Search results

Hazel Kyrk, one of the first women economists at the Economic Department of the University of Chicago and author of A Theory of Consumption (1923), conducted groundbreaking research for the Bureau of Home Economics of the US Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Kyrk made a considerable contribution to the development of standards for a “decent living,” the Consumer Price Index, and the conceptualization of what would later turn into the definition of the poverty line. This chapter evaluates Kyrk’s use of eugenic notions of gender and race that were widely used in Kyrk’s day. This chapter shows that eugenic reasoning impacts Kyrk’s theoretical work only superficially but does structure her research on consumption standards through her focus on the white middle-class family as the unit of analysis for consumer behavior. This chapter also makes clear that the American Institutionalist approach to consumer behavior, rather than marginalized and side-tracked due to a lack of theoretical progress, was relegated to the margins of economics science together with the research of women economists into Home Economics departments and policy research at government institutions.

Purpose: This chapter aims to enlighten the stakeholders on the role and contribution and the issues and challenges of large-scale industries in the wake of the globally unified economies.

Need for the study: Large-scale industries are one of the pillars of any nation and can exercise an immense impact on the numerous facets of the economy of any country. Their role and contribution can benefit all the stakeholders, especially in today’s integrated and interdependent world economies. Hence, there is an absolute need to highlight the issues and challenges and suggest measures to overcome them to promote a resilient global economy.

Methodology: The study gathered data from secondary sources like textbooks, articles, and the internet.

Findings: The findings of the study state that large-scale industries are enormous contributors to employment creation, development of the economy, growth of revenue, research and development (R&D) and innovation, export promotion, and infrastructure. The significant challenges include regulatory compliance, workforce management, economic volatility, political instability, supply chain management, environmental compliance, and technology and infrastructure.

Protectionism, deregulation, public–private partnership, privatisation, and environmental regulation are significant government decisions that affect large-scale industries. The study identifies tax incentives, easy access to financing, and domestic and international trade policies to safeguard large-scale industries’ interests.

Practical implications: Large-scale industries contribute towards the growth of global economic resilience in terms of employment generation, technological advancements, and innovation, fostering international trade in today’s interconnected world.

In Chapter 1, we critically reviewed the foundations of the free enterprise capital system (FECS), which has been successful primarily because of its wealth and asset accumulation potentiality and actuality. In this chapter, we critically argue that this capacity has been grounded upon the profit maximization (PM) theories, models, and paradigms of FECS. The intent of this chapter is not anti-PM. The PM models of FECS have worked and performed well for more than 200 years of the economic history of the United States and other developed countries, and this phenomenon is celebrated and featured as “market performativity.” However, market performativity has not truly benefitted the poor and the marginalized; on the contrary, market performativity has wittingly or unwittingly created gaping inequalities of wealth, income, opportunity, and prosperity. Critical thinking does not combat PM but challenges it with alternative models of profit sharing that promote social wealth, social welfare, social progress, and opportunity for all, which we explore here. Economic development without social progress breeds economic inequality and social injustice. Economic development alone is not enough; we should create a new paradigm in which economic development is the servant of social progress, not vice versa. Such a paradigm shift involves integrating the creativity and innovativity of market performativity and the goals and drives of social performativity together with PM, that is, from market performativity to social performativity.