Search

Examines the causes of high and low rates of economic growth under capitalism. Impact of demand structure on allocation of resources; Effect of competition and mobility on factor prices; Influence of demand on rate of industrialization growth.

The article analyzes whether capital accumulation is compatible with economic progress and stability. Institutionalism is a way of thinking to which many thinkers within the last generation have been shifting. It is essentially a movement away from the classical conception of the economy toward a scientifically oriented set of doctrines which emphasizes and develops the machine as being the material basis of production. There is evidence that supports the thesis that there are two distinct brands of institutionalism, the basis for distinguishing between them being the extent to which certain economists were obviously influenced by philosopher Thorstein Veblen and disseminated the tenets of his philosophy in their own works. Such a distinction is not as arbitrary as it may appear. The problem of institutionalism then is basically the problem of influencing society to do something unpleasant, to give up cherished and long-held notions in order to effect a cure. The real problem is the neurosis of the complex of capital which supports the arbitrary institutional structure of capitalism. The accumulation of funds makes no creative contribution to the progress of society.

The article reports that the emergence of modern India as the great neutral and middle-of the- way state in international affairs has somewhat obscured the contribution in the field of economic development which this great country is making. India's Five Year Plan is based on a middle-of-the-road economic philosophy. It views the economy as divided into a public and private sector which share economic activity as equals. Springing from forces deep in the culture of India, this economic philosophy stresses the partnership of public and private sectors, working together in harmony. Moreover, the plan also conceives of "numerous points of contact and interaction between the two sectors" and units worked on the principal of joint participation." In line with this thinking, in the ground between the two sectors, India has made use of some interesting politico-economic devices. The world of the nineteenth century drew a sharp distinction between business and government. Mixed enterprise is treated by many Western writers, especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries, as simply a vague case of nationalized industry, not essentially different from the case where the public authority held all claims to ownership.