Is money a convention and/or a creature of the state? the convention of acceptability, the state, contracts, and taxes
This article begins by presenting the idea of money as a convention, first in the economics of conventions and then in post Keynesian economics, also examining whether and how one can reconcile money as a convention with Keynes's essential properties of money. The article then considers the view of money as a creature of the state, in two versions, which connect money to contracts or to taxes, respectively. Finally, it further explores the monetary foundations of a market economy, the conventional foundation of money, and the role of the state. Acknowledging that money is ultimately or fundamentally a convention requires recognizing limits to the state's ability to impose its money on the private agents. At the same time, the state is usually in a much better position than any private agent to influence the process through which the convention of acceptability of money emerges and is reproduced. A stronger proposition is that without state money there would be no stable money in a market economy. Both the fundamental conventionality of money and the essential role of the state can be thus emphasized.
Volume (Year): 36 (2013)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://mesharpe.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&id=109348|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mes:postke:v:36:y:2013:i:2:p:251-274. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Nguyen)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.