Search

The American public has been bombarded with the idea that the introduction of information technology created a 'New Economy' in the U.S. in the 1990s. It is claimed that 'free-market' institutional changes are required to take advantage of the new information technologies, and that combining those institutional changes with the new technology has ushered in a new era of unprecedented prosperity. We take issue with those claims in this paper. Our central thesis is that the institutional changes associated with the New Economy are a veiled attack on trade unions and working people. These changes are not new, they are not required by the new technology, and they have not led to unprecedented prosperity. Moreover, the free market has not brought prosperity in the past, either. During periods in which the free market has predominated, the U.S. economy has performed relatively poorly and exhibited considerable instability. Throughout U.S. history, free-market, anti-labor regimes have alternated with periods in which government and workers have restrained the worst excesses of the free market and established basic rights and protections. Viewed in historical perspective, the institutional structure of the New Economy may well turn out to be a relatively temporary phenomenon.

The social structure of accumulation theory faces a challenge arising from the persistence of neoliberalism, which does not appear to promote rapid capital accumulation. This article suggests an alternative interpretation of institutional change in which liberal and 'regulationist' institutional structures alternate with one another, with the latter more favorable for capital accumulation. It examines the reasons why these two types of institutional structures arise, concluding that neoliberalism may persist for some time. JEL classification: E11; N40; P17 Keywords: neoliberalism; accumulation; regulation; institutions

The collapse of the former Soviet Union does not entirely confirm the superiority of markets and private property. However, the event has made many socialists reexamine socialism and analyze the merits of market socialism and non-capitalist forms of private property, such as employee ownership. Socialism failed in the former Soviet Union because it was of a distorted form and was characterized by repression and hierarchy.

A 1994 study that sought to explain the relationship between the entry of women into the labor force and the decline of real wages and the increase in the number of overworked employees was criticized for being based on neoclassical, rather than Marxian, economics and for being too formal. Critics also charged that the study did not fully explain the factors behind changes in families' economic structure. Closer examination, however, reveals that these criticisms are baseless.

This paper develops a model of the relation between household labor and wage labor within a Marxian value theory framework. The model is used to show that the male wage laborer/female household laborer form of the family is likely to be advantageous for capitalism in its early stages, but not in its later stages. The model is also used to explore the process of the rise of the dual wage earner family in the post-World War II period and its connection with the decline in real wages and the problem of overwork in the U.S. during the past two decades.

The author reiterates the reasons why neoliberalist policy has not led to a capitalist system in Russia, and reexamines socialism as having better socioeconomic potential than capitalist development strategies adopted by China.

The author addresses the complexities of economic coordination, then examines the process with regard to prices, incomes, incentives, referenda, parametric forms, and entrepreneurs. The article is followed by comments from other contributors to the special issue, to which the author responds.

The author assesses democratic planned participatory socialism (DPPS). Topics include the innovation process under DPPS, innovation performance under contemporary capitalism and under state socialism, and a comparison to innovation performance under DPPS. Following the article are comments made by other contributors to the special issue, to which the author replies.

The authors define their model of a participatory economic system, which relies on workers' councils, consumers' councils, and neighborhood councils, and then reply to specific criticisms that have been made about their model. The criticisms they answer include concerns about insufficient incentives, incentives to work, allocative efficiency, reliance on altruism, and lack of a 'free' mechanism. The article is followed by comments from other contributors to the special issue, to which the authors respond.

SHERMAN, HOWARD J. Reinventing Marxism. Pp. xviii, 366. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. $55.00. Paperbound, $16.95. Many Western observers thought the demise of the Soviet Union would spell [...]