Search

In this paper I consider various shifts in my research and understanding stimulated by seeking how to combat social ecological crises connected to modern economies. The discussion and critical reflections are structured around five papers that were submitted to Environmental Values in an open call to address my work. A common aspect is the move away from neoclassical environmental economics, and its reductionist monetary valuation, to a more realist theory and multiple methods. This relates to my work on environmental ethics, plural values, stated preference validity and deliberative monetary valuation. Expanding beyond the narrow confines of mainstream orthodoxy has involved exploring a range of other disciplines (e.g. applied philosophy, social psychology, human geography, political science, social anthropology, history of thought and philosophy of science) and learning from this literature to rethink economics and develop social ecological economics. A broad range of subjects are covered here, including: personal responsibility, social practice, psychology of the individual, participatory processes, value (intrinsic, instrumental and relational), Nature–society relationships and interdependencies, critical realism and the conduct of unifying interdisciplinary science. I end with a series of comments concerning the failings of orthodox economics and the conduct of scientific research for social ecological transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1980s, successive Australian governments began to pursue a program of microeconomic restructuring, taking their lead from the developing 'free market' reform projects underway in the United States and the United Kingdom. One of the prominent features of the emerging liberalisation agenda was the commercialisation and privatisation of government-owned companies and assets. In keeping with this trend, over the following decades, a series of changes have been introduced to Australia's container ports aimed at improving their productivity and efficiency. Drawing on a series of interviews and analysis of governmental and non-governmental reports, the purpose of this study is to examine how port policy has unfolded 'on the ground' in Australia. The paper considers some of the 'common sense' economic maxims expounded for reform in relation to actual outcomes for industry stakeholders, concluding that principles and practice have diverged significantly and that many of the assumed benefits have failed to materialise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Ages of American Capitalism: A History of the United States" by Jonathan Levy is a comprehensive exploration of American economic history, with a focus on labor economics and legal history. The book examines the relevance of institutional economics and the writings of John R. Commons in understanding changes in labor conditions and labor relations. Levy traces the development of American capitalism from the industrial revolution to the present day, highlighting the increasing control over workers and the emphasis on short-term profits. The book also discusses the failed populist movement and its goals of providing an alternative to the economic developments of the time. Overall, Levy's work provides a well-balanced commentary on management practices and their impact on the American economy. [Extracted from the article]

Alfred Marshall is often depicted as a pioneer of neoclassical economics almost as if this is a label he embraces and promotes. Yet neoclassical economics is not a category Marshall deploys but a term Thorstein Veblen introduces in characterising Marshall. Veblen coins the term neoclassical to identify an ontological discrepancy in the work of a specific group of his contemporaries, a prominent figure among whom is Marshall. Veblen's view is that Marshall and other neoclassicals discern features of social reality that suggest a tentative recognition of a causal processual social ontology of the type Veblen associates with modern evolutionary approaches and yet also remain staunchly committed to a taxonomic conception of science underpinned by a quite different set of ontological presuppositions. Veblen's assessment of Marshall is brief and assertive. In this paper it is argued that the ontological discrepancy interpretation of Marshall, that Veblen first sketched, can convincingly be filled out, has substantial merit and is of importance in developing an adequate appreciation of Marshall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is a truism of neoclassical economics that a sufficiently high savings rate will be bad if it is dynamically inefficient. Here we consider a Solow model in which households follow a savings rate dictated by a social planner. Ideally, the social planner would instruct households to save at the Golden Rule savings rate that maximizes consumption per capita, but this advice needs to be adjusted when the social planner has imperfect control over how much households actually save. Analogous to what happens with precautionary saving at the household level, in this case, the social planner will maximize social welfare by targeting a savings rate higher than the Golden Rule. Precautionary social planning then yields a dynamically inefficient allocation, albeit with greater stability of consumption, which is often a stated priority of social planners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In I Reforming Capitalism for the Common Good: Essays in Institutional and Post-Keynesian Economics i , Charles Whalen provides much needed historical perspective on these alternative currents within the discipline and compellingly demonstrates the ongoing value of heterodox economics. Reforming Capitalism for the Common Good: Essays in Post-Keynesian Economics By Whalen, Charles J.. Indeed, upon reading the Wisconsin institutionalist's work, Keynes wrote that "there seems to be no other economist with whose general way of thinking I feel myself in such general accord.". [Extracted from the article]

The neoclassical market model is the overwhelming basis for contemporary views of markets as fair, efficient, or both. But is it an appropriate starting point? The article draws on Frank Knight's 1920s work on the economics of uncertainty to show that the ideal of perfect competition conceals a tacit trade-off between equality and certainty. Largely undetected, this trade-off continues to govern financialized capitalist democracies, evading normative and political debate. By explaining how markets and firms resolve the problem of uncertainty, Knight shows that all supposed market benefits, even allocative efficiency, are not costless to society. More specifically, Knight argued that modern markets are premised on a tacit agreement between a handful of "daring" entrepreneurs and the "risk-averse" public: the former agree to carry the uncertainties of business-life in return for a substantially larger share of its power and rewards. Despite the highly static assumptions of neoclassicism, therefore, and its linked assumption of perfect knowledge, uncertainty is far from absent in modern economics. It is built into firms and markets and manifests itself as a steep social and material hierarchy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As offshoring allowed producers in the core states to circumvent trade unions and other downwardly redistributive paraphernalia of the post-1945 social structure of accumulation, it also enabled capital to further penetrate and thereby more fully integrate the states of the Third World into the imperialist chain of value extraction. While today Japan's developmental state apparatus is unquestionably weaker ([30]), Japanese capital remains sufficiently autonomous as a national interest bloc to warrant particular caution with respect to treating it as a homogenizing, globalist neoliberalism's East Asian outpost ([17]; [18]; [14]). In this respect, Cox's treatment of global production networks or value chains is consistent with that of [28], upon whose work Cox draws. Consequently, the limitations of realist and liberal treatments of international relations or world politics, stemming from their shared, axiomatic separation of state and economy, are summarily dispatched: "Realists assume that a state's security interest can be formulated as an independent expression of state policy. [Extracted from the article]

This article argues for the construction of a new political economy based on Chinese practices. It begins with an explanation of the research approach of starting from practice, and from a distinctive mode of thinking that is akin to that of medicine, rather than Newtonian physics and mathematical logic. Then it discusses the present-day Chinese practices of combining socialism with market economy, state enterprises with private enterprises, the peasant economy with an industrial economy, and the party-state with the economy—all distinctive realities about the new Chinese political-economic system. The foil for the discussion is the long-standing hegemonic ideology and worldview of Anglo-American classical and neoclassical liberal economics and law. This article suggests that we employ China's traditional dyadic integration worldview, evident in today's practices, to arrive at a new integrative cosmological view that rises above both. To a considerable extent, this article is also a reinterpretation of classical Marxist political economy. What the article advocates may be termed a "participatory socialist market economy," to be distinguished from a bureaucratized and controlling socialist planned economy. This is a system that is still very much in the process of formation, its particular content and characteristics yet to be clarified and specified through a sustained period of searching through practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neoclassical economics relies on highly formalized deductive logic to create an overly simplified picture of economic practices. Its universalized model of modernization assumes that the relationship between state and market is antagonistic. This presumption reduces China's "economic miracle" to a simple transformation into a market economy and underestimates the role played by the government, making it impossible to construct a theory that considers China's subjectivity. Studies on China's economy should focus on its practices, which may appear to be paradoxical if seen only from the perspective of Western neoclassical economics, in order to construct an accurate depiction of the foundations of China's development experience. Only through such an endeavor will it be possible to incorporate into any new theory of economic modernization the distinctive features of China's development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The theoretical focus of neoclassical economics experienced a significant change in the 1970s–1980s. General equilibrium theory lost its dominant position in theoretical economic studies, with its role of setting the research agenda taken over by what this article calls the "new microeconomic theories," principally decision theory, game theory, and mechanism design. Mainstream economists, post-Keynesians, and historians of economic thought each give a different explanation of the hows and whys of that change, but all miss some critical methodological implications. That change, as this article discusses, shows that neoclassical economics has turned from "grand theory" toward "small models" with empirically delimited utility and that the ideology of marketism lacks a valid scientific foundation. This interpretation can help illuminate the deeper dynamics of the postwar development of neoclassical economics and provide insights for a new political economy that can come to grips with political-economic practices that cannot be fully grasped by the neoclassical tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the implications of one of the great intellectual revolutions of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the replacement of Marxist economics by neoclassical economics in China. The analysis summarizes what is distinctive about Marxist and neoclassical ways of thinking. The paper then demonstrates how these differences led to different framings and different conclusions about a number of key topics related to the development of capitalism in China. Among the topics explored are the merits of state-owned enterprises, the nature of inequality in China, and the relationship between capitalism and the environment. The paper concludes with a discussion of the different policy agendas that emerge from the different framings offered by neoclassical and Marxist economics. JEL Classification: B41, B51, P2, O53 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the application of neoclassical economics to the discussion of China's transition to the market in the 1990s and its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. It shows how this theory shaped, and misled, forecasts of the impact of that accession and of China's subsequent economic performance. It discusses the debate between mini-bang and big-bang transition policies in the 1990s and shows the two sides shared far more in common than separated them. Both sides misestimated, in fact grossly underestimated, the dynamism of China's economy. It shows how widely anticipated predictions of crisis and collapse with China's WTO accession were the natural result of the assumptions of the neoclassical model. It suggests that a rival model of market transition based on Bukharin and Kuznets has much to offer. JEL Classification: P22, P26, P21, B24 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs that Mainstream economic thought has supported the idea of capital accumulating economies having imperfections that can be corrected by finding the right price, which include value the environment to claim price in the market place.

"Situational Analysis" (SA) constitutes Popper's methodological proposal for the social sciences. We argue that notwithstanding Popper's claim that SA is an attempt to extend the methodology of neoclassical economics to the rest of the social sciences, the former is better interpreted as an extension of his view of the "method" of history to the "theoretical" social sciences. The reason is that, unlike neoclassical economics, Popper's formulation of SA presupposes that social scientists exhibit a "more complete" view of the "logic of the situation" than individual actors do, on average, which implies that the latter's knowledge is "partially wrong" or "incomplete." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper challenges the idea that neoclassical economics has demonstrated competition's efficiency. It does so by retracing the history of Pareto's criterion (in general equilibrium and in modern neoclassical economics), showing that it is only after a few shifts and transformations that it became an "efficiency" criterion while it was never called that in Pareto's work. Widespread belief that competition is efficient is rather the result of ideology than of rigorous neoclassical demonstration. JEL Classification: B13, B21, P16 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By integrating selected Kaleckian and Marxian insights, this paper analyzes the sources of profit realization and the profit rate in the US economy from 1964–2013. The most significant sources of profit realization in the United States are capitalists' consumption and workers' debt, which historically have been under appreciated both theoretically and empirically. The insights gleaned by analyzing the sources of profit realization aid in understanding the Great Recession and the future of the US economy.JEL Classifications: B51, E11 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We use the Annual Macroeconomic database of the European Commission (AMECO) to confirm that textbook multipliers are nearly always greater than one and that they increase during recessions. Propensity to import falls in recessions through the combined effects of the amplified fall in investment and the high import content of investment. A change in saving behavior may also raise the multiplier. These findings strongly support the need for countercyclical fiscal policies during recessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The popularity of Thomas Piketty’s research on wealth inequality has drawn attention to a curious question: why was widening wealth inequality largely neglected by mainstream economists in recent decades? To explore and explain that neglect, I draw on the writing of the early neoclassical economist John Bates Clark, who introduced the notion of the marginal productivity of income distribution at the end of the nineteenth century. I then turn to Piketty’s Capital in order to analyze the salience of marginal productivity theories of income today. I suggest that most of the criticism and praise for Piketty’s research is focused on data that are accessible and measurable, obscuring attention to questions over whether current methods for measuring economic capital are defensible or not. My overarching aim is to explore how “absent” data in economics as a whole help to reinforce blind spots within mainstream economic theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A theoretically promised confluence of favorable biological, economic, and social outcomes in neoliberal solutions for fisheries is illusory. The required commodification of the fish, including the species and accompanying oceanic commons enclosures, result in contradictions that cannot be understood within the neoclassical economic paradigm. A process of dialectical abstraction and qualitative modeling exposes the source and mechanism of the contradictions providing an alternative basis for discourse on the fishery and the commons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contributing to the analytical capacity of critical thinking in macromarketing, we develop a research framework that would enable researchers to investigate chrematistics in marketing systems. Chrematistics refers to regulative influences on marketing systems’ structure and operations of market action perpetuated by actors with power/dominance. We outline the research framework consisting of a seven-step process that helps to scrutinize the transformative effect of chrematistic practices on the design and regulation of marketing systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article outlines the contours of an “Austrian”-theory-inspired perspective on the study of non-profit and voluntary social processes and institutions while using as a background and vehicle the Austrian economics criticism of mainstream neoclassical economics. The argument proceeds in two steps: First, it focuses on the explicit and implicit role welfare economics theory and efficiency/optimality models have come to assume in theorizing essential aspects of the non-profit sector. It points out the intrinsic limits of neoclassical economics in this respect. Second, it follows the logical implications of the arguments advanced in the first step to the reconstitution of a broader theory of social order that (a) circumvents the incapacitating reliance on maximization models of rationality and general equilibrium logic and that (b) pivots in a natural way on the notions of voluntary social actions, associations, and processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article shows, through a detailed examination of Karl Polanyi's published works and unpublished writings, that Polanyi relies heavily on the neoclassical economics of his time in his conceptualization of the market in capitalist societies. This approach is instrumental to the thesis of The Great Transformation concerning the destructive impact of the market on society. However, such an analytical perspective neglects the social character of the market economy. This perspective is also deficient in capturing why the market is destructive to the social fabric. By identifying the origins and limitations of Polanyi's self-regulating market, this article contributes to critical reevaluations of his work that aim to expand the scope of Polanyian analysis. In particular, this article outlines how the analysis of the market's contradictory place is not predicated on the notion of self-regulation. Polanyi's own historical work, as opposed to his theoretical articulations, illustrates such an analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to clear up some issues in a second phase of the Cambridge-Cambridge capital theory controversies, when the neoclassical argument was chiefly conducted in terms of the Walrasian specification of capital in intertemporal and temporary general equilibrium models. It is held that the response by the neoclassical side in that phase has not been as satisfactory to rebut the implications of reswitching and capital reversing as some neoclassical scholars have argued. The reason for this can be traced in the overlooking of the implications of the redefinition of equilibrium implied in those models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Cambridge critique of the marginal productivity theory of distribution is entwined with the critics’ theories of value, price, distribution, capital, growth, and methodology that occurred alongside it. The article first discusses these dimensions, then the inescapable need to explain the origin and size and rate of profits in any approach to the theory of distribution. The need in the neoclassical approach to have a unit in which to measure capital that is independent of distribution and prices is examined. The alternative classical/Marxian alternative and the relationship of pricing and market structures to systemic relationships in Post-Keynesian theory are analysed. Unresolved debates among the critics of the mainstream are outlined including those between Garegnani and Hahn. Ways forward are suggested in the concluding section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to criticize the common idea which sustains that current neoclassical economics is detached from ethics, and therefore is scientific knowledge. Using Kantian critical philosophy, we argue, on the contrary, that neoclassical economics is based on certain ethical postulates, and thus it cannot obtain the status of science. Although ethics is but one of the many institutions that affect economics, it plays a major role in setting the basis on which to build its entire theoretical structure. Approaching the analysis from institutionalism places ethical issues at the forefront of economic debate, thus opening the door to future dialogue between disciplines and analytical approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Behavioral economics is both mainstream and timely. The financial crisis raised important issues of market failure, weak regulation, moral hazard, and our poor understanding of how key markets operate. One therefore expects lawyers and economists to bring the current economic thinking to competition agencies, some of which are already taking note. How should the competition agencies respond? This article examines how competition agencies can consider behavioral economics' implications on four levels: first as a gap filler, that is, to help explain “real world” evidence that neoclassical economic theory cannot explain; second, to assess critically the assumptions of specific policies, such as merger review and cartel prosecutions; third, to revisit fundamental questions, such as what is competition and what are the goals of competition law; and fourth, to assess how behavioral economics will affect the degree of convergence of competition law among the over 100 jurisdictions with competition laws today. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the United States, commentators and politicians demonstrate a deep-rooted persistent adherence to a neoclassical model of the labor market, where a minimum wage increase is seen as an inevitable cause of unemployment, as it is assumed to occur at a point where the labor market was initially in equilibrium. The work of the Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981) uncovered the small size of the unemployment inflation effect, and the new minimum wage research also has corroborated this. Seen against these findings, the persistent rhetoric of sizeable “unemployment effects” of minimum wage increases simply shows the power of employers in a capitalist system. This paper suggests that counteracting the rhetoric is best done by recognizing the agency of the minimum wage worker and portraying this worker not as one who may “suffer unemployment” under a wage increase but who chooses to work fewer hours if hourly wages and benefits become sufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the problem of the asocial view of the market at the theoretical core of contemporary economic sociology. Despite much emphasis on the apparent interpenetration of society and the economy, contemporary economic sociology is rooted in an analytical distinction between the two spheres. The implicit reliance on the neoclassical economic conception of the market helps to explain why the 'new economic sociology' often collapses into disequilibrium economics, where disequilibrium becomes the central but unstated prediction of a good deal of the work in the paradigm. Using a sample of contributions from the field, I demonstrate that a strong tendency running through much of the new economic sociology tends to understand society as a fundamentally distortionary force. To resolve this problem, I argue that an independent field of economic sociology necessitates a distinction between social relationships and social relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most research on earnings adopts economist’s human capital model. In doing so, social scientists, explicitly or implicitly, cede primacy to the labor supply and demand mechanisms of neoclassical economics. In contrast we develop a model that treats actors’ claims as the central mechanism generating inequalities. In this model earnings are most proximately a result of negotiation between actors embedded in a set of social relations within organizations, a process we refer to as relational claims-making. Institutional and competitive aspects of organizational environments, as well as social distinctions within organizations themselves, provide resources and constraints on the persuasiveness and plausibility of wage claims by actors. Market mechanisms are not causally proximate to the production of wage inequality, but rather are an aspect of actor’s environments with the potential to influence the plausibility of particular claims. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article summarizes Walter Isard’s important contributions to environmental economics and ecological economics. The former is the traditional field that incorporates some limited aspects of the environment into neoclassical economic theory, while the latter is a more comprehensive integration of economic and ecological principles in a set of eclectic frameworks. Walter’s contributions include pioneering research, primarily in a spatial context, and the mentoring of prominent researchers in these fields during the period of 1965–75. We examine these contributions in the context of the state of the art of knowledge in these fields at the time and today. We also discuss Walter’s influence in Europe in these areas. We conclude with a discussion of some promising new directions, with an emphasis on regional science dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper assesses the attempt by Justin Lin, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, to posit a new development paradigm through his New Structural Economics, NSE. Lin's attempt to redefine development economics deserves scrutiny for at least two reasons. First, he launched his framework when he was Chief Economist at the Bank. Critical scrutiny of his proposition then allows for continued insights into the complex relationship between scholarship and policy at the Bank. Second, Lin's framework claims a return to a 'structural' understanding of development, with a strong industrial policy rhetoric emanating from it. This has been greeted with considerable enthusiasm by erstwhile critics of the Bank. Closer scrutiny of the NSE, nevertheless, reveals the flawed nature of its core theoretical notion of comparative advantage and exposes its strong, if unfortunately conservative, commitment to a flawed and incoherently applied neoclassical economics, accompanied by a persistently narrow policy scope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovative psychology experiments and network models have radically undermined the once-popular 'rational actor' model of human behaviour. Can this new research improve the study of politics and the policies of academic departments, too? Eric Kaufmann examines the possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article re-examines the prevalent view that classical/neoclassical economics contains only bases or ingredients of rational choice theory, i.e., the economic model of human action and society. Instead, it proposes that elements or implications of alternative ‘irrational choice theory’ also coexist with those of ‘rational choice’ and are relatively important in much of classical and neoclassical economics. The article identifies and considers certain elements and implications of irrational choice theory in classical and neoclassical economics. These consist of the reality, possibility, and realm –i.e., conception and observation – of irrational choices in the economy. The article contributes to understanding better how traditional economics relates to contemporary economic-sociological rational choice theory and its alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Understanding employment for African American women through the lens of neoclassical economics may not be best to help understand their plight. Their pay and the available employment has not been equal to that of men and even more so, African American women have lower paying jobs compared to their white counterparts, despite their achievement of higher levels of education. This paper looks at unemployment rates across the nation and then centers the discussion on black women in the context of the disparities over the past three decades. It combines the types of employment and wages that they have endured in context to white women during the same period of time. It uses Geographical Information Systems to underscore the concentration of income and race and the types of employment in those areas. It then provides some policy recommendations for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this piece I comment on Nancy’s Folbre’s David Gordon Memorial Lecture for the 2012 Allied Social Science Associations meetings, focusing on the strengths of how she combines Marxian sensibilities with neoclasscial analytical tools, the advantages of her proposed definition of political economy, and extending her call for developing a macroeconomic approach to human capital.JEL codes: B50; E11; E24 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article asserts the economic relevancy of human connectedness and community. It argues that if the goal of economics is to maximize human happiness, then approaches that directly address social phenomena and community building, rather than utility and income maximization by individual economic actors, are more promising and indeed “rational.” The fair trade movement, insofar as it supports community-based cooperatives, can play an important role in this process. However, the real story behind successful cooperatives is often more about the nature of the rural “peasant” community that supports it. Viewing economic decision making through the lens of the Mirembe Kawomera coffee cooperative in Uganda reveals a market that is socially embedded in a community rich in social capital, or more appropriately social productive power of labor, rather than one that constitutes a separate market sphere. When economic incentives encompass a more holistic set of costs and benefits, even those that may be less tangible, economic activity and strong community tend to be mutually reinforcing.JEL codes: O,P,Q [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this paper I develop a critique of both standard neoclassical and standard Marxian conceptualizations of human capital that illustrates an important hypothesis of feminist political economy: collective conflicts based on class, gender, and age, as well as other dimensions of collective identity, affect the distribution of the costs of developing human capital.JEL codes: B50; E11; E24 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In my response to Garnett and Mearman, I argue that many of their comments are based on the assumption that mainstream economics has truth and value, which is in fact not the case. In addition, I argue that that the divided economics community arises from actions taken by mainstream economists and not due to actions taken by heterodox economists. Finally, I argue that pluralism through tolerance is the way forward. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In spite of its substantial results in understanding modern capitalism and the fact that, until the 1970s, Keynesian theory inspired the economic policy of most countries, the classical/post-Keynesian paradigm failed to become dominant on the theoretical scene. Why? Pasinetti’s book provides an answer by first pointing out the “unwise behavior” of the Cambridge group of Keynesian scholars, then by suggesting how to overcome the present theoretical impasse by the methodological device of the “separation theorem.” Economic enquiry, he argues, should distinguish the phase of “pure theory,” to be elaborated at a logical stage that precedes institutions, from the (applied) institutional analysis. The review concludes by maintaining that, while Pasinetti’s suggestion is fully valid, the theoretical strength of a paradigm is a necessary but not sufficient condition for becoming dominant. As the last decades show, the success or failure of a paradigm is also crucially dependent on social and power relations in society.JEL classification: B50; B31; E12 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper addresses the impacts of global “social distancing” on employers and workers and examines community-based worker center strategies to mitigate those impacts. Through a case study of El Centro Humanitario, Denver’s human rights center for immigrant day laborers, the paper addresses how community organizations can respond to social distancing by “organizing the unorganized,” and crafting strategies such as worker-owned cooperatives to promote workers’ rights while reconnecting workers to their work and to each other.JEL classification: L31, L33, P32 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Mainstream macroeconomic theory, especially as synthesized in the New Neoclassical Synthesis, is argued to have many problematic aspects, problems which have been especially underscored by the recent economic crisis, and which relate to its method, its views of the economy, and its goals and its policy implications. These failings call for greater pluralism in macroeconomic theory and greater acceptance of alternative approaches. One of these—which is based on accounting identities and behavioral and institutional relations, which stresses the importance of uncertainty and power, emphasizes the goals of reducing unemployment and distributional fairness, and views policymaking as an art—is particularly worthy of attention.JEL classification: B22, B41, E00 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]