Search

In the intricate tapestry of environmental discourse, the field of political ecology emerges as a powerful lens through which we scrutinise the interplay of power, nature and society. This paper stages a dialogue with Paul Robbins to examine environmental justice, the decolonisation of political ecology, colonialism, sovereignty, climate change and capitalism. The dialogue challenges the conventional narratives of sovereignty and underscores the imperative of genuine decolonisation—beyond metaphorical interpretations—calling for the restitution of land and authority to Indigenous Peoples and other historically marginalised communities. The dialogue highlights the importance of moving away from capitalist systems that exacerbate environmental degradation. The dialogue calls for decolonising political ecology by including diverse perspectives, methodologies and ontologies and underlines the importance of control over productive resources. It emphasises that addressing the impacts of colonialism requires recognising and honouring the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and suggests that political ecology can contribute to decolonisation by focusing on sovereignty and supporting legal and institutional frameworks that empower marginalised communities. The paper discusses the way forward and the future trajectory of political ecology by suggesting that future research in political ecology should focus on diverse economies, embrace emerging technologies and rework academic institutions to value knowledge co‐production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The demise of socialism in Eastern Europe and the transition to a market economy in China and India marked the end of traditional comparative economics as a field. The debate between capitalism and socialism was settled. The economic calculation argument of Ludwig von Mises seemed no longer relevant. In its place, the new comparative economics (NCE) arose. The NCE focuses on the institutional differences that affect the protection of contract and property rights. The research program of Andrei Shleifer has provided numerous insights into how markets operate. This paper examines the Shleifer‐inspired program in comparative economics in light of the economic calculation argument Mises made. Although the recent developments in comparative economics have extended and complemented the contributions of Mises, it has not displaced them. An account of the economic calculation problem is still missing in the new comparative economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estimating the contribution of enslaved workers to output and growth in the United States during the first half of the nineteenth century is a crucial building block to better understand the contours of nineteenth‐century US economic history, and more generally, the connection between slavery and capitalism. Existing estimates only present a partial picture and are potentially problematic. In this paper, we use data on enslaved person valuations to calculate the contribution made by enslaved workers to regional and national gross national product (GNP) in 1839 and 1859 and to the growth in per capita output in the 20 years before the Civil War. We find that in the United States, enslaved workers were responsible for somewhere between 12.49 per cent and 18.0 per cent of the increase in output per capita between 1839 and 1859. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global price increases have reached their highest levels in recent times. Finding the reasons for the price increase is very important for economic stabilization. In this paper, it has been estimated that exorbitant price increases may be related to a free market economy. For this purpose, unlike other studies, a comparative analysis of the impact of the free market economy on prices was conducted. The study covers the period 1990–2020, and using the U.S. economy, which is a free market economy, the relationship between property rights, the size of government in the economy, and prices were examined using the autoregressive distributed lag model. The results show that the free market model has a positive effect on the price increase, while the size of the government's economy does not affect the price increase in the same direction. This study aims to provide a different perspective to policymakers in the fight against price instability, which is one of the most important problems facing the economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Economics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Unprecedented liquidity injections by central bankers have gained legitimacy in recent years to stave off economic crisis and enjoy strong support from prominent economists and economic historians. Such radical action by central bankers is underpinned by a remarkable agreement on a specific interpretation of the Great Depression of the 1930s in the US, an interpretation proposed by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in A monetary history of the United States (1963). This article explores the origins, the limits, and the influence of A monetary history's interpretation of the Great Depression for the insights it offers on theory and history in the study of economic life. The book was inspired by Wesley Clair Mitchell's mobilization of historical research to insist on the inherent instability of capitalism. Friedman and Schwartz exploited the heretical potential of historical research to dismiss any claim that the crisis reflected a systemic dysfunction of the US economy. Now that their interpretation has become our orthodoxy, this article shows how we can develop the fertile link between history and heresy to open up new lines of research on the causes of the greatest crisis in the history of capitalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main research question of the study is this: Is the firm embedded into ecology, society, and governance (ESG), or vice versa? Using the resource‐based view as a theoretical lens, and stakeholder capitalism as a paradigm anchored in the Dashgupat Review, we demonstrate in a panel data over 26 years that at the firm level, the relationship between sustained competitive advantage and the ESG footprint is concave shaped, and the impact inequality multiple gaps of the ESG footprint are 4.75 times the providing capacity of the natural and business environment. To solve the common method variance, endogeneity, and unobserved heterogeneity, system GMM is used as a method in a dataset of US manufacturing firms from 1992 to 2019. At the end, we argue that extant attributes of a resource base for sustained competitive advantage have an inherent flaw anchored in the resource‐based view, as they ignore the "environmental, social, and governance (ESG) friendliness" attribute of a resource. Managers need to rethink the objective of their firms if they want to survive in the new ESG‐friendly economy with stakeholder supremacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)