Search results

This chapter critically examines the Post Keynesian horizontalist theory of money from a Marxian perspective. Horizontalist analyses are criticised from three angles. First, monetary theory should be historically specific. Second, credit money is an advanced form of money, created mostly as liabilities of financial institutions, and its supply is endogenous in a more complex and profound sense than Post Keynesian analysis allows. Third, although credit money is endogenous, the quantity supplied is not always compatible with the needs of the sphere of circulation. Consequently, pronounced instability and inflation are possible for purely monetary reasons.

Pantaleoni used to say that there are two categories of economists—those who can, in the sense of being able to produce original work, and those who cannot. A more meaningful and more useful distinction can be made between those who reason about the given problems in terms of stable equilibrium (most of them classicists) and those who do their thinking in terms of unstable equilibrium (actually stable disequilibrium) and sheer disequilibrium (most of them modern and contemporary scientists).

This article attempts to unravel the ways in which New Labour's economic and social policies differ from those of previous Conservative and Labour administrations.

The article analyses Treasury documents, which outline the philosophy underpinning the Government's measures.

Gordon Brown has adopted a third‐way strategy between Monetarism and Keynesianism, which seeks to maintain stability whilst adapting to shocks. It is based neither upon fixed rules nor complete flexibility, but upon constrained discretion, i.e. the belief that long‐term stability requires a comprehensive framework, which constrains policy to achieve sustainable goals, but provides discretion to respond to shocks. If policy‐makers possess a sufficiently credible commitment to overall stability, they can exercise discretion in response to shocks without damaging long‐run expectations.

Founded upon the concept of ‘constrained discretion, the paper argues that New Labour is neither abolishing nor extending the welfare state, but rather is changing its character. Further empirical research in particular sectors is indicated.

Monetarism has the same attraction for the Right as Marxism for the Left: purporting to offer a simple solution to economic problems, it relieves believers of the need to grapple intellectually with the complexity of economic reality.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a discourse analytical understanding of the political economy. The term “crisis” is an important label in recent discussion in political economy. Yet the genuine discursive dimension of “the crisis” and the multiple linguistic layers of the crisis discourse remains an open issue.

Realist perspectives usually believe in an external reality of crises independent of the language construction; in contrast, constructivist perspectives argue that a crisis is always the result of a socio-linguistic construction process. This contribution follows a critical-constructivist perspective, thereby taking into account powerful discursive actors which are able to “declare” a state in the world as a “crisis”.

From a discourse analytical point of view, this paper examines the rules and logics of crisis management policy, arguing that a new politico-academic elite has appeared which is beyond the classical distinction between “Keynesians” and “neo-liberals”. By taking a position in the discourse of the recent debate on financial regulation, these new elite might be able to manage the crisis for a particular time, as they are constructed as “moderating actors” through academic and political discourses.

From a practical point of view, this analysis cannot offer economic solutions; from an analytical viewpoint, it will not give insights into discursive contexts.

This analysis helps to understand current debates on economic policy and to improve the communicative efficiency of the participants.

This paper combines a discourse analysis with a governmentality perspective and applies this analytical tool onto a political and economic topic currently prevailing in the global political economy.

Following Braudel's conceptualization of capitalism and Arrighi's periodization of systemic cycles of accumulation, the authors focus on the patterns of recurrence of financial expansions enabling capitalism to revitalize itself through crisis; in this, crisis is considered in both aspects — crisis‐as‐restructuring and crisis‐as‐rupture. The ways in which finance aided by the blocks of governmental and business agencies in the present stage affects investment and business cycles result in a progressive increase of inequality between rich and poor countries, as well as inequality within the most developed countries. The authors tackle the crisis phenomenon through a genealogical analysis of the formation, consolidation and disintegration of the successive regimes of accumulation on a world scale through which the capital economy expands. They furthermore examine the crisis of capitalist accumulation through the relation of money and the state, which leads them to the field of debates on the changed relationship between the global economy and the national state. However, the crisis is also marked by a milestone which, despite dangers and pitfalls, opens up endless possibilities. They end the paper with a critique of the politics of money and advocate a socially responsible finance management, which will pave the way for a structure of society in which humanity will exist as an end in itself, rather than as a resource for the accumulation of money.

Following Braudel’s conceptualization of capitalism and Arrighi’s periodization of systemic cycles of accumulation, the authors focus on the patterns of recurrence of financial expansions enabling capitalism to revitalize itself through crisis; in this, crisis is considered in both aspects ‐ crisis‐as‐restructuring and crisis‐as‐rupture. The ways in whichfinance aided by the blocks of governmental and business agencies in the present stage affects investment and business cycles result in a progressive increase of inequality between rich and poor countries, as well as inequality within the most developed countries. The authors tackle the crisis phenomenon through a genealogical analysis of the formation, consolidation and disintegration of the successive regimes of accumulation on a world scale through which the capital economy expands. They furthermore examine the crisis of capitalist accumulation through the relation of money and the state, which leads them to the field of debates on the changed relationship between the global economy and the national state. However, the crisis is also marked by a milestone which, despite dangers and pitfalls, opens up endless possibilities. They end the paper with a critique of the politics of money and advocate a socially responsible finance management, which will pave the way for a structure of society in which humanity will exist as an end in itself, rather than as a resource for the accumulation of money.

Denis Healey once said that he would squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked.Now, in the different context of Tory economic policy and its effect on jobs and industrial investment, Stanley Alderson argues that the monetary curbs have put Britain on a disaster course.

Interest in developing institutional explanations of political and economic behavior has blossomed among social scientists since the early 1980s. Three intellectual perspectives are now prevalent: rational choice theory, historical institutionalism and a new school of organizational analysis. This paper summarizes, compares and contrasts these views and suggests ways in which cross‐fertilization may be achieved. Particular attention is paid to how the insights of organizational analysis and historical institutionalism can be blended to provide fruitful avenues of research and theorizing, especially with regard to the production, adoption, and mobilization of ideas by decision makers.

Historically, the disintegration of a culture was gradual, over many generations. But the crises of industrial culture have emerged swiftly, during the past thirty years, due to the accelerations of technological change and global interdependence, as we slid from the Soaring '60s through the Stagflation '70s into the Economizing '80s. Surface political and economic remedies, whether the latest nostalgia for Monetarism in the West or the latest 5‐year Plans for the socialist economies, cannot address the new malaise: growing resource‐depletion, unhappy workers, alienated tax payers, soaring inflation, balance‐of‐payments problems and general loss of domestic control of national economies due to the realities of global economic integration. The old political consensuses break down and new alignments have not yet emerged to channel the energies of the electorate, or even explain what has happened.