Search results

Since the turn of the millennium, a small corpus of post‐structuralist thought has emerged that challenges the dominant belief that capitalism is now hegemonic and that all economic formations are contrasting varieties of capitalism. This paper seeks to contribute to the development of this emergent perspective. The aim is to challenge the notion that the Ukrainian economy can be represented as some variety of capitalism by highlighting the shallow permeation of capitalist practices into daily life and the continuing prevalence of multifarious non‐capitalist economic practices.

To achieve this, evidence is here reported from a 2005‐6 survey that analysed the extent to which 600 households in Ukraine used capitalist and non‐capitalist economic practices in their coping tactics.

This reveals not only the limited use of capitalist practices in the everyday coping tactics of households in Ukraine but also how an array of non‐capitalist economic practices remain heavily relied on by a majority of households to secure their livelihood. The outcome is a call to tentatively reject the “varieties of capitalism” system of meaning because of what it excludes, prohibits and denies, and to open up the future of post‐Soviet Ukraine to other possible trajectories than simply some variety of capitalism.

This snapshot survey of the everyday coping practices of households displays only that capitalist practices are not hegemonic and that multifarious economic relations persist and are widespread. It does not show whether or not there is movement towards greater reliance on capitalist practices.

It begins through the presentation of evidence on Ukraine to tentatively challenge the application of a “varieties of capitalism” perspective towards Central and Eastern European economies.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate critically the meta‐narrative that capitalism is becoming totalising and hegemonic. Grounded in an emerging corpus of post‐development thought that has deconstructed this discourse in relation to western economies and the majority (third) world, the purpose of this paper is to further contribute to this burgeoning critique by analysing the degree to which capitalism has penetrated a post‐socialist society, namely Ukraine.

To analyse the penetration of capitalism, a survey is reported of the work practices of 600 households in a array of localities in Ukraine, conducted during 2005/2006 using face‐to‐face interviews.

Analysing the practices used by households to secure their livelihoods, the finding is that capitalism is far from hegemonic. Even when the formal economy is relied on either as their most important or second most important source of livelihood, it is nearly always combined with some other economic activity. A diverse portfolio of work practices is thus the norm rather than the exception with over 90 per cent of households relying on sources other than the formal market sphere as either their most important or second most important source of livelihood.

Displaying the shallow penetration of capitalism in this array of localities in Ukraine, this paper reveals the need for a re‐representation of the realities of work in such post‐socialist societies so as to open up the feasibility of, and possibilities for, alternative futures for work.

This paper reports the first evaluation of the extent to which capitalism has penetrated work practices in post‐socialist Ukraine.

This paper aims to evaluate critically the meta‐narrative that there is no alternative to capitalism. Building upon an emerging body of post‐structuralist thought that has begun deconstructing this discourse in relation to western economies and post‐Soviet societies, this paper further extends this critique to Sub‐Saharan Africa by investigating the degree to which people in the Gambia rely on the capitalist market economy for their livelihood. Reporting the results of 80 household face‐to‐face interviews (involving over 500 people), the finding is that only a small minority of households in contemporary Gambian society rely on the formal market economy alone to secure their livelihood and that the vast majority depend on a plurality of market and non‐market economic practices. The outcome is a call to re‐think the lived practices of economic transition in Sub‐Saharan Africa in general and the Gambia in particular, so as to open up the feasibility of, and possibilities for, alternative economic futures beyond capitalist hegemony.

Some 80 households (involving over 500 people) were interviewed face‐to‐face on their livelihood coping strategies.

Reporting the results of 80 household face‐to‐face interviews (involving over 500 people), the finding is that only a small minority of households in contemporary Gambian society rely on the formal market economy alone to secure their livelihood and that the vast majority depend on a plurality of market and non‐market economic practices.

The outcome is a call to re‐think the lived practices of economic transition in Sub‐Saharan Africa in general and the Gambia in particular, so as to open up the feasibility of, and possibilities for, alternative economic futures beyond capitalist hegemony.

This research gives us an empirical understanding of the implications of lived experiences of people's day‐to‐day livelihood coping strategies, which refutes the capitalist's thesis and calls of a re‐think on economic and sustainable development policies and strategies in Sub‐Saharan Africa

This article examines relationships between capitalism and democracy as perceived by contending perspectives within the liberal capitalist‐liberal democratic tradition(s). Bentham and the Mills are taken as initiating both this tradition and the core elements of the debate within it. Pre‐Benthamite theories are first reviewed. Then, after discussion of Bentham and James Mill and of John Stuart Mill, Mill's late nineteenth and early twentieth century successors are examined. We then go on to consider hypotheses concerning the “exceptional” quality of relationships between capitalism and democracy in the United States. The penultimate section of the article adumbrates the main contours of mid‐twentieth century pluralist‐elitist theories. We conclude with a summary.

This paper aims to assess the contemporary paradigm of urban utopia’s ability to fulfil its goals and to evaluate its attainability in the first place. Its main question is: are contemporary urban utopias achievable? If not, is there an alternative?

In light of modern urban utopia’s failure to achieve the “good city/society,” skepticism regarding utopianism has prevailed. However, many scholars stress the significance of utopianism, calling for its revival. Recently, a new paradigm of urban utopia has emerged; one that stems from present capitalist urban conditions and requires resolving its ills. It puts great emphasis on rights as a means to accomplish the good society and the just city. This research critically examines contemporary urban utopia to evaluate its ability to fulfill its goals. It poses questions such as: Does capitalism facilitates achieving its goals? Could rights as a means achieve the good city/society? If not, is there an alternative? To answer these questions, a substantially different perspective, that of Islam (as a societal system), is used as a utopic paradigm that could open up new paths for developing an alternative utopia.

It is found that despite the focus of both the Islamic societal system and mainstream contemporary urban utopia is on the concept of rights, vital dissensions exist between the two models regarding the concept of rights per se. Hence, the urban utopia of the good city and society is achievable, yet, it cannot transpire within the capitalist kaleidoscope.

Recently, discussions on what constitutes the future city and the alternative conceptions to the (Western) post-Enlightenment approaches generally offered in the English language planning literature have been on the rise. Therefore, this paper contributes to this debate through critically assessing Western contemporary urban utopias from a non-Western perspective, that of Islam. It introduces an alternative model based on Islamic urbanism that could open doors for deeper thinking regarding the alternative future/good city.

This paper explores economic moralities in self-organised alternative economies and argues that the diverse economies approach is particularly useful in elaborating the self-understandings of such economic communities. The analysis focuses on two types of alternative economies in Finland: ridesharing and timebanking.

Through qualitative data, the paper looks into moments of negotiation where economic moralities of self-organised alternative economies are explicitly debated. The main research data consists of social media conversations, supplemented by a member survey for the participants of the studied timebank. The data are analysed through theory-guided qualitative content analysis.

The analysis shows that the moments of negotiation within alternative economies should not be understood as simple collisions of mutually exclusive ideas, but rather as complex processes of balancing between overlapping and partly incommensurable economic moralities. While self-organised alternative economies might appear as functionally uniform at the level of their everyday operations, they still provide considerable leeway for different conceptions of the underlying normative commitments.

To date, there is little qualitative research on how the participants of self-organised alternative economies reflect the purpose and ethics of these practices. This study contributes to the body of diverse economies research by analysing novel case studies in the Finnish context. Through empirical analysis, this paper also provides a theoretical framework of how the different economic moralities in self-organised alternative economies can be mapped.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the literature that has sought to deconstruct this ideologically driven depiction by demonstrating how the existent enterprise culture in post-Soviet spaces not only challenges the depiction of the entrepreneur as a heroic icon of the legitimate capitalist culture but also opens up the feasibility of alternative futures beyond legitimate profit-driven capitalism. The starting point of this paper is that the enterprise culture is often viewed as inextricably related to the legitimate capitalist economy.

To unravel the nature of the enterprise culture in lived practice, this paper reports a 2006 survey involving face-to-face interviews with 90 entrepreneurs in Moscow.

Only 7 per cent of the Muscovite entrepreneurs surveyed pursue profit-driven legitimate entrepreneurship. The vast majority adopts social goals to varying degrees and operates wholly or partially in the informal economy. The outcome is to challenge the depiction of an enterprise culture and capitalism as inextricably inter-related and to open up entrepreneurship and enterprise culture in this post-Soviet space to re-signification as demonstrative of the feasibility of imagining and enacting alternative futures beyond capitalism.

These findings are tentative, as they are based on a small-scale study of just one post-socialist city. Further research is now required to analyse whether the lived practices of entrepreneurship and enterprise cultures are similarly diverse in other post-Soviet spaces as well as beyond.

This is the first paper to evaluate critically the assumption that enterprise culture is a part of the legitimate capitalist economy in post-Soviet spaces.

Analyses the economics of socialism within the Marxian tradition. The ideas of Marx and Engels are included, as are those of the theorists of the Second International. The debate on market socialism associated with Oskar Lange also receives attention. The evolution of Mises′s and Hayek′s responses is traced, and there is an outline of how economists in Eastern Europe have come to similar conclusions to these Austrians. Concludes with an assessment of the economics of socialism in the work of contemporary theorists.

Within the current climate of rapacious neo‐liberal economic expansion and increasingly globalized public protest, the social economy tradition has again emerged as an important nodal point for practical and theoretical socio‐economic debate and action. However, as recent scholarship makes clear, there is no clear consensus on what this phrase means or the social and political role that this sector of society should play, given current conditions. This paper suggests an answer to both of these questions by focusing on and reworking the “radical/Utopian” stream of theorizing within the social economy discourse. It concludes that, unless the social economy movement recognizes the importance of reintegrating a “life‐world” politics into its economic vision, it will increasingly be used by government as the low‐ or no‐cost alternative to state‐funded social welfare. If this is allowed to happen the social economy will be relegated to an unofficial support/monitoring branch of government/neo‐liberal economic restructuring and, consequently, it will perpetuate the conditions which it has always been envisioned to challenge.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate critically the narrative that the informal economy in Africa has no place within the framework of economic development. Considered as a sign of “backwardness”, “traditionalism” and “underdevelopment”, the informal economy in Africa has persistently grown notwithstanding Africa’s economic destabilisation through the adoption of neo-liberal economic interventions and free-market policies. This paper argues that the informal economy cannot be marginalised at the fringes of economic development, in the construction of a holistic development pathway.

The methodological basis is discourse analysis.

The outcome is a call to re-think and open up the feasibility, and possibilities for, alternative economic futures beyond free-market capitalism.

This paper makes a critical consideration on one of the multiple narratives that continue to inform economic policy making in Africa, by contesting and deconstructing its basis in order to encourage a pluralistic approach and understanding.