Search results

Professor Boris Ischboldin has devoted a lifetime of productive scholarship to economic science. By virtue of his native gifts and a highly cultured background he has attained to a breadth of scholarship which is reminiscent of that giant of modern economics, Joseph Schumpeter. Ischboldin's linguistic skills have enabled him to acquire an uncommon familiarity with the works of economists that is truly international in scope, and that is one factor which prompts me to compare him with Schumpeter. Among the results of his efforts are an approach to, or school of, economics which he chooses to call the School of Economic Synthesis. It involves, among other things, a synthesis of various approaches to analysing economic realities—approaches whose various practitioners often tended to regard their own as the one correct and only legitimate method. In less skillful hands, or perhaps because of less charitable hearts, diversity often resulted in a kind of tension that was not always creative, as well as a mutual exclusiveness and even scholastic in‐tolerance which put an unneeded burden on the progress of the science. With Professor Ischboldin and the co‐founder of the School of Economic Synthesis, Arthur Spiethoff, variety became instead the basis for complementary creativity! Thus, such disparate figures as David Ricardo and Wesley Mitchell, or Leon Walras and John Commons find themselves embraced into a single schema that Ischboldin calls, “a theory of economic laws and methodology”.

Although neo‐classical economics has undoubtedly driven the global pension privatization reform agenda, it does not provide an adequate framework for the reform of retirement income protection. Indeed, it poses salient decision risks for policy‐makers because of its naturalist epistemology and agency ontology, which deny both the value of hermeneutic knowledge and the existence of structural imperatives. When confronted with the challenge of income maintenance for those in retirement, policy‐makers must necessarily tackle strategically important, values‐laden questions. This requires them to engage in policy discourses that are informed by competing welfare ideologies. Reflecting these discourses, national governments have adopted three reform approaches to public pension privatization. All are consistent with values of community solidarity, social cohesion and citizenship rights, which are seen by national governments to be preferable to the values that underpin neo‐classical economic analysis, namely, individual responsibility, freedom of choice and contractual rights.

The reformist processes of glasnost and perestroika exacerbated an existing crisis in education in the Soviet Union. Although Mikhail Gorbachev′s initiatives did not elicit a strong response among educators before early 1987, they provoked strong discord over the extent of desirable change in national educational policy thereafter. This conflict merged with a wide‐ranging debate over the rewriting of the nation′s history, especially the version to appear in secondary school textbooks. Seizing both issues, classroom teachers and lowlevel administrators made a sustained effort to increase decision‐making authority at the bottom of the educational apparatus, including at the classroom level. By 1989, these differences had settled into a pattern of ongoing, implacable disagreement.

The New Economic Society was formed in 1973 to promote the aims of the School of Economic Synthesis. Economic synthesis, since its early formation in the 1930s, has sought to integrate historical economics with social and neo‐classical economics. As the academic movement toward economic synthesis broadened, a more formal organisation became necessary. The New Economic Society (International School of Economic Synthesis) is an interdisciplinary association open to economists and others who are interested in developing a more social and humanistic economics, and a more realistic and scientific understanding of modern developed and less developed societies. The membership includes persons from numerous academic disciplines in many countries; formal chapters of the Society exist in the United Kingdom, Germany, India and Israel. At present, the membership is developing on an informal basis and no dues are requested. Membership information may be obtained from the following persons.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the dichotomy of radicalism and reformism in the corporate social responsibility (CSR)/sustainability literature, where the reform position is described as mainstream, where sustainability is delivered by governance mechanisms, regulation and planning, internalising costs, and redesigning industrial processes. Radical critiques of this position argue that reformists have “claimed” the CSR debate and therefore disempowered those who would bring about more fundamental changes. The alternative radical position is described as a countercurrent, an ecocentric approach requiring change in economic and political systems.

The paper reviews some of the thinking in this area to assess whether a truly radical position is possible to affect change or whether the forces of incrementalism allow gentle resistance to the status quo, which will be more effective in closing the sustainability gap.

The paper maps some of the models described within it to assess where each lies in the radical‐reformist continuum.

The findings should allow an assessment of the possibilities for CSR to become more radical in approach. However, this needs further empirical testing.

The mapping is an original contribution to the area.

The economic and financial picture of the whole world in the early 1980s does not look at all good despite the optimistic rhetoric used by the leaders of the seven major industrial democracies during the May 1983 Summit Conference held in Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. Almost everywhere there are artificial monetary injections to produce another problematic boom with the well‐known residual effects, negative social and financial consequences. But beyond there are no visible signs that on this road the prevailing conditions of disequilibrium embedded in contemporary economies will vanish and a new, better international economic and financial order will emerge.

The purpose of this article is to show that racism is not only a US problem. Rather, racism is endemic and pervasive in the UK context, manifesting at every level of policing. From stop and search, to deaths after police contact, the authors highlight long-standing and widespread racist disparities in UK policing. The authors therefore pierce through any delusions of UK “post-racialism” in order to show that, as protesters have reminded us, “the UK is not innocent”.

In this piece, the authors reflect on the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020. Whilst the catalyst was the death of George Floyd in the United States, the authors explore what the protests mean in the UK context. To do so, the authors draw upon recent high-profile examples of police racism, before situating those events within a wider landscape of racist policing.

Demonstrating that UK policing has to be understood as institutionally racist, the authors suggest that responses to police racism need to be radical and uncompromising – tweaks to the system are not enough. The authors therefore look towards defunding and abolition as ways in which one can begin to seek change.

The piece takes up the challenges set by this Black Lives Matter moment and offers a critical take on policing that seeks to push beyond reformism whilst also highlighting the realities of UK racism.

Education, according to a vague but often accepted generalisation, is the only hope of a nation. Whether it is or not, the many branches of human endeavour which constitute modern education have generally not succeeded in stabilising man's psychological perspective in a volatile world. Be it politics, economics, or religion, disorder is the rule of the day and educators are hard pressed to offer explanation except in a highly fragmented way. Yet, it is educators who are largely charged with the intellectual development of the individual and the nation. We can ask: What is the source of the problem and how can it be met?

The purpose of this paper is to explore which socioeconomic and institutional factors are responsible for different societies’ ideological choices, with reference to Marxist socialism. Which factors led to the rise of the popularity of socialism? And which factors made a socialist variant relatively more successful in one society but not the other, with social democracy and communism being the focus of the study?

Conducting a global theoretical and empirical study on the period between the late 1890s and 1945. The theoretical part discusses various perspectives presented in the literature, accounting for the works of major sociologists (e.g.: M. Mann, Lipset) and political theorists (e.g.: Marx, Engels, Lenin). The empirical part uses a number of OLS multivariate panel regressions using voting to various socialist movements as dependent variables, and socioeconomic and institutional factors as independent variables.

Some of the findings of the conducted empirical study are that: democracy, industrialization, high population growth rates, low linguistic or religious homogeneity, more years of schooling and less years since independence or creation increase the social democrat (SD) vote. The communist vote was affected positively by more urbanization; higher population growth; less years of schooling; more years since independence; recent experience of war; and the presence of insignificant religious minorities. Inequality seemed also to have been a strong significant factor for raising the popularity of various socialist parties, especially when countries were long-established or created. Countries which had a fresh experience with war devastation or which were highly urbanized while having higher levels of inequality witnessed an increasing vote share for the communists. More votes went to SD; however, when inequality existed in highly industrialized countries. High GDP growth, matched with higher inequalities, did not seem to have encouraged voting for various socialist parties, and even affected the communist vote negatively.

There were data limitations on the available proxies.

This study suggests welfarism, public spending on education, social inclusion and democratization as remedies for radicalism, regardless of the ideological origins of such radicalism.

Its novelty is attributed to the deep analytical dimension for the issue done here, combining theory, an empirical study made possible by the newly available rich historical data.

Women and marketing have had a complicated relationship for a considerable time. They have often been involved with marketing‐type practices for longer than we have appreciated to date. Against considerable odds, some have carved out careers in academia and practice that have to be admired. The purpose of this paper is to explore the work of two pioneer contributors to marketing.

This paper engages in a close reading of the work of two female contributors. Their writing is placed in historical context which helps reveal the obstacles they had to overcome to succeed.

Female teachers, lecturers and practitioners had an important role to play in theorising consumer practice and helping people to successfully negotiate a complex marketplace replete with new challenges, difficulties and sometimes mendacious marketers seeking to profit from the limited knowledge consumers possessed.

This paper explores the writings of a practitioner and scholar respectively whose work has merited only limited attention previously. More than this, it links the arguments that are made to the papers that appear in the rest of the special issue.