Search results

This paper aims to examine the relationship between the development of consumer rights and the emergence of the contemporary consumer movement. Rethinking the contemporary consumer movement as a new social movement (NSM) enables a closer examination of the actors, opponents and goals of the movement, and how governments and other political institutions responded by conceptualising and developing a set of “consumer rights”.

The lens of NSM theory is used to examine the historical development of, and relationship between, consumer rights and the contemporary consumer movement.

As a NSM, the goal of the contemporary consumer movement is to bring about ideological change. However, this paper argues that the development of “consumer rights” can be read as an attempt by oppositional forces to co‐opt the goals of the movement, thereby neutralising the threat of the movement and negating the opportunity for radical ideological change. Identifying that co‐optation can occur not only through the actors, but also via the “totality” or goals of a movement, broadens our understanding of how NSMs decline or are institutionalised.

This paper offers a critical interpretation of the origins and purpose of “consumer rights”. It suggests that rather than being read as a success of the contemporary consumer movement, consumer rights actually represent a co‐optation of the movement, which served to placate consumer activists while actually maintaining the very structures of advanced market capitalism and consumer culture the movement sought to destabilise.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

Based on a decolonial perspective from Latin America, this paper aims to offer a different history of the creation of Brazil’s Consumer Defense Code (CDC), analyzing the process through which Eurocentric influences, especially coming from Consumers International (CI), became present in the development of the code.

A qualitative historical research was developed using marketing amnesia and decolonialism as its theoretical backdrop. Primary and secondary data are used as source of information. Primary data were obtained through interviews with two authors of the CDC. Secondary data were collected from academic articles and books, reports, magazines and consumer organization websites, as well as journalistic articles.

During the drafting of the CDC and after its promulgation, the presence of Eurocentric forces was constant, given the interests of CI and other agents in influencing Brazil’s consumer practices, subordinating them to those of the Global North. This Eurocentric presence was accepted by the Brazilian jurists that drafted the CDC, which led to the incorporation of both laws and bills from Eurocentric countries and the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection into the code.

Such discussions are scarce in marketing, due to the area’s amnestic state regarding the past. While selectively forgetting certain pasts, marketing fails to both acknowledge its tendency to subordinate consumerist actions to those accepted by the Eurocentric world, and to establish analyses that deal with mimetic processes, to minimize asymmetries between companies and consumers, especially in emerging economies, and, even more, dichotomies between the Global North and the Global South.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

The “economic” (Chicago School) theory of regulation fails to explain many important features of regulatory history in the USA, such as the periodicity of regulatory innovation, the role of the organized consumer movement, and the roots of reform, including deregulation. J.Q. Wilson′s political theory of regulation accounts for these phenomena when interpreted in historical context. The widely‐held social values of Wilson′s theory are identified with the values articulated by the consumer movement. This theory suggests that regulation can indeed serve the public interest as understood from the perspective of consumerist values.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.