A Capital Controversy in Early Twentieth Century: Veblen vs. Clark

This article aims to assess the debate between John Bates Clark and the “old” institutionalist scholars — Thorstein Veblen, above all — with particular reference to the nature of capital and the functioning of the labor market. Although studies on both authors are numerous, relatively little attention has been paid to finding the crucial elements at the heart of their radical disagreement. A.J. Cohen (2014 Cohen, A.J. “Veblen Contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt Lineages in Capital Controversy and Beyond.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 38, 6 (2014): 1493-1515.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) convincingly argues that Veblen’s attack on Clark is in the center of the capital controversy of the 1960s and 1970s. We propose an extension of this argument, based on the idea that Veblen’s attack on Clark follows three steps. First, Veblen defined capital in money terms and, at the same time, he saw it as the accumulated technological and institutional experience of a community. Second, insofar as capital cannot be reduced to a stock of physical goods, it is logically impossible to derive a function of the marginal labor productivity from the existing stock of capital. Third, insofar as the marginal productivity of labor cannot be measured, it follows that the equality between real wage and marginal labor productivity cannot logically hold. It also follows that, since it does not exist, this equality cannot be used as a basis for establishing that the equilibrium wage is a just wage.     

Original Institutional Economics and Political Anthropology: Reflections on the Nature of Coercive Power and Vested Interests in the Works of Thorstein Veblen and Pierre Clastres

Our inquiry advances a comparison of the anthropological content of Thorstein Veblen’s evolutionary perspective with the foundations of the political anthropology drawn from selected works of Pierre Clastres. We seek to establish that what can be referred to as a clastrean reference can simultaneously offer new perspectives on institutionalism, while maintaining a radical and emancipatory understanding of Veblen’s writings. In this sense, we seek to reconsider and reevaluate the role of economic surplus drawn from Veblen’s anthropology, while also offering a general and critical perspective for understanding the emergence of coercive power within societies.     

Financialization and Vested Interests: Self-Regulation vs. Financial Stability as a Public Good

I propose an institutionalist analysis of financialization through the lens of Thorstein Veblen, built on some peculiar characteristics of money and related financial instruments in a market-based capitalist economy. Following the case of the overcapitalization of farmlands, studied by Veblen (1919), I argue that modern capitalism is a financialized society dominated by vested interests that rely on financial liberalization-led speculative overcapitalization, often leading to a perverse accumulation process and resulting in systemic catastrophes. Consequently, one of the major constituent institutions of liberal finance, market-dependent selfregulation, proves unable to deal with society-level issues like financial stability. This latter issue must be handled at a systemic level, as a public good. Therefore, specific public regulation and action mechanisms must be designed to maintain society (and dominant vested-interests) within some viability limits to ensure a smooth functioning of the economy.     

The State,Public Policy and Heterodox Economics: An Introduction

While most heterodox economists endorse some amount of policy activism, there is no unified conception of the state and public policy in heterodox economics. To help clarify the similarities and differences within heterodoxy – and between heterodox and mainstream economics – a panel addressing this subject was convened in 2007 at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Thought. This article introduces the essays prepared for that symposium. They include an examination of the position of Marx and Engels, a clarification of the institutionalist views of Veblen and Commons, an outline of the perspective of Post Keynesian Institutionalism, and an account of some essential contributions of Classical Pragmatism (a major school of thought within the philosophy of science). The collection advances what Robert Heilbroner called “the worldly philosophy” by seeking to understand the role of the state in a world where institutions, defined broadly as social habits, adjust to other institutions.

19世纪美国史视角下的奥姆斯特德及其 设计思想

立足奥姆斯特德的书信、报告等史料文件,聚焦到 奥姆斯特德与19世纪美国文明转向、文化独立及阶层政治相 关的具体事件,层层重构这些事件的风景园林学意义。再通过 分析纽约中央公园,检视奥姆斯特德价值观念的呈现。致力于 建构奥姆斯特德设计思想、价值判断及空间理念等方面内容与 19世纪美国史之间的脉络性关联,以期推动风景园林学科中 的空间理解与社会、政治之间建立互动关系。