Search results

This chapter argues that the Marxian theory of exploitation underlies the concepts of surplus and deficit industries that appear in Sraffa’s (1960) Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. This is seen from archival research of the unpublished papers of Piero Sraffa housed at the Wren Library, Trinity College, University of Cambridge. There it is shown that the origin of these concepts lies in the Marxian theory of exploitation that Sraffa developed regarding the notion of the ‘pool of profits’ the Italian economist utilized over a 14-year period from 1942 to 1956. The chapter engages in an extensive textual study of the archival evidence and then presents a simple analytical model of these relations.

Aims to examine the issue of industrial strategy (IS), paying particular attention to the case of Britain. Sets out to assess the possibility and nature of an industrial strategy for Britain, in Europe, and within the global scene, taking into account the world we live in as we see it. Accordingly, the perspective is driven and shaped by a quest for a realistic, feasible and sustainable industrial strategy. In order to achieve these objectives, first examines the theoretical arguments behind much of British, and more generally, Western industrial policies. Following this, outlines and assesses British industrial policy post‐Second World War then compares and contrasts British industrial policy with that of Europe, the USA, Japan and the newly industrialized countries. Then examines recent developments in economics and management which may explain the “Far Eastern” miracle, and points to the possibility of a successful, narrowly self‐interested, IS for Europe and Britain, based on the lessons from (new) theory and international experience. To assess what is possible, develops a theoretical framework linking firms in their roles as consumers and/or electors. This hints at the possibilities and limits of feasible policies. All these ignore desirability which, in the author′s view, should be seen in terms of distributional considerations, themselves contributors to sustainability. Accordingly, discusses a desirable industrial strategy for Britain in Europe which accounts for distributional considerations, and goes on to examine its implications for the issue of North‐South convergence. Concludes by pointing to the limitations of the analysis and to directions for developments.

The unsettled opposing conclusions reached by a number of scholars about the remaining significance and/or weakness of the nation-state and its conflict and/or coalition with global capital represent an analytical and theoretical impasse. These contradictory views have been contested in the literature leaving no clear methodological and analytical guidance on how to examine the state-capital relationship in any specific area in the era of globalization. This paper suggests that the contradiction and change in the relationship between the nation-state and capital is rooted in the contradictory needs of labor versus capital. However, the role of labor and its contradiction with capital has been absent from most state-capital analyses or is treated as a background variable. To help overcoming this analytical impasse, the paper calls for re-conceptualizing the role of labor on the global level and for incorporating this role within the state-capital relationship. The paper first provides a critical appraisal of the opposing views of the state-capital relationship and pinpoints problems in their analytical logics of contradictions and structural determination. The basic contradiction between labor and capital is restated and the ways in which different approaches had incorporated (or ignored) labor in relation to capital and the state are criticized. The critique covers mainstream and recent synthesized approaches but focuses more on post-Marxist political economy. The paper concludes with some suggested directions for research for addressing the capitalist state contradictions.

Blockchain is often presented as a technological development; however, clearly it is not only that: the ‘Blockchain buzz’ exists in the context of current social and political developments. In this essay, we analyse blockchain technology and its social and political context from a perspective of Marxist economic theory. Since arguably the last great inflection point in society and technology was analysed by Marx in terms of labour and capital and since we seem to be experiencing a shift in the balance between these forces today, it makes sense to revisit the Marxist ideas and apply them to the current situation, to see how well they still apply and if necessary to update them for current events.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of biased technology on employment distribution and labor status in income distribution of China. It also testifies a threshold effect of the capital per labor and employment distribution on labor status from biased technology.

This paper presents a normalized supply-side system of three equations to measure the bias of technology in China. Linear and threshold regressions approaches are applied over cross-province panel data to investigate the influence which biased technology has on labor status under different capital per labor and employment distribution regimes.

This paper empirically shows that technology has been mostly capital-biased in China. The regression results indicate that capital-biased technology impairs labor income status and tend to modify employment distribution and labor income between industries. Furthermore, it reveals the threshold effect of capital per labor and employment distribution on the relationship between biased technology and labor status.

This paper extends the literature by explaining labor status from the perspective of biased technology and the effect of inter-industry employment distribution in China. It further explores the asymmetric effect of biased technology on labor productivity and income, which promotes inter-industry labor mobility and modifies employment distribution. This paper highlights the implications of this explanation for labor relations and human resource management.

The impact of the “Great Recession” on inequality is unclear. Because the crises in the housing and stock markets and mass job loss affect incomes across the entire distribution, the overall impact on inequality is difficult to determine. Early speculation using a variety of narrow measures of earnings, income, and consumption yield contradictory results. In this chapter, we develop new estimates of income inequality based on “more complete income” (MCI), which augments standard income measures with those that are accrued from the ownership of wealth. We use the 1989–2007 Surveys of Consumer Finances, and also construct MCI measures for 2009 based on projections of assets, income, and earnings.

We investigate the level and trend in MCI inequality and compare it to other estimates of overall and “high incomes” in the literature. Compared to standard measures of income, MCI suggests higher levels of inequality and slightly larger increases in inequality over time. Several MCI-based inequality measures peaked in 2007 at their highest levels in 20 years. The combined impact of the Great Recession on the housing, stock, and labor markets after 2007 has reduced some measures of income inequality at the top of the MCI distribution. Despite declining from the 2007 peak, however, inequality remains as high as levels experienced earlier in the decade, and much higher than most points over the last 20 years. In the middle of the income distribution, the declines in income from wealth after 2007 were the result of diminished value of residential real estate; at the top of the distribution, declines in the value of business assets had the greatest impact.

We also assess the level and trend in the functional distribution of income between capital and labor, and find a rising share of income accruing to real capital or wealth from 1989 to 2007. The recent economic crisis has diminished the capital share back to levels from 2004. Contrary to the findings of other researchers, we find that the labor share of income among high-income groups declined between 1992 and 2007.

In previous efforts the author has examined the various “men” of economics or human‐nature assumptions of “economic thinkers” as a way of treating the history and philosophy of the discipline. Here, under the thematic penumbra of “Man as the Centre of the Social Economy”, and hoping to incorporate the fruits of further inquiry into the matter, those “creatures” and their fashioners are critically reconsidered with a view towards arriving at a more adequate conception of a truly human “economiser” and – accordingly – science of human economy. In Part II, having presented homo oeconomicus in both his/her “impudent” and “honourable” versions, we shall attempt to transcend homo socioeconomicus and even our own (former) homo oeconomicus humanus as well.

The dynamics of economic growth in India continues to engage economists and still remains much debated. The trends and patterns of growth observed in India have seen acceleration in growth in Indian economy in the period following macroeconomic reforms and policy changes in investment and trade regimes. However, when and how did India transform itself from Hindu rate of growth to the present growth regime continues to be debated.

Using INDIA KLEMS data set, this study provides a distinctive perspective on India’s economic growth. A unique data set comprising 27 sectors of Indian economy at a disaggregate industry level for a period of 30 years, beginning 1980s, attempts to understand the dynamics of India’s growth from the contribution of industries that comprise the Indian economy.

This productivity data set offers a new way of analyzing the dynamics of growth including the sources of growth. The growth empirics allow evaluation of the relative significance of total factor productivity growth vis-a-vis input accumulation in accounting for output growth. In addition, the authors were able to document the industry contributions to aggregate growth. In this way, they were able to analyze the importance of the constituent industries within the different sectors of the economy − agriculture, manufacturing, construction and market, as well as non-market services in accounting for the observed growth in India. In conclusion, the industry perspective offers a new and analytical way of discerning new aspects of India’s march to higher growth regimes in post-1990s era.

A unique data set comprising 27 sectors of Indian economy at a disaggregate industry level for a period of 30 years, beginning 1980s, attempts to understand the dynamics of India’s growth from the contribution of industries that comprise the Indian economy.