Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discover the contradistinctions between the neoclassical and Keynesian paradigms of economics regarding the Greek Financial Crisis.

The answers to the questions and policies regarding the Greek Financial Crisis cannot be derived by using economic analysis alone; they also depend on the perception of social reality and ethical issues. Based on the assumptions about economic behavior, the answers and policies inevitably reflect the observer's assessment of each economic and non-economic performance dimension, as well as the significance assigned to those performance dimensions. Different views on “social reality” and “what is a good society?” are associated with distinct paradigms and a particular set of social values, which have implications for economic policy formulae. These give rise to alternative answers and policies to the Greek Financial Crisis, based on different assumptions, different methods of analysis and different goals.

Overall, in contradistinction, the two paradigms recommend quite distinct policies tackling the Greek Financial Crisis, and at the end, both paradigms have different perspectives on ethics and moral fundamentals regarding debt.

Students of the global financial crisis will benefit from this unique approach in testing the two alternative paradigms, between the neoclassical and Keynesian, concerning the Greek Financial Crisis.

This chapter starts from the issue of debt in the context of a national economy by contrasting two opposed views: policy prescriptions based on the Washington Consensus prioritize low public debt and a limited role of the government in the development process whereas a more heterodox view considers debt as logical, necessary, and helpful in order to allow the government to pursue an ambitious growth and development strategy. However, things change when the economy is considered in its international context: foreign debt is different from domestic debt and while the same heterodox analysis still rejects the Washington Consensus' demand for trade and financial liberalization, its own ambitious development strategies for the domestic economy get constrained by trade deficits, the threat of capital flight, and exchange rate instability. The question arises how the government can still significantly contribute to economic development beyond the limits of a purely private sector–driven approach. This is why this chapter reviews proposals to relax or overcome the balance-of-payments constraint. Finally, it considers a reform of international payments, which can be implemented by a single country unilaterally, and which enables it to stabilize its current account, avoid foreign debt accumulation, and support domestic development strategies.

This paper aims to explore the state-building attempts in post conflict zones. The neoliberal economic system has dominated the key international organizations such that the latter have designed their approaches for state building based on it. The framework of these approaches focuses on minimal state interventions in the economy and free markets by being as a “one size fits all”. However, several prominent financial institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund that have implemented some of these approaches in various regions resulted in limited success.

This paper is comparing two cases of state building before statehood and sovereignty, and this comparison comes in socioeconomic practices of international players and local governments.

This model has been carried out in Palestine and Kosovo but failed in meeting the expected demands of independence and prosperity. Instead, it resulted in more failures in the markets and caused a decline in the macro and micro economic indicators.

The key reasons for such failures, specifically in Palestine and Kosovo, are believed to be related to the top-down approach of policy-making, the lack of independence and sovereignty and the absence of popular and local participation in policies and plans. In such context, this approach has to be further revised to create a more inclusive participatory and representative model.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that in spite of the widely optimistic held view on the effect of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in promoting the “knowledge society” in Europe and economic development elsewhere, evidence suggests that ICT's could be strengthening labour duality world wide.

The paper addresses these issues by presenting a brief assessment of the “Washington Consensus” and the emergence of ICTs in terms of trade, growth and inequality in different regions of our planet. The paper also describes the effects of globalisation and ICTs on European economies. Finally, the paper presents the key finding and raises some policy implications to exploit ICT potentialities to ensure welfare systems in advanced economies and development in emerging countries.

The lack of sufficient institutional mechanism of distribution in developing economies is not only making it more difficult for economic growth to translate into development but it is also favouring relocations of production, pressures to deregulate employment, control salaries and social expenditure in Europe. This feeds complex processes of social segmentation world wide. To meet this challenge Europe has no choice but to opt for the development of avant‐garde sectors. However, measures linked to the development of the knowledge society may not be sufficient to maintain our welfare states in the current context of globalisation. Europe must play a more internationally active role in the design of another model of globalisation that would encompass social policies at a global scale as one of its pillars.

There are very few studies of ICTs' role in the relationship between openness‐growth‐development‐inequality. What are ICTs responsible for? What are ICTs' effects on development and welfare state sustainability?

Relations between the European Union (EU) and African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) states date back to the 1960s. Brexit has also affected relations between the European Union and African-Caribbean and Pacific states. While the impact of Brexit on the EU is evident, the United Kingdom's exit from the EU has begun the process of renegotiation with African-Caribbean and Pacific states. The main objective of the study is to highlight the relationship between the ACP states, the United Kingdom, and the EU for the pre- and post-Brexit period. First, the historical process between the EU and the African-Caribbean and Pacific states was mentioned, and then an attempt was made to examine the consequences of Brexit for the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the related countries.

The Latin American region experienced an electoral shift to the political left during the 2000s but this leftist shift did not radically alter the political economy of the region. Following Jessop’s (2008) strategic-relational approach to theorizing about the state, this paper focuses on the perspective that the structure of the state is both an outcome of prior social struggles and a structuring mechanism for the social actors that attempt to enact political and economic reforms.

After demonstrating what this has historically meant for the types of state that have existed in Latin America during the past century by reviewing some of the literature on the corporatist and bureaucratic-authoritarian states and clientelism, this paper argues that the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s and 1990s constituted a new type of state – the Latin American neoliberal state. This analysis is then focused on the literature that seeks to describe the new lefts in the region, while continuing to focus on the role of the neoliberal state in structuring these new lefts’ terrain of struggle.

Understanding the new lefts in Latin America and the types of reforms that they are capable of making requires that we better understand this new type of state. Due to the structural limitations imposed by the neoliberal state, the lefts are not able to radically alter the region’s political economy.

Adjustment to a post‐Doha trading regime will be disproportionately costly and difficult for developing countries. Increased aid is vital for the poor countries if they are to grasp the opportunities provided through trade and meet transition costs. With aid‐for‐trade, for the first time, the developed countries have another bound and meaningful commitment that they can offer developing countries. Our proposal to provide new resources to meet adjustment needs, however, does not suggest that trade, when combined with aid, will be a panacea for developing countries. Interactions between trade, aid, and broader development policies and reforms are important.

I study the relationship between pro-market reforms and the expansion of emerging market multinational companies (EMNCs). Extending institutional economics, I propose a co-evolutionary process, whereby pro-market reforms in emerging markets induce the transformation of domestic firms into EMNCs, and the global expansion of EMNCs in turn facilitates the deepening of pro-market reforms in the home country. Specifically, I first explain how pro-market reforms lead to the emergence of EMNCs via international competitiveness, upgrading needs, and escape; I then explain how the global expansion of EMNCs leads to a deepening of pro-market reforms at home via learning, spillovers, and lobbying. I complement these explanations with a discussion of contingencies at the firm (private vs. state, domestic vs. foreign firms), industry (global vs. local industries), and country (developing vs. transition countries) levels.

Corporate governance is the practice of balancing various stakeholder interests within the legal device of the chartered business. Recent changes in the competitive capitalism including the Great Recession, now entering its second decade, have called for reforms within the defined corporate system. To sketch a wider picture of corporate governance issues and the debate over time, this paper aims to identify two philosophical traditions, a British and liberal tradition and a continental statist tradition, which have bearings for how the legal device of the corporation is understood.

This conceptual paper combines legal philosophy and legal studies, management studies, economics and economic sociology literatures.

In the former tradition, the firm and its ownership are exclusively associated with irreducibly individual rights. In the latter tradition, property rights remain the core of legal systems, but rather than being an end in itself (as in the liberal tradition), such property rights are merely the starting point for the individual’s wider engagement in social and public affairs. These two traditions enact the firm differently and emphasize specific benefits. In the former tradition, associated with a shareholder primacy model, individual rent-seeking is foregrounded; in the latter tradition, associated with legal and management scholarship, the team production qualities of the firm are emphasized.

This conceptual paper offers an analysis of the roots of differences between Anglo-American and continental corporate governance traditions, a scholarly study that is of great theoretical and practical relevance in the era of the Great Depression.

It is generally agreed that policy reforms have been more successful in China than in South Asia. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the relative success of China can be explained by the differences in initial conditions and in the design and sequencing of policies. The reform path followed by China placed reform of agriculture and rural light industry ahead of economic liberalization policies. South Asia, on the other hand, followed an opposite sequence with macroeconomic, trade, and industrial reforms coming ahead of agriculture and institutional reforms. This paper also finds that economic policies have mattered in South Asia and it develops an unfinished reform agenda comprising mainly the so‐called second generation reforms which is necessary to propel South Asia to a higher growth trajectory.

The paper argues that the difference in economic performance between China and South Asia in the post‐reform period can be explained by the differences in initial conditions and the design and sequencing of policies.

This paper finds that economic reforms have been more successful in raising economic growth and reducing poverty in China than in South Asia because of differences in initial conditions and the design and sequencing of reforms. Going forward, South Asia needs to focus on the implementation of the so‐called second generation reforms (agriculture, industrial, and the more microeconomic institutional reforms) more vigorously. This will, however, pose a serious challenge to the countries because these reforms generate benefits only in the longer term and therefore require a wider political consensus for their implementation. Yet without these reforms, sustained higher economy growth in the future and catch‐up with East Asia will not be possible.

The paper argues that difference in economic performance between South Asia and China can be partially explained by the way in which they designed their reform paths and it also develops a reform agenda that South Asian countries could implement to improve their economic performance. Hence the value of the paper is for both scholars and policy makers at large.