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.

Investigates, in Part 1, the effects of West German stagnation in the 1980s following on from the welfare state doctrine of the 1960s and 1970s, which led to an economic and social crisis becoming inevitable. Shows this is not purely a German problem but one that also affects almost all other capitalist countries – either developed or developing. Expresses irony that the former communist bloc countries should also be engulfed in such crises. Proffers explanations and recommendations to offset the problems in Germany. Part II looks at Israel and how it has begun to emerge from its 1974 austerity programme by Rabin. States that Israel must initiate a new system of stable equilibrium to open a new era that is very possible, but involves economic and social thinking to avoid previous mistakes.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the role of banking in a binary and Islamic economy.

By comparison, the paper shows that the main requirements for such an economy, although superficially similar, differ from the realities of “free market” finance capitalism. The paper goes on to explain how, in a binary and Islamic economy, commercial banks would be the means by which interest‐free loans, coming from the central bank and ummah and directed at various forms of productive capacity, would be introduced.

There is no difficulty in using the banking system to introduce the binary and Islamic economy. However, a paradigm issue is involved.

The central bank‐issued interest‐free loans implemented through the commercial banking system loans serve the ends of both binary and Islamic economics in that they enhance the real economy and forward social and economic justice.

The paper shows how use of these loans is a new concept with a power to change the whole of the economy and society in a beneficial way.

This article seeks to examine the strategic options open to transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe in the face of intense competition in two highly sensitive economic sectors within the EU.

This exploratory paper makes use of cross‐country case analysis.

The investigation demonstrated that protective mechanisms are used in veiled fashion to some degree even amongst the more economically advanced members of the EU and not just the transition economies as commonly perceived. It further argues that whilst a free and open EU will contribute to the quicker full realisation of its common market aspirations, transition economies are currently not adequately prepared for its required economic adjustments. Transition economies may need to respond in measured phases, taking into account its economic and political limitations. Otherwise, it might not be able to withstand the full onslaught of globalisation.

This research challenges the one size fits all notion of zealous free marketers and offers a middle ground strategic option for transition economies in the EU for further evaluation by policy makers and academics alike.

This research uses two highly economic sectors in the EU to argue for a more middle ground strategic economic strategy for transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe. This contrasts with the more global agenda of liberal economics.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that free market capitalism is neither efficient nor just. This is in spite of the claims made by its proponents who, utilizing Adam Smith's doctrine of invisible hand or the fundamental theorem of welfare economics, assume that it is efficient, just, smooth functioning, and self‐regulating.

The paper utilizes conceptual/theoretical research and arguments that have emerged in the literatures of public economics and welfare economics.

In addition to proving the above, the paper also finds that Adam Smith is actually a moral egalitarian, thus he could not have agreed with Nozick and Friedman regarding the nature of capitalism. To the extent that Smith supported free market capitalism, it was because he thought, in contrast to mercantilist policies, that free markets would lead to equity and justice.

The paper is an original/valuable contribution since it rescues Adam Smith from the extreme proponents of laissez‐faire capitalism who claim him.

Eucken′s paradigm of a “social market economy” provides a framework for a functional free‐market mechanism, which not only accommodates development and change, but which also assures human dignity and freedom. Eucken places special emphasis on the integration of economics with “order” and “justice”. He holds that an unconstrained laissez‐faire economy does not assure a competitive economy but that it will degenerate into monopolistic practices. Eucken formulates his “structural” and “regulating” principles to facilitate a functionally competitive economy with a compatible social policy, to assure greater efficiency and to reduce poverty.

Centres on the impact of stagflation on marketing management in Yugoslavia and on the responses of managers to stagflation. Based on personal interviews and a survey, reports that while the impact of stagflation was drastic, managers responded by taking only mild countermeasures. This high impact‐mild adjustment phenomenon is quite different from reactions in the USA, where high impacts bring extensive adjustments. Explanations for this Yugoslav phenomenon, which have important implications for international marketing, are found in the country′s self‐managed economy.

The rising conflict in the global village indicates that second‐wave ideologies which promote competition, greed and self‐interest must be replaced with a third‐wave doctrine that encourages co‐operation, altruism and service to others. It appears that a paradigm shift has already taken place which makes it possible to propose a third‐wave ideology called competruism. This conservation doctrine has the potential of raising the survival chances of mankind in this period of increasing uncertainty.

The failings of the new experiment launched in the Soviet Union between 1985‐1990 under the formula of glasnost and perestroika, are outlined and explained. As an alternative, one which if successful may lead to an “economic miracle” even greater than that of the recovery of Germany and Japan after the Second World War, a programme for recovery and stabilisation of the Soviet economy and finances is formulated. There is a need for critical evaluation of both capitalism and socialism to correct their weaknesses by introducing a new social economic order – “liberal socialism”, if you use the terminology in the East; “social liberalism” in the West. This can be achieved only if certain conditions are met (conditions of equilibrium: monetary, banking, organised markets, and competition). Wide‐ranging reforms are advocated, including the passing of a Law of Social and Economic Justice in the privatisation of industry, artisanship and commerce; reforms of organised securities, commodities and foreign exchange markets; the establishment of the Federal Central Bank of the Soviet Union; agrarian reforms; and new legislation in communications, public administration and international balance of payments. The ultimate goal of the plan is the realisation of a social economy of free, just and stable markets.

Although markets prevail throughout the world, there are significant differences in the economic, social, political as well as legal institutions in which these markets function. Many of these variations can be attributed in part to differences in levels of economic development and in part to the differing consensus about the role of corporations and of governments in the various countries. The paper compares the models of private market economy and social market economy. An understanding of the rules underlying private market economy and those governing social market economy is important in the context of of the evoloving new global economic architecture.