State capitalism and the rent-seeking conjecture

The notion that state capitalism (an economic system “in which the state functions as the leading economic actor and uses markets primarily for political gain”) is a new form of capitalism emerging in the global arena has been recently advanced by several authors. This paper explores the problem of the nature of this system in the light of these claims to novelty. What are its main features as described by these authors? Is state capitalism distinctive from other forms of capitalism or other types of economic systems? Are we really witnessing the emergence of a new type of economic system? To address such questions the paper starts by trying to place the model of state capitalism within the traditional comparative economic systems framework. The inconclusive result leads to a different approach in which the concept of rent-seeking society is used to underlie the structural similarities between mercantilism, real life socialism and state capitalism. The article argues that the conjecture that what has been labeled “state capitalism” is yet another form of rent-seeking system is both robust and worth further investigating.     

British Influence on Argentine Growth: The Dependency Controversy

Using Russia's state capitalist economy as an illustration, this paper discusses possible roles that the emergent regime of state capitalism could play in shaping societal evolution along more democratic and equitable lines. The study discusses major currents within the modern discourse of constructivist evolutionism to situate suggested roles for state capitalism within evolutionary economics, thus increasing the range of research issues that can be investigated. The paper argues that the theoretical framework of institutionalist constructivism makes it possible to demonstrate, with a progressivist agenda, the potential that could exist in a state capitalist order. Moreover, the paper outlines policies for progressive development through state capitalism.     

Creating Legitimacy,Reciprocity, and Transfer Programs

Sustainable development prospects are not substantially visible in the comparative analysis of models of capitalism. The concept of sustainable development does not appear in the initial theoretical framework of the “variety of capitalism” approach or in the “diversity of capitalism” approach. This article aims to contribute to current thinking about the interaction between the diversity of capitalism and sustainable development, based on the concepts of institutional complementarity and hierarchy, and to question the dynamics of various forms of capitalism in this perspective. The example of economic policies aimed at tackling global warming shows how each form of capitalism adopts measures that are compatible with its own unique configuration of complementary institutions, helping to make it “greener.” However, this trend fits into a dynamic of “limited sustainability” that does not challenge the finance-dominated institutional hierarchy or the current growth regime. The non-viability of our production/consumption model on a global scale calls for a more radical change in capitalism, combined with a shift in the institutional hierarchy.     

Competing Hegemonic Projects within China's Variegated Capitalism: ‘Liberal’ Guangdong vs. ‘Statist’ Chongqing

This article investigates the variegated model of capitalism emerging in China through a comparative analysis of two contrasting local government approaches developed in Chongqing and Guangdong. From 2007 to 2012, elite politicians and intellectuals articulated the Chongqing and Guangdong models as contradictory visions for China. Drawing on a three-pronged conceptual framework developed by Bob Jessop, the article de- and reconstructs this dichotomy which has been embraced by some Western scholars. It is argued, first, that the two models involve complimentary accumulation strategies: as Guangdong moves up global value chains, Chongqing takes over many of its low-wage jobs in manufacturing sectors. Second, however, the two models do entail contrasting state projects. Guangdong's local government opened up more space for civil society organisations than normally allowed, whereas Chongqing's administrators reinforced China's state-led development path. Finally, it is highlighted how this difference between state projects is reflected in two antagonistic hegemonic visions for China's national development, illustrated by the populism of former Chongqing Party Chief Bo Xilai vs. the pro-business stance of his Guangdong counterpart Wang Yang. Future studies should expand upon the key theoretical insight of the paper: that the emergent variegated capitalism approach to political–economic analysis needs a stronger ideational component.     

Social Justice in Comparative Political Economy: Lessons from Habermas and the Contemporary German Case

This article critiques recent operationalisations of social justice theories in empirical research in comparative political economy from an epistemological entry point. It offers an alternative epistemic framework based on Habermas’s system and lifeworld distinction to reconcile normative theory with empirical research before developing a critical theory of social justice based on two principles: Nancy Fraser’s parity of participation and Hauke Brunkhorst’s notion that functional differentiation in systems cannot generate asymmetric moral standards. These principles are then operationalised for regimes of welfare capitalism before exploring the contemporary German labour market in these terms, drawing on original qualitative research. It demonstrates that parity of participation cannot be achieved when the moral duty to participate is asymmetrically applied. It concludes capitalism is inherently unjust in any variety due to the inequality of wealth and free movement of capital reinforcing the inequality of moral expectations characterising the lived experience of welfare-mediated labour markets. Therefore, accepting this inherent injustice and whether institutions of the welfare state exacerbate or mitigate it should be the central focus of future research on social justice in comparative political economy.     

What about the Elephant in the Room? Varieties of Capitalism,Varieties in Capitalism

Conceived as considerably broader than simply the Varieties of Capitalism framework, I argue that the varieties of capitalism literature is premised upon an institutional reductionism which necessitates the search for a more holistic approach. In brief, if we are to explain convincingly the evolution of national political economies, then we must acknowledge that varieties of capitalism are also varieties in capitalism. In particular, Antonio Gramsci's writings on common sense enable us to focus on the role of institutions as a historical force without abandoning the system of production that they are part of. I then provide an alternative explanation, compared to the varieties of capitalism literature, of the evolution of the Dutch and German political economies in order to demonstrate the advantages of the framework I develop.     

“Love of wealth” and economic growth

In a Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans growth framework it is shown that for an optimum a benevolent social planner cannot have an excessive “love of wealth”. With a “right” “love of wealth” an optimum exists and implies higher long‐run per‐capita capital, income, and consumption relative to the standard model. This has important implications for comparative development trajectories. The optimum implies dynamic efficiency with the possibility of getting arbitrarily close to the golden rule where long‐run per‐capita consumption is maximal. It is shown that the optimal path attains its steady state more slowly. Thus, the beneficial effects of love of wealth materialize later than in the standard model. Furthermore, the economy can be decentralized as a competitive private ownership economy. One can then identify “love of wealth” with the “spirit of capitalism.” The paper thus implies that one needs a “right” level of the “spirit of capitalism” to realize any beneficial effects for the long run.     

Surviving Uneven Development: Social Reproduction and the Persistence of Capitalism

This article takes the 25th anniversary of Neil Smith's Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space as an opportunity to consider the seminal contributions the book has made for pushing scholars to more deeply consider the connections between the persistence of capitalism and social reproduction. Furthermore, we move on from this connection to consider the emancipatory ideas within Uneven Development and their connection to prompting new forms of revolutionary imagination and political possibility.     

‘Conscience Capitalism’ and the Neoliberalisation of the Non-Profit Sector

This article analyses a range of initiatives, labelled as ‘conscience capitalist’, that have become prominent since the 2008 financial crash. Conscience capitalism encompasses projects emerging in both the for- and non-profit sectors that seek to connect neoliberal capitalism with concepts of morality and conscience. The article begins by unpacking conscience capitalism, showing how its for-profit advocates seek to transform capitalism by orienting it towards accounting for social and environmental externalities, and how its non-profit supporters seek to incorporate components of neoliberalism to serve their environmentally and/or socially focused agendas. Conscience capitalism appears to be a re-evaluation and call for reform of the prominent forms of neoliberalism. However, this article argues that, rather than comprising a hindrance, conscience capitalism offers a means of advancing the project. This is evident in its attempts to reconstitute social and environmental externalities in terms relatable to the market, and represent social and environmental problems in quantitative terms in which the success of market-based solutions can be read. Acknowledging some of the successes of conscience capitalist campaigns, the article concludes by arguing that this continued neoliberalisation of the non-profit sector favours campaigns consistent with neoliberalism and has the potential to undermine the democratic governance of non-profits.     

Theorising the Korean State beyond Institutionalism: Class Content and Form of ‘National’ Development

Although the Korean developmental state has been heavily discussed in various disciplines and across diverse political spectrums, the statist notion that the developmental state is autonomous from and disciplines society, and is therefore effective in achieving ‘national development’, has more often been taken for granted than problematised. Statism is also pervasive in institutionalism that emphasises the linkages rather than dichotomies between state and market and in the recent discussions on the transformation of the developmental state. This article proposes an alternative conceptual framework by reformulating ‘the form critique of the state’ pioneered by Evgeny Pashukanis and further developed in the ‘German state derivation debate’ on the one hand, and ‘world system analysis’ on the other. Extending the Marxist critique of ‘commodity fetishism’ to the theorisation of the developmental state, it inquires into the origins of statism and argues that it is the uneven dynamics of capitalism as a global system that give rise to statism in the first place.     

国际金融危机背景下西方学者的资本主义危机理论及启示

资本主义危机理论一直是国外马克思主义学者关注的焦点。在资本主义发展的不同时期,他们对于资本主义危机的理解也有所不同。2008年金融危机的爆发,迫使一些西方学者摒弃以往传统的经济视角,转而寻求新的研究范式来解读资本主义的危机,这一时期备受关注的危机理论有:体制危机论,福利国家危机论和资本主义总体性危机论。总体来看,随着资本主义社会的发展,西方学者不再从单一视角出发研究资本主义危机,不再将资本主义危机单纯理解为经济危机,而是趋向多元化的理解。     

Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen on technological determinism,individualism and institutions

This article investigates Joseph Schumpeter's affinities with Thorstein Veblen with respect to technological change and determinism, the future of capitalism, individualism and institutions. From a methodological point of view, a common point in their analysis is their anti-teleological view regarding economics as a discipline. Also, in the Schumpeterian system, technology is the cornerstone of economic evolution and appears as the making of new combinations. In the Veblenian theoretical framework, the bearer of change is to be found, inter alia, in technology, just like in Schumpeter's works, although not without differences. They also share the opinion that technology revolutionises capitalism and has serious implications for its future as a system. Furthermore, regarding individualism, in his work Schumpeter stresses the importance of the social milieu on individual action, a fact which bears strong resemblance to the Veblenian notion of evolution as ‘depersonalized evolution’. In this sense, Schumpeter is very close to Veblen, although Schumpeter's approach could be classified in what is called institutionalist individualism, whereas Veblen could be classified as holist. Undoubtedly, the role of institutions is of great importance in both Schumpeter and Veblen. Ιnstitutions in the Schumpeterian schema play a central role closely related to the future of capitalism. Institutional and non-institutional factors enter into complex forms of interaction just like in Veblen's approach. There, institutions are part of the social milieu and their underlying framework, much wider than mere economic and social. Of course, the theoretical analyses of Schumpeter and Veblen are not devoid of differences springing mainly from their methodological approach such as the role of the individual in the capitalist process which is probably the most significant difference regarding the importance attributed to it in Schumpeter's early works. Also, the way technical change appears constitutes another difference. However, his views are quite close to Veblen's. After all, Schumpeter began to write in a social, political, theoretical and ideological environment at a time when evolutionary ideas dominated social thought.     

The state-augmenting effects of globalisation

Recent debates have drawn attention to the legitimacy challenges faced by new forms of global governance. Privatised governance in particular has come under considerable scrutiny. This paper attempts to contribute to this debate through an analysis of the widespread critiques of climate governance that focus on its ‘marketized’ or ‘privatized’ character. Such critiques fundamentally attempt to delegitimise dominant governance mechanisms which can be collectively known as the ‘global carbon market’. The paper argues that to understand the political dynamics of legitimacy surrounding these forms of governance we need to take into account the recurrent tension within capitalism between accumulation and legitimation. This focus enables us to understand the legitimacy problems surrounding climate governance. First, it draws attention to the character of the discourses which are critical of marketized climate governance, which attack it precisely because of the forms of accumulation it enables. Second, many of these governance projects have themselves been developed in part precisely in order to overcome legitimacy crises inherent in capital accumulation, and specifically in the current context in relation to the dominance of finance within contemporary capitalism. Finally, it suggests that one of the strategies of firms involved in such governance is to attempt to overcome this legitimacy-accumulation tension in the way that automobility did in the Fordist era. Climate governance practices should be understood as a pursuit of this sort of coherence which might give rise to an ‘ecological regime of accumulation’ that aims to forestall more radical critiques that argue that capitalism and sustainability are inimical.     

Income Distribution,Econophysics and Piketty

Piketty, Atkinson and Saez have put the analysis of income distribution back on center stage. The distinction between property income and labor income plays a central role in this framework. Property income derives from the rate of return on stocks of income-earning wealth and is more unequally distributed than labor income. Piketty argues that, because the rate of return (r) is generally greater than the rate of growth of the economy (g), property income tends to grow more rapidly than labor income, so that rising income inequality is an intrinsic tendency of capitalism despite interruptions due to world wars and great depressions. This article argues the exact opposite. The rise of unions and the welfare state were the fruits of long-term historical gains made by labor, and the postwar constraints on real and financial capital arose in sensible reaction to the Great Depression. The ‘neoliberal’ era beginning in the 1980s significantly rolled back all of these. The article uses the econophysics two-class argument of Yakovenko to show that we can explain the empirical degree of inequality using two factors alone: the profit share and the degree of financialization of income. The rise of inequality in the neoliberal era then derives from a reduction in the wage share (rise in the profit share) in the face of assaults on labor and the welfare state, and a sharp increase in the financialization of incomes as financial controls are weakened. These are inherently socio-political outcomes, and what was lost can be regained. Hence, there is no inevitable return to Piketty’s ‘patrimonial capitalism’.     

THE EXTENDED GOVERNANCE OF COOPERATIVE FIRMS: INTER‐FIRM COORDINATION AND CONSISTENCY OF VALUES

This work aims at providing a framework for the analysis of governance in networks of cooperative firms. It builds on four bodies of literature: cooperation, transaction costs, monopoly capitalism, production networks. The framework associates the specific principles that define the identity of cooperative organizations (self‐help, member ownership, democratic control, financial participation, limited capital remuneration) alongside more general governance levels (embodied values, property rights, control, resource allocation). We then apply the same dimensions to production networks and propose a stylized networking model for cooperatives. We introduce market power, and identify two polarized types of networks: (1) heterarchical forms of coordination based on cooperation and mutual help, (2) hierarchical coordination based on exclusive direction. We compare both types with our normative framework providing examples and brief case studies for each network type. Recommendations to scholars and practitioners point at the opportunity to discriminate inter‐firm relations and production development strategy in terms of the values of cooperation, at all governance levels.     

Colonialism,Postcolonialism and the Liberal Welfare State

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the colonial and racial origins of the welfare state with a particular emphasis on the liberal welfare state of the USA and UK. Both are understood in terms of the centrality of the commodified status of labour power expressing a logic of market relations. In contrast, we argue that with a proper understanding of the relations of capitalism and colonialism, the sale of labour power as a commodity already represents a movement away from the commodified form of labour represented by enslavement. European colonialism is integral to the development of welfare states and their forms of inclusion and exclusion which remain racialised through into the twenty-first century.     

Between Late-Industrialisation and Globalisation: The Hybridisation of Labour Relations among Leading South Korean Firms

South Korea's (hereinafter Korea) labour relations illuminate the possibilities for the ‘hybridisation’ of non-liberal capitalism under globalisation. Unlike the well-known German and Japanese advanced non-liberal capitalisms, Korea appeared to be far less conducive to ‘hybridisation’. First, inclusive labour practices were not well developed. Second, it had introduced comprehensive economic liberalisation following the financial crash of 1998. Despite these unfavourable conditions, leading Korean firms have tended to maintain or even introduce non-liberal practices than to discard them. The resulting melding of non-liberal and liberal practices (‘hybridisation’) can be traced to three legacies of late-industrialisation: state inclination to intervene during crises; countervailing power of labour at leading enterprises; and the intensity of big business rivalry as a force for the assimilation of inclusive practices. The effects of these legacies in generating mixed practices will be illustrated using firm-level case studies from Korea's two leading export sectors. It will also be argued that Korea's pattern of labour relations hybridity is not conducive to convergence with extant forms of advanced capitalism. Hence Korea is more suitably denoted as a form of late-industrialisation hybrid capitalism whose experience is relevant to other late-developers as they achieve ‘advanced’ status.     

大数据与监视型资本主义

本文首先介绍了监视型资本主义的概念,描述信息时代的资本是如何通过收集个人数据,无视私隐,筛选用户,在不受法律监控的情况下进行帝国式扩展的。进而,本文提出数据的附身性和数码资本错位这两个特征,用以分析技术如何在数据收集和应用上激活数据的私人财产属性,以及资本如何利用价值错位和技术优势去诱使用户参与这一资本增值的进程。数据的附身性揭示了个体如何被卷入大数据时代的生产关系,数码资本错位揭示了资本具体实现监视型资本主义的技术。这两个概念将完善监视型资本主义这一理论体系,进一步展现这个时代隐蔽的不平等状况。     

The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America

This article argues that the business enterprise has evolved through successive stable organizational structures which correspond with instability for those falling outside its aegis. This is shown in the institutional and historical context of both managerial capitalism in the mid-twentieth century as well as the era of financialization that followed. Hence, the framework developed herein elaborates on the ceremonial characteristics of the business enterprise under money manager capitalism, and constitutes a contribution toward an updated going concern theory of the business enterprise.     

Lessons for Development from the Japanese Experience

Economic class, defined in relation to its actual control over the economy’s productive assets, is the most useful lens for examining power distribution in the post-Soviet transition and clarifying the neoliberal nature of its social provisioning processes. Using Ukraine as an illustration, I argue that only ownership empowerment of economically powerless classes can democratize the oligarchic transition economies. As an exit strategy from oligarchic capitalism, I recommend that state capitalism be implemented, as a transitory condition only, to divest oligarchs of unlawfully acquired economic power. Then, progressive restructuring of oligarchic companies must be conducted through broadening property ownership to include shared ownership and worker participation in economic decisions. I conclude that only by nurturing the democratic fundamentals of the economy and promoting a social democratic welfare state could a government in post-Euromaidan Ukraine initiate its own social control and create a genuine political and economic democracy.