The Evolution and Devolution of Bank Regulation in the United States

Development economics is understood as a postwar phenomenon without antecedents. Yet, Veblen's contribution to development economics was once widely disseminated and acknowledged. Veblen's evolutionary economics centered on historically relative and limited truths applicable to specific cultures. Veblen's growth theory is a theory of economic development: quantitative accumulation is significant because it engenders qualitative change. Veblen's analysis of the harnessing of the economic potential centers on the ability of a society to successfully introduce scientific and technological advances, giving rise to increasing returns as the surplus is invested in industrial activities. Veblen presented oblique comments and startling insights in a non-empirical manner.     

Elements of Publicness in Urban Transit

This paper examines the claim that Veblen's theory of cultural evolution has generalized Darwinian principles to socioeconomic phenomena. Our argument takes place in the debate around "generalized Darwinism" in evolutionary and institutional economics. We claim that Veblen frequently relied on the concept of selection and considered institutions both as units and as factors of selection. We also argue that some of Veblen's insights can be clarified by expressing them in evolutionary-game theoretic terms. Thus, we suggest a close connection between the ontological framework of generalized Darwinism and the technical study of evolutionary phenomena through evolutionary game theory.     

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.     

Theory of Competition Policy: A Confrontation of Economic,Political and Legal Principles

Thorstein Veblen was a founding father of original, or old, institutional economics. The social and evolutionary usage of things and thoughts are at the center of Veblen's approach. In his studies, he dealt with psychological, social, anthropological and economic issues. The psychological content of Veblen's writing takes instinctive and habitual issues into consideration. The proposal of this paper is to revisit the psychology of Veblen's conspicuous consumer. In such a task, this paper discusses the role of observation and cognition in habit building, and their influence on the conspicuous consumer. It also introduces a psychological explanation of the importance of the leisure class to the conspicuous consumer. In order to build the analysis, this paper takes into account elements of Albert Bandura's vicarious learning. These elements are introduced to highlight vicarious observation as a key component of Veblen's conspicuous consumer.     

Thorstein Veblen's Darwinian framework and gene-culture coevolution theory

At the turn of the previous century, Thorstein Veblen used Darwinian evolutionary principles to explain the macro-historical evolution of human societies, as well as the institutional structure of the modern pecuniary culture. Even if Veblen had a strong intuitive grasp of the evolutionary forces operating in society, he was not always clear and explicit in developing his ideas towards a full-fledged, consistent evolutionary social theory. This paper argues that a relatively recent theoretical approach, gene-culture coevolution theory, has the conceptual apparatus to remedy this problem and thus make Veblen's ideas an important part of contemporary evolutionary thinking in social theory.     

The Discovery of the Third World

Corporatism in the academy continues to invite controversy just as it did nearly a century ago. Thorstein Veblen articulated many of the early concerns in Higher Learning in America ([1918] 1965). Many current commentaries on the subject echo Veblen's sentiments but appear to be oblivious of his tremendous intellectual legacy. This sad state of affairs may be a product of the severe reaction of early critics to Higher Learning followed by years of scholarly indifference. Nevertheless, the modern critiques of corporatism in the academy attest to the remarkable prescience of Veblen and his unique evolutionary perspective. Furthermore, critical opinion to the contrary, Higher Learning lacks neither logical consistency nor methodological integrity. Instead, Veblen's thoughts on the limits of pragmatic utilitarianism offer valuable insight into the ongoing controversy surrounding corporatism and higher learning.     

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.     

Evolutionary Aspects of Corporate Concentration and Its Implications for Economic Theory and Policy

Thorstein Veblen's class analysis implicitly was a critique of the class analysis of some Marxists, who reduced the interdependence of economic base and ideological superstructure to a causal link from the former to the latter. Veblen's emphasis on the directive to take culture into account occurs later in Antonio Gramsci's theoretical innovations: namely, class struggle for cultural hegemony and the importance of the organic intellectual as ferment for class emergence. Gramsci was experiencing the mass movement of fascism, and the (now) classic analysis of social classes became an urgently needed extension to explain class evolution. Today, capitalism is in deep crisis once again. This paper argues that the drivers of the next revolutionary upheaval will, once more, be the social classes — particularly, the newly emerging ones. We graft ideas of Veblen onto concepts suggested by Gramsci to enhance the theoretical toolbox necessary to understand contemporary global class dynamics.     

J.A. Schumpeter and T.B. Veblen on economic evolution: the dichotomy between statics and dynamics

At present, the discussion on the dichotomy between statics and dynamics is resolved by concentrating on its mathematical meaning. Yet, a simple formalisation masks the underlying methodological discussion. Overcoming this limitation, the paper discusses Schumpeter's and Veblen's viewpoint on dynamic economic systems as systems generating change from within. It contributes to an understanding on their ideas of how economics could become an evolutionary science and on their contributions to elaborate an evolutionary economics. It confronts Schumpeter's with Veblen's perspective on evolutionary economics and provides insight into their evolutionary economic theorising by discussing their ideas on the evolution of capitalism.     

The Place of Biotechnology in Modern Civilization: A Veblenian Analysis of Public Misgiving Toward Embryology in the United States

Embryonic stem cell research and cloning are among the most controversial and ethically-loaded scientific advances of the past few decades. This paper argues that, in the context of recent theoretical developments in anthropology and cognitive psychology, Thorstein Veblen's work on the place of science in modern societies can provide a theoretical framework to study public misgiving toward embryology in the United States. It is argued that combining insights regarding human cognitive predisposition toward ritualization offered by Veblen with evolutionary theory on hazard-precaution systems and religious cognition may shed some light on the "peculiarity" of the initial public responses to embryology. Ultimately, this paper contends that understanding that initial reactions to embryology may follow a cognitive path of least resistance signifies that assessing the legitimacy of embryology will necessitate a deliberate effort toward instrumental thinking that may go against human cognitive predispositions.     

The Institutionalist Roots of Macroprudential Ideas: Veblen and Galbraith on Regulation,Policy Success and Overconfidence

One consequence of the global financial crisis has been to prompt debate over macroprudential regulation – meant to limit private risk-taking that threatens systemic stability. In this paper, we stress the roots of macroprudential ideas in the Institutionalist economics of Veblen and Galbraith in a way that highlights both unrecognised policy possibilities and underappreciated impediments to policy effectiveness, arguing in particular that regulatory success can breed overconfidence. First, we argue that while Veblen's views anticipated macroprudential arguments, they also obscured tensions between the technocratic acumen of policy ‘engineers’ and popular legitimacy. Second, we argue that while Galbraith's views similarly shaped the postwar Keynesian policy mix, they also echoed Veblen in underrating the potential for populist resentment of an intellectual ‘technostructure’. We conclude that while this analysis can be seen as highlighting an overlooked century of macroprudential debate, it also demonstrates the potential for technocratic overconfidence – which can eventually undermine policy legitimacy and effectiveness.     

What was wrong with the old institutional economics (and what is still wrong with the new)?

This paper is a comparison and critique of the old and the new institutional economics, with principal focus on the former. The paper argues that the old institutional economics (OIE) lacks methodological consistency and overall persuasiveness because of the preconceptions it took from the philosophy of pragmatism and its late nineteenth-century attitude towards science. The paper starts from the methodological problem posted by Thorstein Veblen; argues that the OIE was never able to solve that problem; and then poses a resolution of Veblen's dilemma in terms of a ‘benchmark’ programme useful in appraising both the OIE and the NIE. The paper also argues that the most appealing areas of OIE rhetoric–institutions and evolution–do not distinguish that programme from the NIE. What distinguishes the OIE are the less appealing doctrines of holism and instrumental valuing. The paper closes with a brief critique of the neoclassical core of the NIE.     

Technology and Economic Dependency: An Institutional Assessment

I compare and contrast Thorstein Veblen’s views on and criticisms of Marxian economics, with several of the “revisionist” Marxists writing early in the twentieth century, in the years preceding WWI. I explore the substantial overlap between Veblen and the revisionist authors, in particular, Eduard Bernstein. Although it is unlikely that Veblen’s name will be added to the list of revisionist authors, when the subject of revisionism is treated, I make the case that the views of the revisionist authors often can be instructive in understanding Veblen’s own position with respect to the theories of Karl Marx.     

Thorstein Veblen as Evolutionary Feminist Economist of the Progressive Era

Abstract

Just prior to the turn of the twentieth century, Thorstein Veblen advanced an evolutionary approach to feminist economics. A host of scholars considered in this inquiry are noted to have endorsed and also furthered his tradition. What distinguishes Veblen’s evolutionary approach to feminist economics is that he emphasizes that the roots of private property can be related to women being taken captive through warfare during the Age of Savagery. Instincts affecting behavior are viewed as relative constants, but which take on an evolutionary character when considered against what Veblen defines as four stages of social and economic development.     

The physiocrats' concept of labour: A difficulty in Marx's interpretation

Abstract

This article explains the difference between the concept of labour developed by the Physiocrats and Marx. We show that Marx's interpretation based on Turgot is questionable. Whereas Marx bases his ideas on a Lockian definition of labour which puts labour at the origin of value, Quesnay and his disciples develop a mechanistic definition of labour established on Neo-Cartesian foundations. This particular concept of labour then combines with a bio-physical definition of production. The theory of the net product is therefore re-interpreted.     

Veblen's Discounted Expected Earnings Streams: Monopoly and Make-Believe

The paper has two purposes. The first is to explore Thorstein Veblen's contention that the theory of discounted earnings streams is inexorably linked to monopoly power. This contention has contemporary relevance. Modern price theory follows Irving Fisher's original claim that discounted streams has universal application and is consequently divorced from any explicit reference to industrial structure. The second purpose is to examine Veblen's anthropological claim that the transformation of discounted “make-believe” streams into present values reinforces a spiritual aura surrounding financial elites and their social standing.     

A Reassessment of Marx's Thought on Labour Exchange

This article reassesses Marx's thought on labour exchange and illuminates its worth. In the Grundrisse and subsequent pre-Capital writings, Marx presented arguments that attached importance to worker subjectivity towards labour performance based on the distinction between labour capacity and labour. This afforded insights into the peculiarities of labour exchange that preclude market determination of wages and other working conditions and necessitate the intervention of class struggle and other socio-political factors in their settlement. The significance of Marx's perspective is further elucidated when compared with the classical tradition and the position of neoclassical economics. Although his emphasis on worker autonomy receded in Capital, his earlier arguments on labour exchange, it is posited, remain highly relevant to understanding industrial relations in today's capitalist economy.     

Veblen’s Imperial Germany and the Industrialization of Latin America

Veblen’s Imperial Germany is a theory of development and industrialization, and the role the business enterprise played in these processes. Through a reassessment of Veblen’s Imperial Germany, this paper explores the main aspects that Veblen considered about the industrialization of England and Germany, deriving theoretical implications for the preconditions of a successful industrialization and development, based on an evolutionary Institutional perspective. Veblen’s analysis is then used to analyze the current state of the industrialization of Latin America, evaluating the last two decades since the 1990s, and comparing the orthodox approach, the neostructural view and the Veblenian perspective, arguing for the validity of a policy framework not reduced only to targeted protectionism but emphasizing the necessity of generating the institutional preconditions suggested by Veblen in his seminal work.     

Social Costs and the Automobile Industry: A Challenge to National Planning

Neoinstitutional thought is based on an integration of Thorstein Veblen's evolutionary theory of institutional change and John Dewey's theory of instrumental valuation. It offers a coherent methodology that guides both economic analysis and policy formation. Neoinstitutionalist methodology differs from mainstream economic methodology in its rejection of the normative-positive dualism. It denies that "objectivity" requires that science be wertfrie, arguing instead that normative propositions based on instrumental valuation are the foundation of scientific objectivity. The analytical focus of neoinstitutional economics is the process of institutional change which it treats as a change in the value structure of the institution.