Search results

This paper is an initial attempt to discuss the American institutionalist movement as it changed and developed after 1945. Institutionalism in the inter-war period was a relatively coherent movement held together by a set of general methodological, theoretical, and ideological commitments (Rutherford, 2011). Although institutionalism always had its critics, it came under increased attack in the 1940s, and faced challenges from Keynesian economics, a revived neoclassicism, econometrics, and from new methodological approaches derived from various versions of positivism. The institutionalist response to these criticisms, and particularly the criticism that institutionalism “lacked theory,” is to be found in a variety of attempts to redefine institutionalism in new theoretical or methodological terms. Perhaps the most important of these is to be found in Clarence Ayres’ The Theory of Economic Progress (1944), although there were many others. These developments were accompanied by a significant amount of debate, disagreement, and uncertainty over future directions. Some of this is reflected in the early history of The Association for Evolutionary Economics.

X = multiple interpretations

Robert Franklin Hoxie was of the first generation of University of Chicago economists, a figure of significance in his own time. He is often heralded as the first of the Institutional economists and the impetus behind the field of labor economics. Yet today, his contributions appear as mere footnotes in the history of economic thought, when mentioned at all, despite the fact that in his professional and popular writings he tackled some of the most pressing problems of the day. The topics upon which he focused included bimetallism, price theory, methodology, the economics profession, socialism, syndicalism, scientific management, and trade unionism, the last being the field with which he is most closely associated. His work attracted the notice of some of the most famous economists of his time, including Frank Fetter, J. Laurence Laughlin, Thorstein Veblen, and John R. Commons. For all the promise, his suicide at the age of 48 ended what could have been a storied career. This paper is an attempt to resurrect Hoxie through a review of his life and work, placing him within the social and intellectual milieux of his time.

Nation-states, researchers, and organizations realized the pivotal role of social entrepreneurship in economic development in the recent two decades. The body of knowledge in this domain witnessed consistent research growth but it still lacks a critical review to guide future researchers. This chapter contributes to the body of knowledge by presenting the first bibliometric analysis (using software such as HistCite, VOSviewer, and Biblioshiny). The relevant articles were searched in the Web of Science (WOS) database to ensure the inclusion of high-quality research. Among 910 initially retrieved publications 86 most relevant publications were included in the final dataset. The analysis included various bibliometrics and visualization maps such as the publication trends, most influential articles and journals, most productive countries and organizations, co-citation analysis, and thematic clustering of the research. The findings showed an overall consistent growth in research publications during the last 16 years (2005–2020) with Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: international and innovation perspectives' as the most influential article, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development as the most influential journal, and the United States and the United Kingdom as the most productive countries. The keyword co-occurrence analysis exposed five thematic clusters within the selected dataset indicating a relatively less focus on economic development aspects. Thus, future research should explore how social entrepreneurship, while solving social, cultural, environmental, and community issues, contributes to economic development. The research implications and limitations are discussed in the end.

This chapter addresses the issue of the Global South external debt by mobilizing insights from Modern Monetary Theory, Ecological Economics, and Dependency Theory. It argues that the external debt problem of Southern governments is a reflection of their subordinate economic and monetary status. It shows why the argument of foreign currency shortage often used to explain the need for Southern governments to issue foreign currency debts remains superficial. In contrast to the usual focus on creditors, the chapter highlights the role played by foreign direct investment in the genesis of the chronic external indebtedness of most Southern countries. It argues then that the external debt of the South must be understood holistically not only as a manifestation of the unequal ecological exchange between the North and the South but also as an instrument that has contributed to reproducing and amplifying this pattern. Under these conditions, the cancellation or restructuring of the South's external debt stock and a few other unlikely concessions by the Northern countries will not be enough to abolish the “debt system.” This is an important lesson from the antiimperialist critique of the mid-1970s New International Economic Order (NIEO) agenda that current movements for Southern debt cancellation and Climate Justice would do well to remember.