Search results

This paper uses Leon Trotsky’s theory of Uneven and Combined Development (UCD) in order to transcend both globalising and methodologically nationalist theories of the global political economy. While uneven development theorists working in economic geography have demonstrated the logical corollary of capitalist development and the completion of the world market in the persistence of geographic unevenness, they fail to specify or problematise the role of states in this process. This leads to an ambiguity about why the states system has persisted under conditions of deep economic integration across states. State theorists, meanwhile, tend to exclude the world market and system of states as conditioning factors in state (trans)formation. For this reason, much state theory offers only a contingent account of the relationship between patterns of capital accumulation and states’ institutional forms. Geopolitical economy, with its focus on the competitive interrelations between states as constitutive of capitalist value relations, is well placed to transcend the pitfalls of these twin perspectives by closely engaging with the theory of UCD. UCD provides a nonreductionist means of integrating global processes of capital accumulation with their distinctive and peculiar national mediations. A research programme is developed to operationalise UCD for purposes of concrete research – something lacking from recent development in the field.

This paper uses a social network approach to explore converging world‐systems hypotheses regarding the effects of increasing integration of socialist countries into the capitalist world economy since the height of the Cold War. Research on interdependence and other power relations among states in the world order cite the development of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) and their expanding numbers as evidence of an evermore sophisticated network in which countries have unique positions related to their functioning in the world order. Theories of International Development and International Relations suggest that at the beginning of the Cold War, capitalist states and socialist states functioned in effectively mutually exclusive realms. The balance of power between the US and the USSR perpetuated a world order in which, for the most pan, capitalist states did not engage in political or economic relations with socialist states and vice versa.

During Gezi Protests of June 2013, hundred thousands of people from different and even opposite groups were together on the streets of Turkey against government for a month. The abruptness, severity, diversity and creativity of Gezi Movement make it unique among urban movements in Turkey. Protesters not only challenged the police violence and authoritarian policies but also defended public spaces of their city. My analysis of Gezi Movement is based on the comparison of Lefebvre, Harvey, and Bookchin who all integrated the critique of capitalism and revolutionary vision into urban movements. However, they are different in terms of what revolution, city, class, citizen, and urban social movements are. Gezi Movement is discussed through the similarities and differences of three approaches.

Gezi Movement is a good example of New Social Movements which lacks an organization, hierarchy and a leader. As an urban movement it provided a glimpse of heterotopia of Lefebvre where many different groups and identities challenge the abstract space of neoliberal capitalism. The protesters, as the producers and the consumers of urban commons claimed Gezi Park and Taksim Square as Harvey stated. The transformation of protests into neighborhood forums despite losing power and participation shows the civic potential of urban movement that may develop direct democracy of citizens as a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. The spatial analysis of Gezi Movement provided insight to the revolutionary potential of urban movements in neoliberal age.

The economic system of competitive capitalism strives toward liquid markets wherein the cost for transacting is minimized. Liquidity is mostly addressed in association with abstract markets (e.g. the securities market), but also consumer markets are determined by liquidity concerns. The purpose of this paper is to examine the shopping mall concept, developed by the architect and social reformer Victor Gruen during the early 1950s, as a form of production of capitalist space, intended to reduce transaction costs. As an auxiliary benefit, Gruen envisioned the shopping mall as a cultural and civic center in the midst of the satellite town of suburbia, the new site of urban expansion during the post-war boom decades.

The paper reviews secondary literature on the historical development of the shopping mall as a consumer space. In addition, relevant economic and social science literature is referenced.

The architecture, design, ornamentation and day-to-day management of the shopping mall were premised on a consumerist way of life, ultimately serving as an all-too-visual index of the triumph of competitive capitalism in the cold war era. However, Gruen’s accomplishments were gradually compromised by the interest of money-minded developers and construction industry actors, and the shopping mall arguably never fulfilled the social and cultural function that Gruen anticipated. Regardless of such outcomes, the production of capitalist space as scripted by Gruen is still determining everyday life in consumer society, making Gruen a key figure, albeit only limitedly recognized, in the history of late modern society and in the capitalist economy.

The paper emphasizes the role of Victor Gruen in the post-Second World War period, being one of the most influential practitioners and social reformers in the era. Furthermore, the paper stresses how market liquidity is a key concern in Gruen’s project to create a communal space for the American suburban population in the era of the expanding welfare state.

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.

In this introductory chapter, we briefly outline the history of the political economy of raw materials, focusing particularly on the relationship between raw materials and economic development. We then introduce the chapters of this volume, and we conclude by discussing future directions for research in this area.

Through this reflexive, theoretically informed polemical piece, this paper aims to seek to reflect on the role of accounting education in United Kingdom Higher Education (UKHE). The authors reignite an old, but pertinent debate, whether accounting graduates should be educated to be accountants or receive a holistic, critical education.

The authors adopt a theoretical position drawing on the work of Slavoj Žižek and Mark Fisher, and their fusion of Lacanian psychoanalysis and Marxism, in particular Fisher’s (2009) conceptualisation of “capitalist realism” to take a critical standpoint on the effects that UKHE marketisation is having on the teaching of accounting and other business-related disciplines.

The authors outline four key aspects of where accounting education in UKHE is influenced by capitalist realism, as a result of the marketisation of UKHE.

The paper is a reflexive polemic and so is limited by this written style and presentation.

The authors argue that capitalist realism is a dominant theme that influences accounting education. They propose that universities now, more than ever, must focus on their societal duty to foster critical viewpoints in their graduates and dispose of a model that is subject to capitalist realism ontology.

The theoretical stance allows for a potentially deeper consideration of issues surrounding marketisation of higher education, from the micro level of social interaction (that of the accounting academic and their impact/perceptions of the reality).

Incorporating local space, matter, and society into our concepts of the global in analytically compatible ways poses a major challenge for contemporary scholars of both world systems and globalization. Many analysts ignore both materiality and locality of production. They assume the global as their point of departure, and attempt to incorporate the local into it. In this chapter, we aim to reverse that logic. We will take into account and theorize the interaction of natural and social processes. In other words, we will integrate ecologic or materio-spatial logic with sociologic within the economic logic of global markets.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how capitalism has developed into a deeply integrative economic system of financial investments and manufacturing. This process of globalization has brought about the emergence of a transnational capitalist class that rules the world’s economy. Financialization, created by the speed and interconnectivity of information technologies, is a key element that has produced immense wealth for a few while reducing their dependence on the labor of workers. This system of global accumulation has lead to a crisis of democracy with several different possible outcomes.

This paper begins with an historical examination of capitalism and capitalist class formation by tracing developments from nation-centric capitalism to globalization. A conceptual explanation of the development of the transnational capitalist class (TCC) is offered. Research on current economic data to support the thesis on the emergence of the TCC in both its private and statist forms is included, as well as an examination of the latest technology developments that affect financialization and how this impacts class relations. The conclusion analyzes the development of democracy as a class dialectic, and the impact of globalization that is altering the historic relationships between capital and labor. The paper ends with a discussion of possible political/economic futures.

Globalization is a new era in which capitalism has deepened its inherent tendency toward creating world markets and production. This process has been greatly enhanced by the new technological tools of financial production. Organizing and overseeing this system of global accumulation is the transnational capitalist class. The emergence of this class has transformed class relations based within the historic perimeters of nation-states, and it threatens the content and character of democracy that arose out of the bourgeois democratic revolutions in America and France.

Transnational Capitalist Class Theory is a recently developed field of research. It is a new critic of mainstream international relations analysis which centers on nation to nation relationships. It also differs with world system theory which divides countries into a center/peripheral analysis. Within the field of TCC research, this paper offers an original historic perspective between global economics and the development of democracy. It also makes new theoretical connections between information technology, financialization and the destruction of the social contract.