Search results

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast three‐factor models of boom and bust from Henry George, Knut Wicksell and Mason Gaffney.

The approach takes the form of an analysis and discussion and mathematical appendix.

It was found that gaffney modifies and incorporates features of both George and Wicksell into his own model.

The works of George, Wicksell and Gaffney are highly relevant, especially given the current economic crisis.

The paper should be useful both to historians of economic thought and contemporary economists. It brings together ideas that have been neglected in recent years, and contributes to the understanding of economic crises.

A tax based on land value is in many ways ideal, but many economists dismiss it by assuming it could not raise enough revenue. Standard sources of data omit much of the potential tax base, and undervalue what they do measure. The purpose of this paper is to present more comprehensive and accurate measures of land rents and values, and several modes of raising revenues from them besides the conventional property tax.

The paper identifies 16 elements of land's taxable capacity that received authorities either trivialize or omit. These 16 elements come in four groups.

In Group A, Elements 1‐4 correct for the downward bias in standard sources. In Group B, Elements 5‐10 broaden the concepts of land and rent beyond the conventional narrow perception, while Elements 11‐12 estimate rents to be gained by abating other kinds of taxes. In Group C, Elements 13‐14 explain how using the land tax, since it has no excess burden, uncaps feasible tax rates. In Group D, Elements 15‐16 define some moot possibilities that may warrant further exploration.

This paper shows how previous estimates of rent and land values have been narrowly limited to a fraction of the whole, thus giving a false impression that the tax capacity is low. The paper adds 14 elements to the traditional narrow “single tax” base, plus two moot elements advanced for future consideration. Any one of these 16 elements indicates a much higher land tax base than economists commonly recognize today. Taken together they are overwhelming, and cast an entirely new light on this subject.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the hypothesis that corporations are a particularly suitable instrument for rent seeking. Benefits are reaped by powerful companies, whereas a great deal of the costs is passed on to weakly organized groups.

The paper develops and substantiates the hypothesis theoretically and gives some indications. Moreover, a case study is added which refers to the German electricity market.

Equity seems to be indispensable to get access to land and other assets with similar characteristics as land. At the same time, profits appear to reflect the rent-earning capacity of the company's assets. High land rents stimulate investment intensity, and corporations can collect the necessary funds. The flip-side of rents is often the externalization of costs. Also, due to their limited liability, corporations externalize risks.

The paper provides a rationale for the common criticism of corporations, which is based on the reflection of equity as the key to land (in a broad sense) and (land) rents as the core of profits. If the findings hold true, corporations should be subject to particular regulatory observation. In particular, the corporate constitution of corporations and the taxation framework should try to get a better coupling of benefits and costs.

Classical economics recognizes three categories of inputs into production: land, labor, and capital goods. The three factors are also germane to Austrian economics.

Transnational corporation (TNC)-led oil investments have been widely encouraged as a mechanism for the development of the Global South. Even though the sector is characterized by major accidents, oil-based developmentalist narratives claim that such accidents are merely isolated incidents that can be administratively addressed, redressed behaviorally through education of certain individuals, or corrected through individually targeted post-event legislation. Adapting Harvey Molotch’s (1970) political economy methodology of “accident research”, this paper argues that such “accidents” are, in fact, routine in the entire value chain of the oil system dominated by, among others, military-backed TNCs which increasingly collaborate with national and local oil companies similarly wedded to the ideology of growth. Based on this analysis, existing policy focus on improving technology, instituting and enforcing more environmental regulations, and the pursuit of economic nationalism in the form of withdrawing from globalization are ineffective. In such a red-hot system, built on rapidly spinning wheels of accumulation, the pursuit of slow growth characterized by breaking the chains of monopoly and oligopoly, putting commonly generated rent to common uses, and freeing labor from regulations that rob it of its produce has more potency to address the enigma of petroleum accidents in the global south.

The purpose of this paper is to establish a historical context for the often maligned capital theory of Henry George within a North American frontier tradition that includes John Rae.

Modern discussions of rapid technological and institutional change provide a framework for detailed re‐examination of the capital theories of Rae and George, whose critics were largely constrained by a rigid neoclassical perspective.

Both Rae and George presented capital theories, defined as explanations of the supply of and demand for capital resulting in a determinate capital stock. Both writers stress elements that were not emphasized in neoclassical capital theory, most notably that the capital stock can increase rapidly under certain conditions; increases in knowledge, inventions, technical and technological changes, and scale are more important than mere accumulation of capital; high rates of return combined with rapid technical obsolescence and physical deterioration provide the opportunity for rapid changes in the form of the capital stock, and; the ephemeral nature, and hence potential mobility, of capital implies that security of property is essential for economic growth.

The focus on two writers leads to the question of how widespread their ideas were in nineteenth century North America.

The rapidly changing technology and institutions that Rae and George observed place their theories closer to some modern trends in the study of economic development than to the literature of neoclassical capital theory.

George's grasp of economic theory deserves greater respect than it has often received in the economics literature when his work is considered in its historical context.