Search results

Marx expected the socialist revolution to take place in a highly industrialized society. In his theory the creation of the industrial society was the “historical task” of Capitalism. The “historical task” of Socialism was the equitable distribution of the fruits of industrialization. This sequence was inherent in his dialectical and historical materialism. For this reason, argues that it would be rash to pass judgement on Socialism in the light of the Russian experience. The Russian experience may well have been a “special case”.

The Japanese spirit, as an integration of gods indigenous to Japan (“Shinto”), Confucianism and Buddhism, seems to have formed today's economy and society in Japan, for good or bad, just as modern societies in Europe and America were once created by the spirit of Puritanism.

Addresses two major problems. Argues first that the Stalinist model of socio‐economic development, with its actual emphasis on production for the sake of production, has been Ricardian in its nature. As a result, its dominant features have been the sellers′ market of shortages. Maintains, second, that the essence of the current transformation of the Stalinist system is its movement from the Ricardian to the modified Marxian model of capitalism. Since the latter′s proclaimed goal is production for the sake of profits, the “reformed” Soviet socio‐economic structure will have to end up as the buyers′ market of plenty.

Analyses the economics of socialism within the Marxian tradition. The ideas of Marx and Engels are included, as are those of the theorists of the Second International. The debate on market socialism associated with Oskar Lange also receives attention. The evolution of Mises′s and Hayek′s responses is traced, and there is an outline of how economists in Eastern Europe have come to similar conclusions to these Austrians. Concludes with an assessment of the economics of socialism in the work of contemporary theorists.

The purpose of paper is to present a review of the literature on management accounting innovations (MAIs). Specifically, it explores recent developments in research on MAIs and offers suggestions for future research. The review differs from existing reviews by its specific focus on MAIs and the recent time period covered. In this paper, MAIs refer to the adoption of “newer” or modern forms of management accounting systems such as activity‐based costing (ABC), activity‐based management, time‐driven ABC, target costing, and balanced scorecards.

The paper presents a review of findings from journal articles published in 22 notable accounting journals.

The review finds that research on MAIs has intensified during the period 2000‐2008, with the main focus on exploring the extent to which a host of organizational and environmental factors influence the implementation and use of MAIs in organizations. In addition, research on MAIs indicates the dominant use of sociological theories and increasing use of empirical/field studies.

A literature review using a given set of accounting journals and search words used to identify relevant articles may overlook literature within the scope of the review. The paper concludes the importance of more research on MAIs by offering some directions for future research.

The paper's specific focus on MAIs and the recent time period offer the reader useful insights on management accounting research and theory.

Extensions/applications/revisions of the Marxian vision of socialism can broadly be categorized into two polar strands: the centralized and the decentralized strands of socialist economic systems. Explores the main postulates of a decentralized version of a socialist economic system as provided by Kautsky, Luxembourg, Bernstein, Bukharin and Lange. The centralized strand of socialist economic systems has been elaborated drawing mainly from the writings of Lenin, Trotsky, Dobb, Sweezy and Baran.

This paper reconstructs the clash between William Baumol’s and Paul Samuelson’s different approaches to the history of economic thought, disguised as a debate on the Marxian transformation problem on the pages of the Journal of Economic Literature in 1974. The published papers were the result of an intense exchange of letters that shows how the debate on the transformation problem is just the surface: the debate originated from the authors’ different approaches to the history of economic thought. Samuelson applied his famous “Whig” history of economics to suggest that Marx had little to nothing to offer to modern theorists, while Baumol was interested in the past authors’ theoretical and moral intentions. Baumol and Samuelson’s Methodenstreit resulted in two different visions of Marx, and there is evidence that they kept their different approaches for their entire career.

Kalecki's 1968 paper on Marx's Reproduction Schemes aimed, starting from Marxian Schemes, to build an analytical bridge to the modern theories of Effective Demand and Growth. Kalecki accomplished his task modifying the structure of Marxian Schemes, reinterpreting them in terms of vertically integrated sectors, and this sidesteps Marx's analysis of the monetary intersectoral transaction. This chapter tries to show that the impossibility of implementing the intersectoral monetary transaction is not simply due to monetary technicalities, as held by Kalecki, but has crucial implications regarding Say's Law. Putting aside Marx's problem, Kalecki puts aside the true meaning of Marx's unsuccessful analysis: that an economy obeying Say's Law cannot function; as it were, Marx's Impossibility Theorem on Say's Law.

Since the late 1970s there have been a number of articles devoted to re‐evaluating the issues and arguments involved in the debate concerning comparative economic systems. The present state of this continuing debate is evaluated with regard to modern theories of planning, bureaucracy, motivation and property rights. It appears that the debate has not been settled yet.