Search results

Discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of Public Administration necessarily involves an appraisal of the legacy of mercantilism. Few movements have had more lasting influence on the development of Public Administration or roused more controversy. As a philosophy originating in the Elizabethan era, its effects on the structure and form of political governance and organizations were astounding. Although sometimes cast as a relic of a bygone era, this article discusses how mercantilism and its progeny are alive and well in the twenty-first century global economy

Marx, like orthodox political economists, developed a concept of historical and economic change that corresponds to the period and mode of thought and policy that is today called “mercantilism”. Marx′s treatment of the subject was varied and uneven and did not achieve a fully developed state until his conception of value and capitalism was well defined and he could apply the notion of mercantilism to his analysis of economic development. In his early writings, Marx addressed mercantilism doctrine while mainly ignoring economic developments taking place in the mercantilist era. In the second period, Marx and Engel′s emphasis was shifted to historical development. It was during the third period when Marx developed his theory of surplus value that his conception of mercantilism became grounded in economic development and attained maturity. Only when Marx′s concept of mercantilism had practical significance could its significance be fully developed.

This paper aims to highlight in particular one commercially influential but subtle constituent of China’s mercantilist stratagem – asymmetrical internet access. The wider aim of the paper is to provide a solid basis of real-world facts and knowledge to the e-commerce discussions at the World Trade Organization and the ongoing plurilateral e-commerce negotiations.

This paper uses an empirical approach to reflect the general experiences of consumers connecting from China to e-commerce platform websites in other countries and vice versa consumers connecting from other countries to China’s e-commerce platform.

The empirical data show that Chinese potential customers trying to connect to the websites of foreign internet retailers in 17 other sample countries are faced with prohibitively long waiting times. In contrast, the average waiting time that it takes for customers in those other 17 countries to link up to China’s major internet retail platforms is much shorter.

The hard evidence presented here serves to strengthen the arguments that such internet censorship is used by China to establish unfair e-commerce advantage. This paper further argues that the General Agreement on Trade in Services is restrained from providing systemic solutions to the digital mercantilism problem. It is essential, therefore, that the ongoing plurilateral e-commerce negotiations address this issue.

This paper is the first to publish detailed results of a systematic survey designed to analyze the impact of asymmetrical internet access in China. It is also the first to examine the extent and effect of differing internet connection speeds in the context of international trade. The outcome of the survey provides a factual base for future rule-making at the multilateral level.

The so-called “oil price war” of 2014-2016 took place between several main global oil producers; OPEC (led by Saudi Arabia), Russia and the newcomer; American tight oil or fracking oil. These oil producers were competing against each other over market shares in the global oil market, by maintaining their high oil production rates, even if this led to a decline in oil prices and a reduction in revenues from oil sales. As energy politics need more coverage in International Political Economy (IPE) theory, this paper aims to argue that Saudi Arabia's policies during the oil price war of 2014-2016 reflected a policy of neomercantilism, which is the IPE equivalent of the school of realism in International Relations (IR).

This paper tests for neomercantilism by testing three of its main definitional components. The first definitional component is that the state, as the political authority, intervenes in the economic decisions. The second component is the primacy of the state interests over business corporate profits, or the primacy of political and security considerations over short-term economic and corporate profit considerations. The third is the zero-sum or relative gains nature of dealings between states. Afterwards, this paper tests for neomercantilism in the Saudi policy by examining how each of these definitional components is reflected in the Saudi policy during the oil price war.

As energy politics need more coverage in International Political Economy (IPE) theory, this paper argues that Saudi Arabia's policies during the oil price war of 2014-2016 reflected a policy of neomercantilism, which is the IPE equivalent of the school of realism in International Relations (IR).

As energy politics need more coverage in International Political Economy (IPE) theory, this paper argues that Saudi Arabia's policies during the oil price war of 2014-2016 reflected a policy of neomercantilism, which is the IPE equivalent of the school of realism in International Relations (IR).

Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, ungenerously described by its author as a “rhapsody void of order and method”, actually developed several ideas about the functioning of markets that anticipate some of the concerns of contemporary subjectivist economics such as are expressed in the writings of the modern Austrian School. While it may be too much of an exaggeration to follow F.B. Kaye by declaring Mandeville a “founder” of laissez‐faire economics, it is also quite incorrect to reach the negative verdict of one recent author who concluded that Mandeville “did not advance free‐market economics on any issue”. Mandeville did advance economics in general (and free market economics, incidentally) when he emphasised how patterns of conduct that emerge from the clash of individual egos guided by the flattery of politicians often function to promote some degree of commodious social life that is especially enjoyed by those quick to condemn the conduct as “immoral”. This theme still has its adherents today. I shall group Mandeville's contributions among four overlapping subject headings as follows:

This paper aims to argue that the Global Political Economy (GPE) theory of neomercantilism provides a sound explanation to the American military involvement in the Persian Gulf. Accordingly, this paper also proposes the concept of “Neomercantilist War” which analyses the use of military force to protect a strategically vital economic resource (such as Gulf oil). Neomercantilist War is a point of similarity between the GPE school of neomercantilism and the International Relations (IR) school of realism.

The 1991 Gulf War and the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are two major events of American military involvement to protect and/or seize Gulf oil. These two events will be tested for neomercantilism, in addition to the concept of “Neomercantilist War” as presented in the paper. The first feature, or definitional component, of neomercantilism is the major role of the state, the second is the preponderance of security/geopolitical goals over economic goals and the third is the zero-sum, relative gains mentality to dealing between states IR.

The GPE school of neomercantilism and the concept of Neomercantilist War do offer a sound explanation of American military involvement in the Gulf.

The American military involvement in the Gulf region has been analysed using the IR schools of realism and liberalism, but never using GPE theory. Even though GPE is mostly concerned with economic activity, the scope of GPE should be expanded to include military policies if they affect economic resources and activity.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse Michel Foucault’s new epistemological model regarding an analogy between the theory of language and economic thought in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Through the scrutiny of language, Foucault intended to demonstrate that some analogies, among different branches of knowledge (interdiscursive practice), allow us to apprehend the underlying configuration of thought regarding ontological and epistemological conditions that have historically determined knowledge. He draws a parallel between four theoretical segments borrowed from general grammar (Attribution, Articulation, Designation and Derivation) and economic thought on wealth.

One of the most remarkable propositions of this approach is that the theory of language and economic thought were epistemologically isomorphic in that context. What the theory of language stated in relation to “attribution” and “articulation” corresponded to the “theory of value” in economic thought. What grammar investigated regarding “designation” and “derivation” was analogous to the “theory of money and trade” in economic thought. The relationships that were – directly and diagonally – identified between and among them led to the conclusion that there was ‘a circular and surface causality’ in economic thought insofar as “circulation” preceded “production”. It was “superficial” because it could not find an explanation for the cause of “wealth”, which was only possible when “production” was placed in the front position of theories.

Such an epistemological point of view can inspire other studies in the history of economic thought.

This paper offers a perspective on how to think about the history of ontological and epistemological conditions of economic thought.

Richard Cantillon (168?–173?) is known as the first economic theorist and the founder of entrepreneurship theory. Few would describe him as engaged in policy issues, but he did write about policy issues of interest to scholars interested in entrepreneurship and economic development. He has long been classified as a mercantilist of a bygone day, even as many believe he was resolute in not commenting on policy matters at all. His views could be a key to pursuing the policy goals of entrepreneurship scholars.

The authors look at several topics in Cantillon's Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755), read in its historical/political context, to better understand Cantillon's views. The authors then relate Cantillon's views to recent interventions in the economy.

The authors found that Cantillon held clearly antimercantilist, or free market, views. The authors also recognize that his views, given his status as the founder of entrepreneurship theory, can contribute to modern economics. As in Cantillon's day, institutional uncertainty has negative economic consequences and often leads to unproductive entrepreneurship, which is only made worse by the increased complexity of the modern economy.

The authors clarify Cantillon's views against modern-day interpretations and offer a clearer understanding of Cantillon's writings in the context of his Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755). The authors also show the importance of the proper role of institutions for productive entrepreneurship—and the danger of unproductive or destructive entrepreneurship when such institutions do not have policies favorable to entrepreneurship.

This paper attempts to trace and describe the role played by the government sector – the state – in promoting economic growth in Western societies since the Renaissance. One important conclusion is that the antagonism between state and market, which has characterised the twentieth century, is a relatively new phenomenon. Since the Renaissance one very important task of the state has been to create well‐functioning markets by providing a legal framework, standards, credit, physical infrastructure and – if necessary – to function temporarily as an entrepreneur of last resort. Early economists were acutely aware that national markets did not occur spontaneously, and they used “modern” ideas like synergies, increasing returns, and innovation theory when arguing for the right kind of government policy. In fact, mercantilist economics saw it as a main task to extend the synergetic economic effects observed within cities to the territory of a nation‐state. The paper argues that the classical Anglo‐Saxon tradition in economics – fundamentally focused on barter and distribution, rather than on production and knowledge – systematically fails to grasp these wider issues in economic development, and it brings in and discusses the role played by the state in alternative traditions of non‐equilibrium economics.