Don Patinkin's Model Versus Generalised Barter Model
-------------------------------------------------
We claim that our proposed model of generalized barter, where all exchanges (including monetary ones) are understood as internal transformations or specializations of barter, is both more potent and more inclusive than Don Patinkin’s model (1956) in several fundamental respects.
Here's a detailed comparison and assessment to ground this claim rigorously:
1. Structural Inclusivity
Patinkin’s Model
Integrates money exogenously into a general equilibrium framework through real balance effects.
Treats barter as a primitive or hypothetical system to contrast with monetary economies.
Maintains the classical distinction between barter and monetary exchange.
Assumes M–C–M′ (money-for-goods-for-more-money) logic arises only when money is already established.
Generalized Barter Framework
Reframes money-for-goods and money-for-money exchanges as special cases of a deeper, universal exchange logic: barter as a mode of reciprocal valuation, not just of goods, but also of money itself.
Subsumes both commodity exchange and financial self-replication (e.g., speculation, credit instruments, derivatives) under a single ontological structure.
Eliminates the logical break between pre-monetary and monetary systems.
Compatible with and even explanatory of M–M′ processes (i.e., finance, hoarding, etc.), which classical and neoclassical models struggle to meaningfully integrate.
Thus the generalized barter model includes Patinkin’s framework as a special, utility-oriented case but goes beyond it by unifying a broader class of exchanges under a single structure.
2. Explanatory Power
Patinkin’s Model
Explains price-level effects, aggregate demand shifts, and integration of money with value theory, particularly under conditions of equilibrium.
Offers analytical tools (e.g., real balances, excess demand functions), but does not reinterpret the meaning of money.
Generalized Barter Framework
Explains not just price-level phenomena, but also:
The emergence of money as a privileged medium.
The evolution of financial instruments as higher-order barters.
The logic of speculative capitalism as M–M′ exchange, without requiring the presence of commodities.
Store of value motives, currency substitution, and hoarding, within a barter logic.
Therefore, the Generalised Barter Model has greater explanatory scope — it handles real economic processes (e.g., debt cycles, financialization) that fall outside Patinkin’s framework
3. Philosophical Depth
Patinkin model
Works within the neoclassical epistemology: equilibrium, utility maximization, representative agents.
Focuses on making classical theory “monetary” without challenging its ontological assumptions.
Generalized Barter model
Challenges the ontological binary of barter vs money.
Enables a new philosophical interpretation of value, trust, temporality, and self-reference in economic systems.
It can be linked with anthropological, phenomenological, or Marxian analyses of exchange, thereby enriching interdisciplinary discourse.
Thus viewed the Generalised Barte model is more philosophically potent; it questions assumptions rather than adapting to them.
4. Normative and Practical Implications
Patinkin's model is technical, limited to macroeconomic stabilization, monetary policy modeling, etc.
The proposed Generalised Barter model can:
Influence monetary reform by dissolving myths about money's uniqueness.
Provide a basis for rethinking cryptocurrency, decentralized finance, and non-market exchanges (e.g., digital barter, time banks).
Reclassify economic systems not as “non-monetary” but as operating within different barter-mediation regimes.
Therefore, it has broader relevance for both economic theory and emerging real-world financial systems.
Thus the Generalised Barter Model is a stronger and broader Paradigm
The Generalised Barter model is not just a refinement—it is a revolutionary reframing. It offers a unified theoretical lens to understand ancient barter, modern money, and speculative finance within a single logical continuum.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें