Search results

In theorizing the dynamics of social processes, dialectical thinking informs Marx's historical materialist inquiries and both – dialectics and historical materialist principles – inform his political–economic analysis. In conceptualizing empirical observations during this work, Marx (1973b, p. 101) assumes that the “concrete is concrete because it is the concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse” and that “With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too” (Marx, 1992, p. 28). This methodological tack strives for the flexibility needed for analyzing patterns in long-term social development (the structure of history) as well as the logic of specific systems in their totality and flux (the history of structures).

Drawing upon Alfred Sohn-Rethel's work, we argue that, just as capitalism produces abstract labor, it coproduces both abstract mind and abstract life. Abstract mind is the split between mind and nature and between subject/observer and observed object that characterizes scientific epistemology. Abstract mind reflects an abstracted objectified world of nature as a means to be exploited. Biological life is rendered as abstract life by capitalist exploitation and by the reification and technologization of organisms by contemporary technoscience. What Alberto Toscano has called “the culture of abstraction” imposes market rationality onto nature and the living world, disrupting biotic communities and transforming organisms into what Finn Bowring calls “functional bio-machines.”

The purpose of this chapter is to characterize fictitious capital and fictitious profits as extreme expressions of the fetishism of capital. Considering the incessant search for valorization and allowing for fictitious forms of capital, the subject of this study is at the center of the dynamics of recent capitalist accumulation, especially when we take into account the capitalist crises over the last four or five decades. Its mechanism of fictitious valorization (M – M′), a decisive dimension of contemporary capitalism, is contradictory, based on the growing obstacles to the extraction of surplus value on an expanded scale, and therefore the real valorization of capital. At the same time, we support the idea that this mass of overaccumulated capital produces profits unrelated to surplus value, that is fictitious profits, further intensifying the fetishistic and contradictory nature of capitalism.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the engagement with integrated reporting (IR) of the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), as one of the banks that pioneered IR. Banking industry members face critical sector-specific issues regarding the use of capitals, especially the disclosure of relational and natural capital-related information, and reporting of the outcomes of capitals. This study examines an innovative approach to accounting for multiple capitals adopted by DBS during its journey toward IR.

This empirical research follows the case study method, using semi-structured interviews with DBS’s managers, and analyzing reports and other documentation.

The authors find that DBS re-conceptualizes, re-categorizes and measures multiple capitals as a form of non-financial value using the balance sheet approach to make visible the interactions and potential tensions (trade-offs) among capitals.

Case studies are best used to understand a specific context, so the findings of this study cannot be generalized statistically. However, the study does provide insights into the banking industry that may be applicable to other organizations.

The categorization and reporting of multiple capitals using the balance sheet approach and the integration of the balanced scorecard are innovative operationalizations of the International <IR> Framework.

This study provides an innovative approach to the categorization and measurement of multiple capitals. It represents a step toward reducing the gap between research and practice on IR.

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the feasibility of market based estimations of the value of human capital in firms.

The concept of intangible assets and market‐based valuation of human capital is presented. Cases of extreme estimates of human capital values are presented. The possibility of extremely low or even negative human capital values is examined.

It is demonstrated that odd human capital values can be explained by referring to principles of valuating fixed assets and intangible liability.

The paper demonstrates that market‐based methods for estimating the value of human capital of the firm can be feasible despite the existence of very odd human capital values.

The findings of the paper adds to the discussion of how to valuate human capital in intellectual capital accounts in general and human capital accounts in particular.

This research investigates (1) the impacts of working capital investment policy and working capital financing policy on firms’ performances (profitability and market value) and (2) the impact of profitability on market value. Data are gathered from 68 companies listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand covering production sector. Data collected from 2012 to 2016 are analyzed using path analysis to measure the impacts of working capital policy on performances and examine the consistency of the model and the empirical data.

The model is found to be consistent with the empirical data; the probability level is 0.085, χ ²/df is 2.96, CFI is 0.951, GFI is 0.979, IFI is 0.957, and RMR is 0.004. The result reveals a statistically significant positive relationship between working capital investment policy and profitability. In addition, working capital investment policy affects market value through profitability as a mediator variable. However, there are significant negative impacts of working capital financing policy on profitability and market value. Overall, it can be implied that companies which adopt conservative working capital investment policy and conservative working capital financing policy can increase their profitability and market value.

Based on resource-based theory and intellectual capital theory, this paper aims to investigate the impact of digital investment on enterprise value and the mediating role of intellectual capital. Additionally, it explores the heterogeneous impacts of digital investment on enterprise value and intellectual capital.

The study utilizes a sample of listed companies in Chinese A-shares from 2013 to 2020. The entropy-weighted method is applied to measure digital investment from two dimensions: scale and increment. Finally, the research hypotheses are tested through multiple regression analysis.

The empirical results demonstrate that digital investment significantly and positively impacts enterprise value. From the channel mechanism test, digital investment can enhance enterprise value by influencing intellectual capital through human, structural and relational capital. Of these, the mediating effect of human capital is the most significant. Moreover, the impacts of digital investment on enterprise value and intellectual capital are related to the industry sectors. In the agricultural sector, digital investment has adverse effects. In the industrial and service sectors, digital investment promotes intellectual capital and enterprise value. However, in the service sector, the impact on relational capital is not significant, and the mediating effect of relational capital does not hold.

This research has a limited potential for generalization due to the lack of standard measurement models for the exploration of digital investment.

The research findings are valuable for assessing the economic effects of digital investment comprehensively and providing essential information for policy formulation and strategy implementation.

This study represents the first attempt to evaluate the relationship between digital investment and enterprise value using the entropy-weighted method. In addition, this study investigates the mediating role of intellectual capital.

This chapter challenges the denial of “underconsumption” – the role of consumption demand in capitalist reproduction and its paucity in crises – in contemporary Marxism. At stake are better understandings not only of crisis theory but also, inter alia, of imperialism, “reformism,” and Marx's intellectual legacy. The chapter shows how the centrality of consumption demand is underlined in the three volumes of Capital and the Grundrisse, and goes on to discuss the origins, weaknesses, and persistence of this denial. The chapter also shows that Marx did not regard underconsumption as a moralistic argument about unfulfilled need. The denial originates not in Marx but in productionism, the idea that capitalism is a system of “production for production's sake.”

Originating in the overkill of Tugan Baranowski's refutation of the Russian populists’ view that capitalist development was impossible in Russia due to lack of a home market, productionism is based on his attempt to force Marxism into the marginalist and the general equilibrium framework. Despite its antipathy with Marxism, most contemporary Marxist economics are based on it. Inevitably its adherence to Say's Law – the denial of the possibility of gluts in the market – infects the tendency to assume that capitalism's contradictions do not lie in circulation. Productionism's denial of the importance of consumption demand also rests on nonsequiturs, nondialectical thinking, and an underestimation of the contradictions in capitalism Marx identified, other than the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The chapter ends by showing the centrality of demand in the recent historical evolution of capitalism as reconstructed by Robert Brenner, followed by a discussion of whether underconsumption is “reformist.”