Search results

David M. Gordon advanced labour economics with his theory of labour market segmentation, in which jobs rather than the marginal productivity of individual workers were the unit of analysis. He advanced economic historiography and macroeconomics by conceptualising social structures of accumulation – a framework built on the foundation of his institutionalist training and enriched by his study of Marxist economics. By appropriating methods from other social science disciplines into econometrics, he augmented empirical analysis in economics. He was a founding member of the Union of Radical Political Economics and its journal, the Review of Radical Political Economics – that advanced and promoted heterodox, radical, and Marxist economists in the United States. His contributions to economics, to organised labour, and to the New School for Social Research, where I studied with him, were stunning.

Part 1 lays out some context about the New School Graduate Faculty where Gordon taught. Part 2 explores what historical forces, including his family, led to his expansive creativity. Part 3 summarises how he expanded labour economics to include the relations as well as the technology of production, linked his understanding of the production process to a historical materialist view of labour in the United States, then extended that to econometric analyses of the US macroeconomy. Part 4 presents a bibliometric analysis to provide some idea of the impact of his work. I end with some concluding remarks.

Decision-making has long been recognized as being at the core of organizational life. Yet, the cognitive mechanisms by which managers make decisions represent a critical field of exploration. In this context, business models (BMs) are cognitive representations of organizational architectures that managers use to orient their firms in the business environment. While BMs – as managerial schemas – have been extensively studied for their beneficial applications at the strategic level, scholarly attention has rarely focused on their dark side. In this chapter, we point out that BM thinking – that focuses excessively on established schemas – might narrow managerial cognition in the process of fine-tuning the current BM; in the process, opportunities for more radical BM innovation can be overlooked. We systematize March and Simon’s contribution on managerial cognition into a more comprehensive conceptual framework by integrating the perspectives of Kahneman, Baron, and Gollwitzer. The result is an epistemologically coherent framework for managerial cognition and decision-making that focuses on how managers can overcome cognitive biases that derive from a reliance on established BMs as schemas. We close this chapter with directions for further research.

Discuss in detail the uses which might legitimately be made of the following passage by the writer of a profound study of economic life and thought in France at the end of the reign of Louis XIV. In answering the question make full use of your knowledge of (a) historical criticism; (b) French economic and general history.

In the era of Big Data, larger volumes of data arrive in various forms at an increasing pace but of questionable quality and value. The abundant information (that emanates from these 5Vs – volume, variety, velocity, veracity, and value) taxes the bounded capacity of managers. This chapter introduces a taxonomy of approaches available for strategic decision making in an information-rich environment, several of which showcase that automation can help to augment (not supplant) managerial decision making. This taxonomy is then applied to an innovation context. Mapping a stylized version of the phases of the innovation process (i.e., front-end innovation, new product development, commercialization) onto the four decision-making approaches yields an organizing framework for understanding strategic decision making in the realm of innovation. The chapter concludes by identifying promising areas for future research.

This conceptual chapter: (1) explicates the foundational terminology regarding strategic decision making in a marketing context; (2) provides a primer on the era of Big Data and making strategic decisions in an information-rich environment; (3) introduces a taxonomy, which features approaches to decision making in an information-rich environment; and (4) applies the taxonomy in an innovation context to yield an organizing framework.

This chapter focuses on the nascent field that is emerging at the intersection of innovation, marketing strategy, and information-rich environments, and breaks new ground by exploring automation available to aid managerial decision making in this realm.

The main practical implication is to elucidate that managers can apply different approaches to decision making in today’s information-rich environment. Tables 2–4 provide to managers 12 examples of the types of decision making in an innovation context.

This chapter introduces a new taxonomy to classify four approaches for making strategic decisions in an information-rich environment, and extends that framework to the innovation realm. This framework aims to prompt researchers to explore important topics that exist at the intersection of innovation, marketing strategy, and managerial decision making in an information-rich environment.

This chapter presents two examples of misinterpretation of the philosophical term and historical concept of human dignity in contemporary legal theory and practice. Current legal theories (R. Alexy) still introduce Pico’s concept of dignity regarding the human personality and personal (volitional and rational) abilities. The term ‘dignity’ is marginal for Pico and shows the spiritual way to the status of the original Adam. Pico’s concept of dignity is located in the area of spirit (hyperphysics), not metaphysics (soul) or physics (materials). Günter Dürig in his commentary to Grundgesetz also used the Kantian concept of human dignity. Dürig exaggerated this value and used it also for the area of physics (to protect the human being as a personality). For Kant, the term ‘dignity’ was also marginal, and he used it in the area of metaphysics (soul – especially the moral and rational parts), regarding transcendence for homo noumenon, not for homo phaenomenon. In general, it seems to be problematic to use the ideal of the dignity for the law, which regulates the social relations between concrete phenomenal personalities. There are parallels to Pico. The Kantian starting point was different from Pico, because Kant stays in the area of metaphysics (especially the moral and rational parts). Both consider freedom as a condition of dignity. The concept of autonomy of will is significant for both, but each thinks of it in different ways. For both, human being can become master of oneself, but in a different context.