it will show
itself an outmoded system which must be scrapped.
5

But perhaps the fight for full employment may lead to fascism? Perhaps
capitalism will adjust itself to full employment in this way? This seems
extremely unlikely. Fascism sprang up in Germany against a backgroundof tremendous unemployment, and maintained itself in power throughsecuring full employment while capitalist democracy failed to do so. The
fight of the progressive forces for all employment is at the same time a wayof preventing the recurrence of fascism.

Notes
[1]
First published in Political Quarterly, 14/4, 1943, pp. 322-31. An abbreviated Polish
edition appeared in Ekonomista, 5,1961, pp. 1072-6, and subsequently in 2
collections of Kalecki's essays: Szkice o funkcjonowaniu wspolczesnego kapitalizmu(On the Functioning of Contemporary Capitalism), Warsaw, PWN, 1962, pp. 11-19,
and Z ostatniej fazy przemian kapitalizmu (The Last Phase in the Transformation of
Capitalism), Warsaw, PWN, 1968, pp. 21-9.
The abbreviated version has had several translations: Spanish ('Aspectos politicosdel pleno empleo', Economia y Administration, 16 (University of Conception), 1970,
pp. 57-61, and in M. Kalecki, Sobre el capitalismo contemporaneo, Barcelona,
Editorial Critica, 1979, pp. 25-34); Italian (in M. Kalecki, Sul capitalismo
contemporaneo, Rome, Editori Riuniti, 1975, pp. 35-42); Swedish (in Kalecki,
Tillvâxt och Stagnation, pp. 45-51); German (in Kalecki, IVerkauswahl, pp. 182-90,
and in Kalecki, Kriese und Prosperitat, pp. 235-41); and Portuguese (in M. Kalecki,
Crescimento o ciclo das economias capitalistas, éd. J. Miglioli, Sâo Paulo, Editora
Hucitec, 1977; 2nd edn., 1980). The same abbreviated version was published in
English, in Kalecki, Selected Essays on the Dynamics of a Capitalist Economy, pp.
138-45 (for translations of this collection, see pp. 436-7 above), and in Kalecki, The
Last Phase in the Transformation of Capitalism, New York and London, Monthly
Review Press, 1972, pp. 75-83.
The original English version was reprinted in E. K. Hunt and J. G. Schwartz (eds.),
A Critique of Economic Theory, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1972, pp. 420-30.
In the present volume the original edition is followed, while the abbreviations
introduced by Kalecki in 1961 are accounted for in subsequent editorial notes. The
publishers' permission to reprint this paper is gratefully acknowledged.
At the turn of 1940 Kalecki moved to Oxford to join the staff of the Oxford
University Institute of Statistics. With the outbreak of war, the institute gave shelter
to a number of economists who were in various degrees refugees from Germanfascism (including among others F. Burchardt, T. Balogh, J. Goldman, J. Steindl,and K, Mandelbaum). Among the English members of the staff were G. D. N.
Worswick and J. N. Nicholson. The institute was directed by a distinguished
English statistician, Prof. Arthur L. Bowley. In the next few years the institutegained international fame for its studies on the British war economy. Kalecki dealt
with questions of mobilization of factors of production and manpower for the war
effort, financing the war, food rationing, and price controls (Kalecki was the first to
put forward, in the institute's bulletin, a plan for rationing expenditure on
consumption), distribution of the war burden and national income between social
classes, the burden of the national debt, and full employment after the post-war
reconstruction (for an account of Kalecki's contributions to the work of the institute,see G. D. N. Worswick, 'Kalecki at Oxford, 1940^4', Oxford Bulletin of Economics andStatistics, 39/1, 1977: Special Issue: Michal Kalecki Memorial Lectures; see alsoCollected Works, vol. vi, and Studies in War Economics (prepared at the Oxford
University Institute of Statistics), Oxford, Blackwell, 1947).
6

In Oxford Kalecki also gave lectures in which he reported the results of his research.
In 1943 his Studies in Economic Dynamics appeared (see Collected Works, vol. ii),
representing the next step in the development of his business cycle theory; this forthe first time included elements of long-run development of a capitalist economy.
Both his studies of war economics and of cyclical and long-run changes in capitalist
reproduction influenced Kalecki's publications on full employment. His theory of full
employment is rooted in his business cycle theory and his ideas on national income
determination; in his papers devoted to full employment, he stressed some morepractical aspects of full employment policy, and institutional factors determining
its scope and limits. In addition to examining the causes for political opposition to
full employment—a question hardly dealt with in his earlier studies—his essays onfull employment brought together his ideas on capital and income taxation (seepp. 324-5 above), the burden on the national debt (see Collected Works, vol. vi), thestructure of total demand and government expenditures (see 'Employment in the
United Kingdom during and after the Transition Period', in Collected Works, vol.
vi), and long-run unemployment in relation to capitalist long-run economic
development (see his Studies in Economic Dynamics, in Collected Works, vol. ii).
Towards the end of 1944 Kalecki resigned his job at the Institute of Statistics.
After a short stay in Paris, where he prepared some memoranda for the Frenchgovernment on rationing and economic controls (see Collected Works, vol. vii), in
Mar. 1945 he left for Montreal. There, until Dec. 1946, he worked for theInternational Labour Office. His studies at the ILO mainly concerned the problemsof post-war reconstruction and of maintaining full employment, as well as thequestions of inflation (in that period he gave several lectures and seminars on
various aspects of full employment, among others at the University of Chicago, atColumbia and Harvard Universities, and in Ottawa). He continued those studies
after he left the ILO and moved to the United Nations, where he worked until theend of 1954 as the Deputy Director of the Economic Department in the UN
Secretariat (for information on Kalecki's work for the UN, see S. Dell, 'Kalecki at
the United Nations, 1946-54', Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 39/1,
1977, and Collected Works, vol. vii).
Shortly after 'Political Aspects of Full Employment' was published, Keynes sent
Kalecki the following note, dated 20 Dec. 1943 (the original survived in Kalecki's
papers):I have just read with much sympathy and interest your article on Political Aspects of Full
Employment in PI. Q. An exceedingly good article and very acute. If I have been writing it
myself, Ï might have added as an important influence—[disintegrating (?) illegible
handwriting'] old fashioned sound finance which [resists (?) illegible] against any public
expenditures and a high deficit [. . . (?) last word unintelligible'].
In spite of this commendation, Kalecki's article did not arouse wider interest for along time. The reason could have been that there had been a high employment rate
in all countries during the war, and the problem of maintaining full employment
in the period of post-war reconstruction and later on did not at that time (1943)
attract much attention; nor did the subsequent post-war boom leave much roomfor his pessimistic forecasts.

None the less, in 1948 S. S. Alexander arrived at similar conclusions with respect tocapitalists' opposition to government intervention in the realm of private business,budget déficits, and the maintenance of full employment (see S. S. Alexander,'Opposition to Deficit Spending for the Prevention of Unemployment', in Income,
Employment and Public Policy: Essays in Honour ofAlvin H. Hansen, New York,
Norton, 1948; sec also Feiwell, The Intellectual Life ofMichal Kalecki, pp. 221-6).
Andvig notes that Johan Akerman tried to relate political events and businesscycles as early as the 1930s, and that therefore he 'can be regarded as apredecessor, together with Kalecki, to the recent crop of political business cycle
theorists' (Andvig, Ragnar Frisch and the Great Depression, p. 297).
Twenty years later, in the Preface to his essays on the functioning of contemporary
capitalism (Szkice o funkcjonowaniu . . . , pp. 7-8) Kalecki had this to say about theforecasts in 'Political Aspects of Full Employment':
Have my predictions of that time proved correct? I think they have, though—as isoften the case with historical predictions, not necessarily in every detail. In my
paper, after examining the sources of opposition of big capital against stimulating
the business cycle by means of government spending, I foresaw that in future
crises will be mitigated in this way but not wholly prevented. I also predicted that
this government intervention would give rise to a new phenomenon which I called
the 'political business cycle'. It seems that the present course of events
corresponds grosso modo with those predictions. On the other hand, in my article
the policy of securing full employment by military spending was linked with total
fascism. It appears, however, that a fascist coup is by no means necessary forarmaments to play an important role in countering mass unemployment. Yet, it
must be noted that in the United States, where this process was most intensive,
there have indeed appeared some symptoms of fascism.
Joan Robinson was first to stress, in 1964, the relevance of the idea of a 'politicalbusiness cycle' for understanding post-war capitalist development (see her'Kalecki and Keynes', and also 'The Second Crisis of Economic Theory', in her
Collected Economic Papers, vol. iv, Oxford, Black well, 1973). However, increased
interest in Kalecki's 'Political Aspects of Full Employment' did not appear until
the mid-1970s. This followed reprints of Kalecki's paper in 1971-3, in a period of
prolonged depression in many developed capitalist economies, and of overall
political and social tensions, generated among other things by a 'political businesscycle'. Kalecki's concept was discussed and developed at that time by R. Boddy
and J. Crotty (see their 'Class Conflict and Macropolicy: The Political Business
Cycle', Review of Radical Political Economy, 7/1, 1974fand 'Class Conflict,
Keynesian Policies and the Business Cycle', Monthly Review, 24, 1974), and by W.
D. Nordhaus ('The Political Business Cycle', Review of Economic Studies, 42,1975); G. R. Feiwell devoted a chapter of his 1975 monography on Kalecki to thisconcept [The Intellectual Life of Michal Kalecki, ch. 9); and a more recent study is
A. Henley, 'Political Aspects of Full Employment: A Reassessment of Kalecki',
Political Quarterly, 59/4, 1988.
Interestingly, several features of a political business cycle are implied in theeditorial 'The Economy in Second Gear' of the Washington Post, 22 Oct. 1976,7

which discussed developments in the American economy in the third quarter of
1976:
President Ford has certainly resisted—to a fault, you might say—the traditional
quadrennial temptation to spritz up the economy for election day. Four years ago
President Nixon and his associates seized all the valves that they could reach andturned them up to Full and Hot. Immediately after the election, they turned mostof them off again. That surge of pre-election stimulus no doubt contributed to Mr
Nixon's re-election, but it also contributed to the economy's subsequent troubles.
Mr Ford's performance has been absolutely characteristic. It was a decent andconservative refusal to give the economy a temporary tonic for the campaign
season.
A concise comparison of Kalecki's and Keynes's approaches to full-employment
policy was given by Joan Robinson in her 'Michal Kalecki: A Neglected Prophet',
New York Review of Books, 4 Mar. 1976:
Keynes liked to believe in the power of ideas to influence the course of history. He
sometimes maintained that when the principles of employment policy were understood, economic affairs would be conducted rationally, and he even went so far as topredict a happy future in which our grandchildren could devote themselves entirely
to the arts and graces of life.
Kalecki's vision of the future was more realistic. In a remarkable article published in1943 on the 'Political Aspects of Full Employment' he foresaw that when governments
understood how to control the commercial trade cycle we should find ourselves ina political trade cycle. . . . This was fairly accurate prediction of what we have experienced, both in the US and in Britain, in the last thirty years of alternating go andstop.
Kalecki's diagnosis underestimated what turned out to be the effects of the balanceof payments in the British case, and the interplay between hot and cold war in the
US. He also underestimated the importance of the financial policy and of exchange
rates, putting his main emphasis on the role of government spending. But his
analysis has certainly turned out to be nearer the mark than Keynes's agreeable
daydream.
One sign of the popularity of Kalecki's concept was that it entered some popular
textbooks in economics (sec e.g. P. A. Samuelson, Economics, 10th andsubsequent edns.). Indeed, by the late 1970s the concept had started to live aseparate life from the rest of Kalecki's theory, its origin being often credited to
Nordhaus rather than to Kalecki. (For a review, classification, and critique ofseveral models of the political business cycle, see e.g. B. S. Frey, 'PoliticoEconomic Models and Cycles', Journal of Public Economics, 9, 1978; J. E. Alt andK. A. Chrystal, Political Economics, Berkeley, Calif., Univ. of California Press,
1983, ch. 5; for an extension of the concept to socialist economies and for abibliography of the subject, see D. M. Nuti, 'Political and Economic Fluctuationsin the Socialist System', EU I Working Papers, 156, 1985.)
There have been many attempts to test the concept empirically too, especially inthe version elaborated by W. D. Nordhaus and related to the 'electoral businesscycle' hypothesis. On the whole the evidence appears either negative or

inconclusive, both for individual countries, big or small. See e.g. F. Breuss, The
Political Business Cycle: An Extension of Nordhaus's Model', Empirica, 2, 1980,
and G. Obermann, 'Zur Wahlorientierung in der Wirt-schaftspolitik', Arheitshefte
Wirtschaftsuniversitât Wien, 18,1979, who reject it for Austria and some othersmall European countries; W. F. Shughart II and R. D. Tollison, 'Legislation and
Political Business Cycles', Kyklos, 38, 1985, and J. Sachs and A. Alesina, 'Political
Parties and the Business Cycle in the United States, 1948-1984', NBER Working
Paper, No. 1940, Washington, DC, NBER, 1986, who deny its relevance for theUSA. The same appears to be true larger samples of countries (cf. B. H. Soh,
'Political Business Cycles in Industrialized Democratic Countries', Kyklos, 39,
1986; see also E. Novotny, 'Politische Aspekte der Vollbeschaftigung—heute', inFink et al. (eds.), Economic Theory, Political Power, and Social Justice.
In his concept of the political business cycle, Kalecki concentrated attention on
the economic interests of the capitalists and the masses from the viewpoint of theachievement and permanent maintenance of full employment. However, he did
not elaborate the actual mechanism of transmission between the economic
interests of his two classes on the one hand and the political and institutional
system of the parliamentary democracy on the other. Filling this gap by reference
to an electoral process and a replacement of the political by an electoral businesscycle (towards which Kalecki himself tended in the original version of his theory) is
unsatisfactory, for in the latter concept the distinction between social classes andtheir respective interests is washed away in pre-electoral manipulations aimed at
gaining universal popularity. Moreover, at intervals of 4-5 years between elections,the electoral business cycle does not leave enough time for permanent full
employment to influence the 'discipline in the factories' or the power of capitalist
bosses; those feedbacks may need more time.
A recognition of the long-term implications of the 'political business cycle' gave riseto the concept of a 'political trend'. It sets Kalecki's explanation of the causes forthe capitalists' opposition to permanent full employment into the context of a long
period, and seeks to explain a shift in economic policies in the USA and othercountries, in the early 1970s, as a pre-determined slowdown of economic growth,and a transition to long-run unemployment; the rise of monetarism and a rebirth oflaissez-faire doctrines are also explained in those terms (see J. Steindl, 'Stagnation
Theory and Stagnation Policy', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 3,1979; A. Bhaduri
and J. Steindl, 4A Rise of Monetarism as a Social Doctrine', Thames Papers in
Political Economy, autumn 1983).
However, the concept of a political trend also faces the problem of a mechanism
for transmitting the economic and political interests of various classes underparliamentary democracy. Kalecki entertained the traditional Marxist view on therole of the government, which he saw as a passive instrument in the hands ofcapitalists. In spite of highly increased shares, in all OECD countries, of thegovernment sector in total output and employment, Kalecki thought government
economic intervention to be merely 'an offshoot of a somewhat chaotic interplay
between the laissez-faire tendencies and government action' (Theories of Growth in
Different Social Systems', in Collected Works, vol. iv).
8

While many agree with Kalecki that the scope and means of the government's
counter-cyclical intervention are the result, not of centrally planned and wholly
consistent actions, but of an interplay of the contradictory interests of various
social classes and their political doctrines, none the less the counter-cyclical policy
is merely a part of the government's economic involvement. Moreover, the lack ofsuccess of many attempts to reduce the share of government expenditure innational income is evidence that the government is not quite omnipotent in finetuning its expenditures, many of which enjoy great autonomy and representinterests that cannot be unequivocally identified as those of the masses or of thecapitalists. It is postulated, therefore, that in order to explain changes ingovernment spending, which were possibly one of the main determinants of thecrisis and recovery phases in capitalist reproduction from the early 1970s onwards,
a more complex model of government expenditures and their structure may beneeded (see J. Osiatynski, 'Kalecki's Theory of Economic Dynamics after ThirtyYears', Oeconomica Polona, 1, 1986).
[2]
In the abbreviated version of his article, Kalecki replaced all this introductory partwith the following text:
The maintenance of full employment through government spending financed byloans has been widely discussed in recent years. This discussion, however, hasconcentrated on the purely economic aspects of the problem without paying due
consideration to political realities. The assumption that a government will
maintain full employment in a capitalist economy if only it knows how to do it isfallacious. In this connection the misgivings of big business about maintenance offull employment by government spending are of paramount importance.

[5]
In the abbreviated version, this and the previous sentences were deleted.
[6]
In the abbreviated version included in the 1971 (Cambridge University Press) English
translation, this paragraph is omitted (probably by mistake, since it is included in allother abbreviated editions of Kalecki's article). Moreover, in the later editions
Kalecki omitted also the whole of the original pt. v. Joan Robinson made thefollowing comment on this latter omission:
These passages today seem pathetically optimistic; they are a painful reminder of what amixed blessing thirty years of near-full employment has turned out to be. The last paragraphof Kalecki's article is even more poignant to read today.. . . The failure to develop
new institutions and attitudes while maintaining a more or less continuous growthof national income left no way for the workers to get a better deal, other than
through traditional wage bargaining. The struggle of people to maintain their shareof income, which has now spread to every group in society, is the basic cause of theinflationary stagnation which is threatening to bring the era of high employment
and growth to an end. ('Michat Kalecki: A Neglected Prophet', p. 30.)

[3]
In the abbreviated version this sentence was deleted.
[4]
In the abbreviated version this paragraph reads:
The fact that armaments are the backbone of the policy of fascist full employment
has a profound influence upon its economic character. Large-scale armaments are
inseparable from the expansion of the armed forces and the preparation of plans
for a war of conquest. They also include competitive rearmament of othercountries. This causes the main aim of the spending to shift gradually from full
employment to securing the maximum effect of rearmament. The resulting
scarcity of resources leads to the curtailment of consumption compared with what
it could have been under full employment.

9