From Big Bang to Big Crash: The Early Origins of the UK’s Finance-led Growth Model and the Persistence of Bad Policy Ideas

Using newly declassified documents from the British Public Records Office, we argue that the finance-dependent growth regime that typified the UK economy in the period up to the Great Crash of 2008 has much deeper roots than is commonly realised. We use these documents to demonstrate that the growth of finance was integral to the Thatcher revolution, tying together mortgage markets, household debt, and boom-bust cycles as early as the mid-1980s. We also show how policy-makers in this period were aware of all the weaknesses of this growth model, to the point that they effectively diagnosed what would happened in 2008, back in 1987. We argue that selecting for a finance-led growth model as the preferred growth model so early effectively rendered other possible growth models for the UK unattainable. The result was the shift from an economy characterised by ‘stop-go’ cycles in the post-war period to an economy characterised by recurrent ‘boom-slump-austerity-reset’ cycles in the Thatcher and post Thatcher periods. The 2008 crisis did not change this highly unstable mode of accumulation.     

The Grameen Bank as Progressive Institutional Adjustment

Over the past 25 years, a variety of Neoliberal reforms were introduced. Instead of growth, stability, and the narrowing of income gaps, however, we have seen stagnation, volatility, and increased inequality. The paper examines the theory that justified these policies, describes an alternative approach, and takes a brief look at a small group of Latin American countries in the aftermath of the Mexican Crisis. It is shown that not only does the alternative view raise serious doubts about the efficacy of Neoliberalism, but that those countries that refused to follow suit were better protected against contagion after the December Mistake.     

What made Economists so Politically Influential? Governance-related Ideas and Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Economic Liberalisation of Israel and beyond

Liberal economists are known to be one of the driving forces behind economic liberalisation in various countries, but how did they become so politically influential? Constructivists generally suggest that during economic crises liberal economists persuaded decision-makers to adopt pro-market policy ideas as solutions for economic turbulence. While this answer is true, it is also only partial because it disregards the role played by governance-related ideas and institutional entrepreneurship in the political actions of liberal economists. I argue that ideas regarding decision-making mechanisms provided liberal economists with the basis for creatively exploiting pre-liberalisation institutions, such as central banks and central budget offices, through which these economists enhanced their long-term political influence. An in-depth examination of a paradigmatic case of economic liberalisation driven by liberal economists – Israel's Stabilisation Plan – exemplifies that argument. The existence of like-minded economists and similar pre-liberalisation policy-making institutions in many other countries hints that the Israeli experience is not unique.     

发展中国家经济安全问题的制度分析

在市场经济全球化迅速发展的背景下,制度因素已成为影响发展中国家经济安全的最大瓶颈.因此,拟从新制度主义的视角,从制度结构和制度供求两个维度对发展中国家经济安全的影响机制进行深入系统的阐释,在此基础之上,提出应对经济安全问题的具体对策和措施.     

Class Struggle or Embedded Markets? Marx,Polanyi and the Meanings and Possibilities of Social Transformation

Marx and Polanyi both held that socialism, in one form or another, was a preferable and possible alternative to capitalism. Their ideas are seen to offer theoretical tools to understand the tensions and contradictions of capitalism, and to inform ways to overcome them. This paper discusses Polanyi's work from a Marxist perspective in order to illuminate his strengths and weaknesses. Its main focus is to discuss Polanyi's juxtaposing of commodification against exploitation, in diagnosing the problems of capitalist expansion. We suggest that by juxtaposing these two moments, Polanyi not only misses out on a crucial arena of capitalist activity (exploitation), but also undermines his own explication of processes of commodification. This has deleterious consequences for his understanding of the prevalence of poverty under capitalism. It also means that his vision of social transformation and of socialism is profoundly different, and potentially antithetical, to that of Marx. We suggest that for Polanyi's conception of de-commodification to gain greater traction it needs to be combined with Marx's analysis of exploitation and class struggle.     

Habits of Thought and the Process of Economic Development: Remarks on Receiving the Veblen-Commons Award

Among the many insightful contributions of Thorstein Veblen and John R. Commons is that habits of thought matter. Habits of thought condition policy and place limits on what is possible. This article tackles five habits of thought that inhibit the process of economic development. These include: (i) the confusion of economic development with economic growth; (ii) the crowding-out hypothesis; (iii) the concept of the steady state economy; (iv) the peak oil hypothesis; and (v) the inevitability of economic progress. None of the discussions in this article are intended to minimize the importance of other very real constraints to the development process. A few of these other constraints are war, racism, sexism, political instability, corruption, and climate change.     

The 2018 Clarence Ayres Scholar An Institutional Riposte to the “After the Washington Consensus”

The Washington Consensus as conceived in 1989 by John Williamson, the initiator of the term, was the foundation of the mainstream perspective on international development. The Washington Consensus consisted of a set of ten policies to be imposed through conditionality by international financial institutions on distressed developing countries. The vast criticism that ensued brought a set of policies in the form of the After the Washington Consensus (hereafter the AWC) in 2003, which designated a “new” set of policy reforms and conditionalities for developing countries. The aim of this article is to contrast the two sets of controversial policies, the original Washington Consensus and AWC, to an alternative perspective of international development based on an institutionalist approach.     

Latin American Development: What About the State,Conflict and Power?

Abstract:

Several authors have raised the similarities between Latin American structuralism and economic institutionalism, pointing out the possibilities of reciprocal enrichment between both approaches but highlighting, at the same time, the mutual ignorance between them. However, the eventual interaction between these theories was hampered by the advent of the neoclassical—and neoliberal—offensive, and the displacement of Latin American contributions, both in its structuralist and dependency variants. The replacement of these contributions by the neo-structuralist approach implied a displacement of the characteristics of original structuralism, associated with the conception of central-peripheral economies, and the central role of the state for Latin American development. These displacements, I argue, limited the possibility of finding the means to achieve the so-called social transformation, to which institutionalists and structuralists referred. The present article tries, on the one hand, to critically analyze the neo-structuralist discourse, evaluating how these displacements affect the possibility of proposing a structural transformation in Latin America (led by the state). On the other hand, it seeks to recover the dimensions associated with power, conflict and the centrality of the state to rethink the challenges of structural transformation, from which articulations between structuralism and institutionalism could be proposed.     

Property and Economic Power as Issues in Institutional Economics

In the first part of this two-part paper, I presented an "irenic" reconciliation of the three apparently contradictory definitions of "institution" within original institutional economics (OIE), employing the methodology of critical institutionalism. The critical institutionalist reconciliation of these definitions conceptualizes institutions as an emergent process by which the internal and necessary relations of social structure as collective action, mediated through agency, results in the control, expansion, and liberation of the individual action of social actors in transactions. In short, an institution is the emergent process of social structure actualized in transactions (social action). Institutions, therefore, not only have a structural existence, but also an actual existence as they are the process of the emergence of the actual (in transactions) from the structural. Institutions are multi-level processes and cannot be reduced to structures, actions, behaviors, or patterns of behaviors. In this part, I demonstrate the significance of this reconciliation in two areas. The first is its ability to further differentiate the institutional definition of economics as "the science of social provisioning" from the mainstream definition of economics as "a relationship between ends and scarce means" by decomposing the institutional definition into its productive and distributive processes. The second is its usefulness in modeling the interaction of non-economic social institutions with economic institutions at varying levels of detail. I also introduce critical institutional analysis, and use as a method, for model-building and use it to build models of communal, feudal, and industrial capitalist economies.     

The Dichotomized State

As the radical institutionalist literature attests, in spite of methodological differences Marx and Veblen draw strikingly similar conclusions regarding production, conflict, and alienation in modern life. Here we attempt to contribute to this viewpoint by establishing that similarity in conclusion stems from similarity in approach. After reviewing the existing literature on a Marx-Veblen methodological reconciliation, we briefly review Marx's method, making the mediated starting point the focus of discussion. From this vantage point, we then examine Veblen's own approach to analysis in The Theory of Business Enterprise and the conclusions that emerge as they resemble those of Marx. We maintain that in taking a kindred approach Veblen is able to arrive at an understanding of capitalism in accordance with, and complementary to, Marx's rendering of the inverted nature of economic life in modernity.     

An Unfortunate Alignment of Heterodoxy,Nationalism, and Authoritarianism in Putin’s Russia

I address the urgent need to deal with the deliberate misuse of heterodox criticism of neoliberal policies in modern Russia. State-funded propaganda has been using distorted institutionalism to rationalize both authoritarianism and nationalism as a left-wing response to global neoliberalism and as a welcome manifestation of civilizational plurality. To help western heterodox-institutionalists offer an informed critique of what Vladimir Putin’s apologists have made of some heterodox ideas, I discuss the particularities of the history of Russian post-Soviet economic thought, and explain who these apologists are and what their training is. I also clarify how, in post-socialist Russia, it has become possible to successfully misappropriate the institutionalist emphases on the significance of culture and history in socio-economic development, and on the active role of the state in a market economy for narrow ideological purposes. In my conclusion, I emphasize strongly that traditional institutionalism is not compatible with oppression and authoritarianism.     

International Monetary Reform: A Review Article

Original institutional economics (OIE) has three significant, but apparently contradictory, definitions of institution(s) stemming from Thorstein Veblen, John Commons, and J. Fagg Foster. In this first installment of a two-part paper I address this apparent contradiction by developing an "irenic reconciliation" of these definitions using a methodological approach I call "critical institutionalism"— a synthesis of the OIE in the tradition of the Veblen, Commons, and Foster, the pragmatism theory of Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey, the critical realist methodology of Margaret Archer, and the critical realism of Roy Bhaskar. In so doing, I provide an alternative discussion to that of some current institutionalists who propose to replace the existing OIE definitions of institution(s) with "consensual definitions" developed in the discourse with non-OIE traditions. I propose that there is still considerable analytical value in the OIE definitions, and that replacing them with non-OIE-originating concepts would unnecessarily carry OIE away from its methodological and philosophical roots. In the second installment of this paper (yet to be published), I proceed to demonstrate the analytical value these "reconciled" definitions have for the OIE project.     

The institutional ideas virus: the case of Johan Åkerman

Swedish economists have received impulses from historical or institutuionalist sources on many occasions. A couple of these economists, Gunnar Myrdal and Johan Åkerman, received obvious impulses from American institutionalism. This article deals with the case of Åkerman. To attempt a wall-to-wall chart of institutional influences on an economist is hardly possible. But what is possible is to examine occasions when he was exposed to powerful ‘jolts’, viz in conjunction with studies at an American university. Johan åkerman studied at Harvard in Cambridge in 1919–20. he evetually became – alongside Myrdal – the leading institutional economist.     

Readings and translations of Karl Marx in Portugal (1852–1914)

This article presents an original and critical inventory of the most significant surveys, citations, discussions and translations made of Marx's works in Portugal up until the First World War.

The paper stresses the academic and political conditions under which Karl Marx's ideas were received in a European semiperipheral society and the specific interpretations that were made of those ideas.

It allows for the possibility of undertaking future studies comparing other national cases.     

Towards Post-neoliberal Resource Politics? The International Political Economy (IPE) of Oil and Copper in Brazil and Chile

The contemporary commodity boom is unprecedented in two ways. On the one hand, it takes place against the backdrop of the failure of neoliberal policies to achieve stable economic growth in Latin America. On the other hand, Left-of-centre governments, which have now been in power for over a decade, are designing new strategies to manage the increase in export earnings accrued from sustained international demand for commodities. In particular, Brazil and Chile have undergone significant market opening reforms in their resource sectors, yet persistent state ownership and the dominant role of state enterprises in key extractive industries continue to characterise their growth models. This article explains this puzzle through the application of Mahoney and Thelen's (2010) historical institutionalist framework on incremental change. In so doing, it offers a process-oriented approach in exploring how resource wealth under certain economic and political conditions provides leverage for states to promote economic development. In sum, the article hopes to contribute to the literature on neoliberal and post-neoliberal political economies in Latin America.     

新制度经济学的新发展与政治学新制度主义:比较与启示

新制度经济学和政治学新制度主义在发展中都因为缺乏现实性、历史性和社会性而受到批评.面对相似的问题,经济学领域兴起了以青木和格雷夫为代表的比较制度分析,政治学领域兴起了历史制度主义和社会学制度主义.本文从制度观、制度对行为的影响、制度的变迁、过去的制度对现在制度的影响、文化观念和意识形态在制度形成和发展中的作用等方面,对比较制度分析和历史制度主义、社会学制度主义进行了比较,就未来制度研究的发展趋势提出了看法.     

Sustainable Development in Affluent Countries and the Neo-Institutionalist Synthesis

Since development is a process rather than an end-state, all countries are always in a constant state of change, regardless of their level of income. This article focuses on the challenges that affluent countries face today in shifting to a sustainable development path. These challenges include improving the quality of life, achieving environmental sustainability, and addressing inequality. In the United States in particular, these challenges have increased in recent decades, despite significant economic growth. The neoclassical development model assumes that growth makes it easier to achieve sustainable development and that wellbeing rises with per capita income. We question these assumptions, and find a theory of economic development in institutional economics that better explains and accommodates sustainability. We draw on the work of many original institutionalist economists (OIE), and others working in this tradition, to analyze the challenges of sustainable development in affluent countries, especially in the United States.