Stock Market Capitalism vs. Welfare Capitalism

This is the first in what we hope will be a new series of debates on important themes in political economy. Ronald Dore has long been known for his pioneering work on the Japanese economy and his contribution to the debate on different models and varieties of capitalism. He has recently published a major reappraisal and restatement of his approach, Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism‐Japan and Germany vs. the Anglo-Saxons. In this book he focuses in particular on the challenges to the Japanese model in the 1990s, and the pressures for it to change. We invited him to summarise the argument of his book, and then asked three commentators, Gregory Jackson, Yutaka Kosai and Franz Waldenberger, to respond.     

Hartmut Elsenhans,Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists

Hartmut Elsenhans's Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists presents an intriguing argument: capitalist elites have induced unsustainable capitalism to the disadvantage of labor and the system as a whole. The author proposes a fairly unconventional solution. He suggests that democratic socialism can be the necessary political complement to our capitalist system. By drawing on the socialist capacity to empower labor and increase mass consumption, we could achieve a more balanced and sustainable capitalism. The book is ideally suited for readers of Keynesian and post Keynesian analysis on contemporary capitalism and it fits in the discourse on problems of low income growth, declining demand, and investment opportunities in major world economies.     

The Boom and the Bubble: The US in the World Economy

Most intellectuals would be pleased to have one major debate named after them. The Marxist economic historian Robert Brenner has managed the remarkable feat of unleashing two significant intellectual controversies. The first, in the historical journal Past & Present during the late 1970s and early 1980s, was provoked by his interpretation of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in early modern Europe. More recently, however, Brenner has switched his attention from the longue durée of European history to the economic dynamics of contemporary capitalism. In a massive journal-length article published in New Left Review in 1998 he offered a comparative analysis of the three major Western economies—the USA, Japan and Germany—from 1945 onwards, tracing the development of a protracted crisis of profitability that, Brenner contended, explained the ‘long downturn’ experienced by global capitalism since the early 1970s.     

Banks as Continuous Reinvention

Of the several debates that revolve around the work of the economic historian and political economist Karl Polanyi, one that continues to exercise minds concerns his analysis of, and political attitudes toward, post-war capitalism and the welfare state. Simplified a little, it is a debate with two sides. To borrow Iván Szelényi's terms, one side constructs a ‘hard’ Karl Polanyi, the other a ‘soft’ one. The former advocated a socialist mixed economy dominated by redistributive mechanisms. He was a radical socialist for whom the market should never be the dominant mechanism of economic coordination. His ‘soft’ alter ego insisted that the market system remain essentially intact but be complemented by redistributive mechanisms. The ‘double movement’ – the central thesis of his ‘Great Transformation’ – acts, in this reading, as a self-correcting mechanism that moderates the excesses of market fundamentalism; its author was positioned within the social-democratic mainstream for which the only realistic desirable goal is a regulated form of capitalism. In terms of textual evidence there is much to be said for both interpretations. In this article I suggest a different approach, one that focuses upon the meaning of Polanyi's concepts in relation to their socio-political and intellectual environment.     

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.     

A Post-Keynesian Response to Piketty's ‘Fundamental Contradiction of Capitalism’

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty presents a rich set of data that deals with income and wealth distribution, output-wealth dynamics and rates of return. He also proposes some ‘laws of capitalism’. At the core of his argument lies the ‘fundamental inequality of capitalism’, an empirical regularity stating that the rate of return on wealth is greater than the growth rate of the economy. This simple construct allows him to conclude that increasing wealth (and income) inequality is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. While we share some of his conclusions, we will highlight some shortcomings of his approach based on a Cambridge post-Keynesian growth-and-distribution model. The paper makes four points. First, r?>?g is not necessarily associated with increasing inequality in functional distribution. Second, Piketty succumbs to a fallacy of composition when he claims that a necessary condition for r?>?g is that capitalists save a large share of their capital income. Third, post-Keynesians can learn from Piketty's insights about personal income distribution and incorporate them into their models. Fourth, we reiterate the post-Keynesian argument that a well-behaved aggregate production function does not exist and cannot explain income distribution.     

From performativity to political economy: index investing,ETFs and asset manager capitalism

As a discipline, political economy has often been reluctant to engage with the details of market devices and practices. This weakens the microfoundations of its analysis of capitalist macro-dynamics and cedes unnecessarily large stretches of intellectual territory to economics. The performativity approach developed by Michel Callon offers a theoretical way out of this dual dilemma. It allows political economists to study ‘the economy’ directly by investigating the links between the diversity of market devices and the diversity of capitalism. The argument is illustrated by an analysis of the gradual, performative evolution of the investment intermediation market, where the traditional high-cost model of active asset management has been challenged by the emergence of a low-cost alternative in the form of index-tracking investment funds. Highlighting the distributive implications of this development, the current article shows that the financial innovation of exchange-traded funds played a crucial part in the completion of the socio-technical agencement of the ‘passive investor’. In contrast to the recently resurgent notion that the two approaches are incompatible, this article insists that the micro-sociological study of market devices fosters the analytical capacity of political economy by opening up new perspectives on the macro-dynamics of contemporary capitalism. In the case at hand, it brings into sharp relief the contours of the emerging constellation of ‘asset manager capitalism’.     

Alienation and the Soviet Economy,toward a General Theory of Marxian Alienation,Organizational Principles,and the Soviet Economy

The work of the French economist François Perroux has not given rise to a strong consensus in the academic world of economists. Thus, to appreciate the scope of Perrouxian thought, it is necessary to defuse the intellectual debate by exploring the ideas that are part of the current institutional issues. I seek to demonstrate the theoretical interest of the conceptualizations proposed by Perroux in terms of power analysis to understand the political, human, and social dimensions of the institutions of capitalism. In this view, I endeavor to shed light on the Perrouxian institutional legacy regarding the social cooperation/resistance issue, the institutional structure of production, firm theory, agonism theory, economic pluralism, and modern formalization techniques.     

J. K. Galbraith: Liberal Politics and the Economics of the Modern Business Firm

This appreciation of J. K. Galbraith (JKG) is one of an occasional series of Reputations that New Political Economy carries reviewing the work and life of significant political economists. It is appropriate to include JKG is this series, not only because of his obvious academic stature but also in recognition of the fact that ten years ago he opened the Political Economy Research Centre at the University of Sheffield, UK, from which NPE is managed. To some extent the discussion presented here is based on published work, but in addition an important source involves an interview with JKG conducted on 27 March 2003 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, by Michael Dietrich and Andrew Gamble. Much of the material covered in the interview is developed in more detail in a forthcoming book by JKG to be published in the near future. All quotations and information sources that are not obviously referenced in the text are based on this interview. The discussion is organised as follows. Following a brief introduction, the main section considers Galbraith as a political economist. The focus here is to trace the structure and evolution of JKG's intellectual project. This leads on to a consideration of Galbraith as a political animal and commentator on world affairs. One objective here is to trace the linkages between the intellectual and political projects. Finally, a conclusion is presented under the rubric of Galbraith the man.     

Calculation in kind and marketless socialism: On Otto Neurath's utopian economics

Abstract

Otto Neurath is notorious amongst economists for his plans for a socialist economy with calculation in kind in place of a market. This paper considers the common criticism of “utopianism” from an immanent point of view. To do so, it will first be established in what Neurath recognized a negative sense of utopianism that was opposed to his own self-confessed “scientific utopianism”. Then it will be considered in what respect, if any, Neurath's stance in the socialist calculation debate can be shown to be objectionably utopian in this sense by the counter-arguments put forward by Ludwig von Mises.     

Schumpeter and the end of Western Capitalism

Schumpeter’s forecast in his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) that ‘a socialist form of society will inevitably emerge from an equally inevitable decomposition of capitalist society’ did great damage to his reputation. This was especially so after the fall of the Berlin wall, when the spectre of Communism seemed to have been finally exorcised. The current financial crisis, however, has vindicated him. For Schumpeter, capitalism rightly meant, not just individual property rights, but the ability to ‘create money from nothing.’ This is such an enormous and dangerous power that it obviously has to be subject to the strictest constraint, which was traditionally provided, however imperfectly, by denial of incorporation with limited liability to those who dealt in money. The decline of capitalism began when financiers were released from this discipline, and it ended with the catastrophe caused by belief that bureaucratic control could replace it. The cause of the change was the progressive capture of democratically elected politicians by interests. On this, Schumpeter’s The Crisis of the Tax State (1918) was almost as insightful as his later book. When Governments could not allow banks to fail, they signalled the definitive arrival of centralized financing, which is a fundamental characteristic of a socialist economy.     

Economic Consequences of Armaments Production: Institutional Perspectives of J.K. Galbraith and T.B. Veblen

J.K. Galbraith’s short book, How to Control the Military, boldly championed political and institutional reforms to curb “the military power.” Galbraith stood out among economists for his advocacy of arms reduction negotiations with the Soviet Union. He rejected the hypothesis that the Soviet Union nurtured an aggressive expansionary military policy. At the same time, he maintained that the tenor of national policy and the shaping of national priorities emanated from the Pentagon. Galbraith’s assertion that the military was the dominant force within the “military-industrial complex” was never empirically demonstrated. Nor did he adequately address the crucial role that military outlays played in advancing major technological innovations which underwrote the accumulation process. Veblen offered a more comprehensive analysis of the role of military expenditures, correctly showing that forms of “waste” are highly functional to the institutional and ideological structure of the U.S. economy. Military Keynesianism constituted the evolution of his conceptualization.     

Comparative Institutional Advantage and the Appropriate Development Model for Sub-Saharan Africa

The theory of comparative institutional advantage posits that certain types of firms locate production facilities in a particular location and avoid other locations due to unique institutional advantages and disadvantages. In sub-Saharan Africa, neoliberal policies, weak and corrupt states, and Transnational Corporations have created a particularly destructive variant of capitalism. African capitalism generates little in the way of economic growth, rewards mainly the TNC and the African elites, and undermines Africa’s economic future via activities that are utterly extractive in nature. African capitalism is facilitated directly by the WTO, the structural adjustment policies of the IMF and the World Bank, and the institutional structures of African economies. After outlining the problems with African capitalism as currently structured, the paper goes on to suggest an alternative to this model involving experimental, embedded, grass roots development efforts that build on domestic cultural institutions that would generate significantly more positive outcomes for the people of sub-Saharan Africa. By abandoning neoliberal policies, it might be possible to create a better economic model that would build on community-centered institutional strengths to benefit a greater proportion of the population.

Marx,Finance and Political Economy

ABSTRACT

Shortly after the publication of Volume I of Capital, the financial requirements of capitalist enterprise forced the financial innovation of bond and stock finance for joint stock companies. Marx intended to re-write Capital in order to incorporate this change. He did not achieve this. The economic analysis of capitalism with long-term finance was undertaken by Hilferding in his Finance Capital. Thereafter, a strand of economic analysis of production and distribution emerged in the work of the Austro-Marxists, Veblen, Keynes, Kalecki, Steindl and Sweezy, and the Italian Kaleckians, Joseph Halevi and Riccardo Bellofiore, which incorporated the change made to the structure and dynamics of capitalism by long-term finance. However, this shift in capitalist financing has largely been ignored in economic theory, while much of the heterodox analysis that seeks to challenge the role of finance in contemporary capitalism has not integrated finance consistently. The change from the classic capitalism to finance capital raises important questions about the meaning and relevance of Marx’s work today.     

To be an independent thinker: an intellectual portrait of Staffan Burenstam Linder *

Abstract

The essay provides a portrait of the life and works of Staffan Burenstam Linder (1931–2000), one of Sweden's most renowned economists, the originator of the so-called Linder Thesis and of The Harried Leisure Class. It provides a critical account of all his major works and at the same time follows his career as an economist and a politician. The essay ends with an overall evaluation of his intellectual contribution.     

Economists on Darwin's theory of social evolution and human behaviour

Abstract

This article analyses Darwin's image among economists with a specific focus on his theory of social evolution as presented in the Descent of Man (1871). We propose an analysis of the way and context in which economists refer to Darwin, mention his name and quote his writings. It then appears that Darwin is most of the time viewed as a biologist only, who never developed his own theory of social evolution. He is thus quoted as a biologist who either borrowed concepts from economists who developed a theory of social evolution, or laid the basis for biological theory of social evolution developed by others, Spencer, in particular. It is only recently that eventually the twofold dimensions—biological and social—of Darwin's general theory of evolution are considered together by bioeconomists.     

Institutionalism,Planning, and the Current Crisis

This article originated in a shock of recognition. In the second volume of his discourse on “Civilization and Capitalism,” Fernand Braudel muses on the “eclecticism” of “the most advanced kind of capitalism”: “As if the characteristic advantage of standing at the commanding heights of the economy … consisted precisely of not having to confine oneself to a single choice, of being able, as today’s businessmen would put it, to keep one’s options open.”¹ My colleagues and I work as venture capitalists and as investment bankers of a specialized kind, engaged in raising capital to support the growth of technologybased companies and in realizing liquidity for their founding investors—often ourselves—by managing public offerings of their shares or by merging them into much larger companies. A primary virtue of our practice is the opportunity to choose with broad discretion where to commit our own and our clients’ capital across what Braudel calls “the differential geography ofprofit.”²     

Inter-war trade cycle theories in a poem by James Meade

John Caruthers (1836–1914), the Scottish civil engineer who built canals and railways many parts of the world, was a good friend of William Morris and an active supporter of the Scoialist League and then the Hammersmith Socialist Society. He advocated a non-bureaucratic socialism, which had only a limited state machinery and made considerable use of the market system, with money, banks and flexible prices. His ideas were elaborated in a long boon Communal and Commercial Economy (1883) and in a substantial article (1884) in To-Day (a leading London socialist periodical of the time) and elsewhere. The paper sets out his economic ideas in some detail, including his (implicit) emphasis on the Golden Rule in he choice of technique. These ideas were a considerale achievement for the early 1880s and it is perhaps unfortunate that they did not have a greater influence on the socialist movement.     

Political aspects of the capital controversies and capitalist crises

The Cambridge controversies about the theory of capital were ultimately underpinned by a clash between two different visions of capitalism, the neoclassical view, according to which distribution depends on the supply and demand curves of capital and labor, and the post Keynesian view, according to which distribution depends on political and institutional factors instead. I shall argue that the distinction between “meritocratic capitalism” and “patrimonial capitalism,” which underpins the discussions surrounding Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is also connected to those two different visions of capitalism, which were behind the Cambridge controversies. These two visions of capitalism have important implications for our understanding of political power over workers, and also to our understanding of political power over land and its natural resources. The role of land and natural resources was not discussed in the Cambridge controversies, but is addressed in Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities, and is implied in Piketty’s inclusion of land in his definition of capital, which brings in a geographical dimension to our understanding of capitalism and capitalist crises, as I shall argue.     

Brexit and the Politics of UK Growth Models

Brexit has reopened and repoliticised the debate about future growth models for the UK economy. This contribution argues that this debate is built around historically specific path dependencies that reflect the particular character of public debate about British political economy, while also suggesting that the debate around Brexit takes place at a very distinctive moment in the history of democratic capitalism in Europe. This combination gives the renewed politicisation a specific and perhaps perverse character. The paper considers how we should approach debates about growth models, paying particular attention to the importance of the politics of support. It suggests that recent debate about growth models has been largely subsumed within the politics of Brexit, which has politicised that debate, albeit through the emergent political economy frames that Brexit has provoked. The paper explores the ways in which the demise of three key props of European democratic capitalism – a sustained period of economic growth, a governing philosophy that subordinated the market to wider social purposes and strong political parties – play out in the context of Brexit and the search for a new politics of support.