Neo-Kaleckian and Sraffian controversies on accumulation theory

With some exceptions, non-orthodox economists share the ‘Keynesian Hypothesis’ of the independence of investment from capacity-savings, in the long-run no less than the short-run. This hypothesis marks an essential point of difference from neo-classical theory. Keynes showed that within the limits of the existing capacity utilisation, it is investment that determines savings. The correct way to extend this conclusion to the long run is the object of the present paper. In particular, it provides an assessment of the controversy on demand-led growth theory that has taken place since the mid-1980s between neo-Kaleckian and Sraffian authors, particularly those closer to the late Piero Garegnani’s ‘surplus approach’. For the sake of the argument the Sraffian front is divided between a first and a second Sraffian position (the second defined as Sraffian supermultiplier approach). Although I argue that the second approach is the most promising, the dissention should not be over-emphasised, so will also often generically refer to Sraffian authors.