Search results

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

Addresses the lack of any coherent intellectual perspective for establishing a theory of corporate accountability that is neither extreme right‐wing nor anti‐liberal. Insights derived from Rorty′s Contingency, Irony and Solidarity are employed to develop a new perspective on the relationship between corporate activities and the public interest. This perspective is then joined with Dewey′s view of social intelligence and Barber′s notion of Strong Democracy to argue for an expansion of corporate social accountability.

Declining growth rates and rising unemployment as well as socio-economic inequalities signalled the crisis of globalisation. Dissent around socio-economic inequalities and austerity measures was articulated by far-right political parties and populist leaders coupled with the rise of anti-immigrant and xenophobic political parties. Within this historical context, this chapter has two concerns. First, how do mainstream and critical approaches within the discipline of International Political Economy explicate double crises of liberalism (economic liberalism and political liberalism) and rise of populism and far-right politics. It then aims to uncover what these approaches anticipate for future prospects of globalisation and which kind of strategies they put forward to overcome the crises. Second, the chapter then aspires to study to what extent there is retreat from globalisation and a rising trend of isolationism through debating continuity and change in terms of foreign direct investment and international trade after 2007–2008 crisis. Is it possible to observe change in the flow of foreign direct investment and internationalisation/transnationalisation of production? Are economies moving towards protectionism? What happens to multilateral and bilateral trade agreements after the failure of Doha talks? In a nutshell, is there a retreat from globalisation or is it simply populism and/or post-truth society that the world is going through under the current context?

In their Foreword, Augullo and Guidi identify the objectives behind the design features of their long-term project. One objective is to study “the history of economics from the viewpoint of the economists’ relationships with the institutional and professional environment.” A second objective is that of comparative methodology, the “systematic and meditated comparison among national cases…so that the interpretive framework of each might be enriched by cross-fertilization.” A third objective is that “economics was rooted in institutional contexts and had itself over time become an institution—a doctrinal corpus of knowledge which permeates and frames the mind of the student body, scholars, professionals and public opinion at large” and to do so “not merely from the canonical standpoint of doctrinal or paradigmatic evolution” (AG, p. xi).

The purpose of this paper is to analyse international political economy (IPE) thought in Korea during its pre-modern and colonial eras.

It divides these eras into three periods. The first period is the eighteenth century, in which Silhak arose. The second is the mid- and late nineteenth century, a time characterised by conflicts between Wijeong-cheoksa and Gaehwa thoughts. The final period is that of colonial Korea under imperial Japan, and during this time economic nationalist movements were pursued while Marxist theories were also introduced to the country.

This research shows that IPE thoughts analogous to Western economic liberalism and economic nationalism did emerge endogenously in Korea when its environment was similar to those in which these Western thoughts arose, although in ways that reflected Korea’s peculiar situations of the times. This study also demonstrates that the “economic” thoughts of the Koreans in these periods were shaped largely by their political thoughts.

This research contributes to the building of a more “globalised” intellectual history of classical IPE thought.

In this chapter, we examine the interrelationship between politics of neo-liberalism and practices of equality and diversity at work. In so doing, we illustrate how macro-national politics, in particular the contemporary neo-liberal expansion, impact the definitions, activities, beneficiaries and overall impact of diversity management at the organisational level. The chapter focuses on three fundamental assumptions of neo-liberalism, beliefs in the utility of deregulation (voluntarism), individualism and competition in order to organise economic and social life. The chapter goes on to examine the reflection of these neo-liberal beliefs on construction of diversity management in contexts where neo-liberal politics dominate. The chapter concludes by a critical assessment of how diversity can be freed from the clutches of neo-liberalism, which merely serves to limit the repertoire and imagination of interventions for diversity management.

The chapter examines the current macro-governance of agri-food in a contemporary sense, taking changes in the UK and more broadly Europe. It first outlines a recent ongoing period of what is called ‘Disruptive Governance’. This emerged in the UK, the USA and indeed Brazil after the prolonged fiscal and financial crisis which brought about economic austerity in these countries over the past two decades. This relatively new disruptive phase, has now become more engrained into wider political and institutional structures and cultures, and indeed re-enforced earlier neo-liberal rounds of political articulation. Whilst there are far wider in effects than with agri-food systems, it is having a profound effect upon the stability and security of current food and farming systems. The chapter then explores the unfolding implications for agri-food in terms of policy changes, further market concentration and further financialisation. At a regional scale, we look at how these macro governance and regulatory forces are impacting in contrasting regional contexts: the UK, Wales and rural North West England (Cheshire and Shropshire). Finally, in conclusion, we ask to what extent these conditions are indeed tempered by longer-running and alternative radical shifts in agro-food systems, and the degree to which these can become mainstreamed. What do these trends suggest for sustainable food transitions and the further application and appropriateness of regime theory and governance?

The Mondragon Cooperative Group has emerged as a major world market competitor while at the same time achieving freedom, justice, and equality. This paper examines the Mondragon Group's history and structure. It does so using the economy in society model as derived from social and institutional economics. Enhancing social communication within the group, the model leads us to understanding and better enables cooperatives to achieve their just, humane, and prosperous existence. The lessons of Mondragon challenge basic understandings of Euro‐American economic and management science about what can be. These lessons are examined not only for their import in managing change in transitional economies, but wherever economic liberalism has limited our ability to understand the full range of human experience and capabilities.