Search

There have been significant changes in what economists include in the category of investment over the last six decades. The US government agency that compiles national income date, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, has tried to keep up with these changes, but it has not succeeded. The resulting tension between economic theory and official data can be overcome by adopting a different theoretical lens. Work on social reproduction and social investment suggests a more coherent definition of investment than that offered by mainstream economists. The paper then contrasts the measurement of investment in the government data with a calculation of investment derived from this new approach. The results show that business investment is dwarfed by the combined investment made by government and households. This finding suggests that business investment is not the key engine that powers the economy. This has significant implications for economic and social policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-023-09534-3.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-023-09534-3This paper was inadvertently published containing a mistake.On the third line of the last page of this paper, there is a reference to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2002. This should be 2022.Springer wishes to apologize for any inconvenience caused.Publisher's NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.By Fred BlockReported by Author [Extracted from the article]

Hannes Lacher's article (2019) misrepresents and then denounces both the substance and the spirit of our book, The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi's Critique (2014). Lacher claims his interpretation of Polanyi to be the only acceptable one, and vociferously alerts readers to beware the dangerous influence of our work. Because we continue to believe that familiarity with Polanyi's theoretical framework is valuable for those resisting the depredations of neoliberalism and authoritarianism, we restate our commitment to interpreting Polanyi's work in the most capacious way possible, treating it not as Scripture but as a body of work multidimensional enough for varying perspectives. In our reply to Lacher, we revisit several themes central to our book, including Polanyi's complex use of "utopianism"; the "always-instituted economy"; the gold standard's attack on the "democratic virus" and the rise of fascism; and Polanyi's socialist commitment to democratizing the economy. We also suggest that by exploring several apparent puzzles in the text of GT it is possible to derive a more fruitful and powerful interpretation of Polanyi's thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

>The concept of network failure has great value in making sense of the role that government officials now play in the process of developing and commercializing new technologies. Network failure was rarely an issue in the era that was dominated by giant, multi-divisional firms that controlled all stages of the production process. Today, however, the innovation process as well as the development and production of new products typically require collaborations among multiple entities. Automobile production, for example, now involves complex chains of specialized subcontracting firms. This creates the risk that firms will not be able to find the competent and trustworthy network partners that they need. US policy makers are aware of this issue, and they have been self-conscious about the process of creating new institutions that replicate the strength of the kinds of industrial districts described by Alfred Marshall. Their most recent initiative—the creation of advanced manufacturing institutes—has been structured to help firms find the competent and trustworthy partners that they need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, there has been considerable excitement about the economic potential of the 'developmental network state'-decentralized government policies that successfully accelerated growth in several high- and medium-income countries. The question remains whether such a strategy could be successful in less-developed nations whose scientific and technological resources were relatively limited. This paper analyzes the trajectory of Chile, a Southern country which, despite adverse conditions, managed to produce something akin to an economic miracle during the last few decades. Our argument is that Chile's success was based on the developmental network state strategy. Moreover, we highlight the centrality to understanding the Chilean experience of the concept of 'network failures'-a common phenomenon that occurs when domestic production would be best served by network forms of organization but for a variety of reasons, these networks either fail to materialize or fail to take hold (Schrank and Whitford ). Over and over again, we see that the logic behind the actions of the Chilean state was to provide resources that reduced the likelihood of network failures. We examine three case studies of successful export sectors: salmon; wine; and fruit and vegetables. The paper outlines some of the challenges faced by the Chilean model and assesses its long-term viability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Karl Polanyi’s 1944 book, The Great Transformation , has been recognized as central for the field of economic sociology, but it has not been subject to the same theoretical scrutiny as other classic works in the field. This is a particular problem in that there are central tensions and complexities in Polanyi’s argument. This article suggests that these tensions can be understood as a consequence of Polanyi’s changing theoretical orientation. The basic outline of the book was developed in England in the late 1930s when Polanyi was working within a specific type of Marxist framework. However, as he was writing the book, he developed several new concepts, including fictitious commodities and the embedded economy, that led in new directions. Because circumstances did not give him the time to revise his manuscript, the book is marked by a tension between these different moments in his own theoretical development. The result is that Polanyi glimpses the concept of the always embedded market economy, but he does not name it or elaborate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the use of social theory to leap over historical contingencies with reference to the sociologist William I. Robinson. The author says that it can be useful for a scholar to push a theoretical perspective to its outer limits, since the exercise can help to clarify broader empirical and theoretical debates. Hence, Robinson deserves our gratitude for going out on a theoretical limb. Robinson starts from the current scholarly debate about globalization. Social scientists have been struggling to make sense of the tensions between the historic role of the nation-state and processes of economic globalization that are undermining the nation-state's ability to shape its own economic and social policies. Neoliberal policies have been in the ascendant; the usual mix includes privatization, welfare cutbacks, deregulation, lower wages, and higher levels of unemployment. International financial institutions have had increasing opportunities to impose draconian structural adjustment policies on countries that get into financial difficulties.

This article examines the principles underlying macroeconomic policy, suggesting caution toward contentions that economic rationality mandates specific policy directions in the U.S. It has become an accepted truth on the political left that the conservative economic policies of Ronald Reagan are a necessary response to the needs of the capitalist system. In this argument, cuts in civilian spending and reductions in the living standards of working people and the poor conform to the logic of capital in a period of crisis. This position grows directly out of the theory developed in the 1970s that capitalist states are torn between the conflicting imperatives of legitimation and accumulation. The legitimation versus accumulation argument is a mirror image of conservative arguments about interference with free markets. With growing intensity during the 1970s and early 1980s, conservative economists and publicists advanced the argument that problems of high inflation and slowing productivity growth were the consequence of excessive growth of government. They insisted that deregulation, tax cuts, and the reduction of social spending were necessary to restore the integrity of the free market, so that the conditions for stable economic growth could be restored.

This article shows that how writings of the sociologist Karl Marx provides a starting point for conceptualizing contradictions of advanced capitalism. The core of theoretical framework is an effort to make a post-industrial argument with Neo-Marxism. Most developed societies -- both capitalist and state socialist -- face a transition from industrial society, organized around the production of goods, to post-industrial society, organized around the provision of services and advanced technologies that release labor from direct production. The transition to a post-industrial society creates a profound social crisis: contemporary capitalism is ripe for a transition to post-industrial society, but existing social relations block the release of new productive forces, creating social and economic stalemate. Some writers pointed to the inadequacy of orthodox Marxism for understanding an advanced capitalism that had successfully improved the standard of living of the working class. They stressed that within advanced capitalism, new contradictions and new social forces would become the basis for emancipatory social possibilities, as capitalism created new needs that could not be satisfied within it.

In this article the authors discuss their concerns on the stimulus funding in the U.S. An economist from Harvard College states that insufficient funds will worsen prospects for young researchers. They also cite the encouragement of the president of Arizona State University for a shift to outcome-based research. A journalist from Washington, DC offers that existing agencies can be outdone by a new virtual agency.