Search results

Makes and attempts to substantiate, the following claims: It was Marshall′s objective to show how poverty could be ameliorated. He located the causes of poverty in the institutions of the state, education, monopoloid business enterprise, and the working‐class family. He viewed institutions as structures and as organized social behaviour. He explained that the latter is conditioned by customs. Some of these are rooted in the legend‐enshrouded past and hence change‐resisting. Other customs are change‐promoting by virtue of being engendered in scientific, technological, and educational processes. Marshall recommended that the state be reformed through a strengthening of democratic processes and that this be followed by state‐engineered reform of monopoloid institutions and of educational institutions. These reforms would result in increased institutionalization of dynamic behaviour and accelerated deinstitutionalization of static behaviour. The outcome would be an increase in welfare. Because of his recommendations. Marshall considered himself a socialist.

Diagrams are ubiquitous in economics and are uncontestably among the most used, if not the most important workhorses of economists, though they come in many forms. This essay examines the different uses of graphs and diagrams in the pioneering work of two Victorian economists, Stanley Jevons and Alfred Marshall. We stress the difference between their use as representations and as visual reasoning tools, a difference that became obscured in the twentieth century with the rise of econometrics.

This paper collects together quotations and extracts from 19th and 20th century thinkers who were little-known for being supporters of workplace democracy.

Wilhelm Launhardt (1832‐1918) is a founder of mathematical economics. His main work, Mathematical Foundations of Economics, published in 1885, was translated into English in 1993. As an engineer, he contributed to the field of not only engineering, but also of economics and, in particular, to those parts in economics which can be treated fruitfully with mathematics. Launhardt developed his work independently from the French engineers, but based it squarely on the work of the agricultural engineer von Thünen. He made references to the economists Sax, Walras and Jevons. His main economic contribution lies in founding location theory but, beyond that, he contributed to the mathematical treatment of economics, labor economics, monetary economics and technology economics with a special emphasis on railway issues from a locational point of view. Hence, it is the purpose of this paper to show how Launhardt used mathematics in his engineering‐based approach to the economics of location and technology.

The chapter examines the core framework of A. C. Pigou’s Theory of Unemployment (TU) with the aim of providing a rational reconstruction of his analysis of the determinants of unemployment in the short period. This is accomplished without any comparison with Keynes’s criticism of TU, as often found in the previous literature.

I reconstruct Pigou’s two-sector model, which only accounted for output in the wage good sector but not in the non-wage good sector, as a complete two-sector model to reveal his implicit assumptions about the passive behaviour of non-wage earners in the non-wage good sector. I also find classical elements, most notably the wage fund doctrine and the hypothesis on profits, in Pigou’s approach, which partly explains why the model is incomplete when viewed in terms of its neoclassical elements. In the “A Rational Reconstruction of the Two-Sector Model” section, I sketch a mathematical model to make Pigou’s analysis consistent.

The chapter shows how unemployment is determined and how economic policy to deal with it is conceived in the work of a major exponent of the pre-Keynesian approach.

The purpose of this paper is to find out the different types of business networks formed by firms with the stakeholders present in a cluster, i.e. how firms in a cluster interact with the cluster stakeholders?

To answer the research question, this study uses an exploratory research design, which is carried out in two stages, Stage 1 involves use of primary data, which was collected through semi-structured personal face-to-face interview mode and Stage 2 involves survey research method where data was collected through a survey questionnaire. Data for interviews and questionnaires were collected from managers and owners of firms operating in the cluster at their offices.

The study has identified four types of business networks between a firm and its buyers, only one type of business network with the suppliers and educational institutes, finally two types of business networks with government agencies and local associations. However, with respect to network with other stakeholders such as research institutes and competitors, the study shows that the interaction between a firm and these stakeholders is not strong i.e. the linkages between them remain largely unfilled.

The study has been limited to only one cluster thus it might not be appropriate to generalise the findings. Further research in this area needs to be done by taking other clusters to generalise the findings.

The study has tried to answer the research gap of lack of literature on types of business networks formed by firms with the stakeholders present in an industrial cluster, and thus, contributed to the existing literature of business networks. The identified business networks provide a much deeper understanding of how firms connect with its buyers, its suppliers, government agencies and educational institutes operating in an auto-component cluster.

I am indebted to Joyce Christie Trebing for translating Hiett’s shorthand.

Duncan Bell’s project to restore late-Victorian and Edwardian debates on federative empire or a Greater Britain to international theory emphasizes the “political language” of civilization, race, and character available to fin-de-siècle thinkers on empire. In the process, Bell leaves out the contribution to these debates made by a key figure in the newly emerging discipline of economics: Alfred Marshall. Most recent writings on 19th-century empire similarly ignore the work of late-Victorian economists, as do recent efforts to map the terrain of international theory more broadly. Marshall’s writings on federative empire are not referenced by the advocates of Greater Britain that Bell carefully documents, but it is clear that Marshall followed those debates closely. And though he imagined his contribution as distinctly economic, his work unfolded in a similar language of civilization, race, and character, informed particularly by social evolutionary thought. In conclusion, I stress the dangerous temptation to sort the relevance of thinkers according to contemporary disciplinary boundaries so that more recent economists and the components of earlier political economic work that might be classed as economics are sifted out of our narratives of political thought. Instead, I see the debates on empire that Bell explores as unfolding in a language that, since the 17th and 18th centuries, has engaged issues of commerce and trade, social change, moral virtue, and the nature of political rule: political economy.