- 2025年8月27日
A Clear Structuralist Approach to Economy and Economics: Separating the Real and Financial Economies
A Clear Structuralist Approach to Economy and Economics: Separating the Real and Financial Economies
Introduction: A Philosophical Lens to Solve the “Why” of Economics
“Why do stock prices rise when the economy is struggling?” “Why do companies go bankrupt despite being profitable on paper?”
Every time we hear such news, we are puzzled by the gap between reality and the numbers. The key to solving these “whys” of the modern economy is hidden in a concept from contemporary philosophy: Structuralism.
This article, using the universal tool of double-entry bookkeeping as a clue, will re-examine the economy as a two-layered structure: 1) the ‘Real Economy’ where goods and services are exchanged, and 2) the ‘Financial Economy’ where money moves as data. These two worlds correspond to the philosophical perspectives of “Realism” and “Structuralism,” respectively.
By putting on this new pair of glasses, the seemingly contradictory landscape of the economy will come into surprisingly sharp focus.
1. Which Comes First, the “Thing” or the “Relation”? Realism vs. Structuralism
Much of the world’s complexity arises from unconsciously mixing up two ways of seeing: Realism and Structuralism.
- Realism: This is our intuitive, common-sense view that individual things (the dots), like “apples” or “people,” exist first, and relationships are formed between them afterward.
- Structuralism: This view posits that the system of relationships (the lines) that defines things exists before the individual things themselves. It’s not that a person called a “king” exists, but rather that the relational system of “king and subject” allows a person to become a “king.”
Modern mathematics and logic have developed by incorporating this structuralist perspective. And economics, particularly the “financial economy,” is a field whose essence is revealed when viewed through this very lens.
2. From Money to the Economy: Double-Entry Bookkeeping as a “Structure”
In a previous article, I explained that modern money (credit money) is structuralist. This is because it is born from the relational rule of double-entry bookkeeping, where a borrower’s “deposit” and a bank’s “loan” are created simultaneously at the moment of lending.
Let’s extend this view to the entire economy. Central banks, commercial banks, corporations, households… all economic agents keep their books according to the common rules of double-entry bookkeeping. When you pay someone, the same amount is simultaneously recorded in your ledger and theirs.
In other words, the financial economy can be understood as “a vast network where countless economic agents (the dots) are interconnected by the common rules of double-entry bookkeeping (the lines).”
3. Why Textbooks Address “Money” Later: The Classical Dichotomy
Interestingly, many macroeconomics textbooks do not mention money or banks in their opening chapters. This is based on an idea called the “Classical Dichotomy.”
This is the concept that the economy can be separated into a “real sector” (production and exchange of goods and services) and a “monetary sector” (money supply and price levels). It concludes that the amount of money only affects price levels and has no (long-term) impact on the real economy, a principle known as the “Neutrality of Money.”
This demonstrates how economics has traditionally cast the “real economy (the realist world of things)” as the main character, with money and banks playing a supporting “functional” role. So, what would we see if we cast this supporting actor, the “financial economy (the structuralist world of symbols),” as the protagonist?
4. The Perfect World of Bookkeeping… and Its “Pitfall”
Double-entry bookkeeping, the foundation of the financial economy, has an absolute rule: “the books must always balance (Assets = Liabilities + Equity).”
This rule is unwavering, whether money is burned in a fire, someone goes bankrupt, or the Great Depression occurs. This is because it is a “rule of symbols” designed to balance. In an extreme scenario, if all debts and credits in the world were settled, the numbers on the ledgers would net out to zero. What a beautiful, perfectly self-contained world.
However, herein lies a major pitfall.
The harmony of this perfect “world of symbols” does not, in any way, guarantee the prosperity or stability of our real lives—the “real economy.” In fact, this very perfection is what can sometimes create a terrifying “divergence” from reality.
5. Why Does “Divergence” Occur? The Gap Between Two Worlds
The rules of the world of ledgers are different from the rules of the real world. This “gap” manifests as various economic contradictions.
- Asset Bubbles
- Real Economy: Corporate profits and people’s salaries are growing only slightly.
- Financial Economy: Based on excessive future expectations, the numbers on the books (stock/land prices) inflate in a self-perpetuating cycle.
- Stock Market Highs Without Real Economic Growth
- Real Economy: The economy stagnates as corporate profits are not directed toward investment or wages.
- Financial Economy: Money with nowhere else to go flows into the stock market, and stock prices are pushed up by share buybacks.
- Insolvent while Profitable (“Kuroji-Tosan”)
- Real Economy: A business fails because it lacks the necessary cash for payments.
- Financial Economy: On the books, assets exceed liabilities, showing a “profit,” and the balance is maintained.
This is precisely why “double-entry bookkeeping always balances, but it does not guarantee people’s employment or well-being.” Financial integrity and real-world welfare must be assessed on completely different axes.
Conclusion: Structuralism as an “Option” for Seeing the World Freely
We tend to view the economy from a single perspective: the “real” one. As a result, phenomena like “stock market rallies during a recession” or “profitable bankruptcies” appear as incomprehensible paradoxes.
However, by adding the structuralist perspective of the “financial” world as depicted by double-entry bookkeeping, these are no longer paradoxes. They can be rationally explained as a “divergence” between two worlds operating under different rules.
Structuralism is not an esoteric philosophical theory. It is a highly practical tool of thought that frees us from the constraints of a single viewpoint and gives us “a high-resolution pair of glasses” to analyze the world from multiple angles.
Whether judging economic policy or considering one’s own assets, having this dual perspective is the definitive first step toward discovering the “free choices” that lead to a better future.