Search results

This paper aims to show the interrelation and relevancy of the concept and theory of cultural lag to social justice. The conception of social justice, though wide in scope, is applied in this paper to the limited domain of equality of opportunity and fairness with respect to income distribution.Design/methodology/approach – The methodology of this paper is holistic and interdisciplinary, and interrelates the social and the economic in the overall dynamics of general culture evolution.Findings – The “inverted U‐curve hypothesis” of Simon Kuznets implies that a greater equality of income distribution would be forthcoming in an economy characterized by a mature phase of modern economic growth. Empirical evidence demonstrates that such a movement toward greater equality is subject to question. The American experience of the 1920s and the period from 1973 to the present offers evidence to question the U‐curve hypothesis. Contrary to expectations, during these periods income distribution became more unequal. These periods, indicative of maladjustment, are used to demonstrate and serve as examples of cultural lags. The concept and theory of cultural lag exposes the need for prerequisite institutional adjustment. It consequently appears that the American institutional structure, currently directing the economy toward a policy orientation of laissez‐faire and the resulting increased inequality of income distribution, is anachronistic to a modern industrial society oriented toward the goal of social justice.Originality/value – Relevant to the quest of social justice.

To overcome the errors of the exogenous growth theories of the past, the new growth theories, currently in vogue, attempt to incorporate technological change as endogenous to the growth process. While making a commendable effort to see into that black box of technological change, these so‐called new growth theories are also subject to question and critique on a variety of grounds. One of these is that the new growth theories are not really that new. Another area of concern relates to their empirical relevancy. This is especially evident in assessing the practical use of the new growth theories in terms of problem identification and policy resolution. Other problem areas relate to issues of conceptual clarity and underlying assumptions. By assuming the process of economic growth to be synonymous with that of economic development the result is to avoid the prerequisite structural transformation inherent in the dynamics of culture evolution. Culture evolution in turn is predicated upon technological advance conceptualized as both material and social technology. It is argued in this paper that an explanation as to why technology is endogenous to the processes of growth and economic development is best served vis‐à‐vis an analysis of the dynamics of culture evolution.

The Berle and Means thesis focuses on a managerial revolution in which corporate control came to be transferred from owners to managers. Currently, it is arguable that control of corporate policy has shifted back to owners in what has come to be called “investor capitalism.” Stock market manipulators, as owners, have currently come to assert increased levels of control over CEO autonomy. This empirical reality appears in a vicious circle culminating in excessive CEO profits. The result has been to give support to a basic Veblenian assertion that imbecile business institutions hold sway to direct and dominate the economic process. In this process, the making of money rather than the production of goods serviceable for basic human needs have increasingly come to prevail over the US economy and culture.

Looks partially toward a conceptual clarification of globalization interrelated to corporate power. The global economy has experienced structural transformation over time. An integrated network of world trade has evolved in the context of two separate stages. Stage one appeared during the period of the 1870s. The second stage appeared during the post Second World War era. To distinguish this period from stage one, the process of structural transformation now taking place is conceptualized and demarcated as corporate globalization. Given the growing increase in size, power and dominance of the MNCs, the locus of sovereignty is currently being questioned. An issue currently being raised relates to whether or not nation states or MNCs will be in control of the globalization process. Interjects and analyses the theory and policy of free trade, all of which is contained in a paradigm of culture evolution fed by the dynamics of technological change and economic development.

Sets out to review the points for and against the concept of cultural lag. First clarifies the cultural lag concept and theory. Addresses the issue of empirical verification, and discusses the relevance of the concept and theory of cultural lag to socioeconomic policy.

Essays a conceptural clarification and theory of the process of economic evolution. Using the Veblenian matrix, conceptualizes the economic process in the framework of culture and its evolution. Economic evolution, as a gestalt, comprises the processes of both economic growth (quantitative statics) and development (qualitative dynamics). The dynamics of culture evolution is founded on the advance of technology which constitutes the “core of culture”. The essence of the process of culture evolution is contained in the dichotomy of useful knowledge. The advance of useful knowledge appears in its application as technology and in its store as culture. The process of economic evolution increases the capacity of culture and thereby enables humankind to take bigger and bigger bites of the infinity of knowledge. Culture evolution, fed by the dynamics of the economic process, offers the potential for an enhanced “consciousness of the cosmos” and as such a conception of human progress.

The author argues that we must stop and take a look at what our insistence on human labour as the basis of our society is doing to us, and begin to search for possible alternatives. We need the vision and the courage to aim for the highest level of technology attainable for the widest possible use in both industry and services. We need financial arrangements that will encourage people to invent themselves out of work. Our goal, the article argues, must be the reduction of human labour to the greatest extent possible, to free people for more enjoyable, creative, human activities.

GLASGOW was later by about one hundred and thirty years than some of the Scotch towns in establishing a printing press. Three hundred years ago, though Glasgow contained a University with men of great literary activity, including amongst others Zachary Boyd, there does not appear to have been sufficient printing work to induce anyone to establish a printing press. St. Andrews and Aberdeen were both notable for the books they produced, before Glasgow even attempted any printing.

The transformations in the existing forms of governmentality and power regimes are deeply rooted within the political economy of advanced neoliberalism, having profound implications in the governance matrix. The new rationalities and instrumentalities of governance involve ‘governing without government’ (Rhodes, 1996) following the delegitimisation and deconstruction of the Keynesian Welfare State and the gradual enactment of what Jessop (2002) calls the Schumpeterian Competition State. This chapter throws open the play field for competing standpoints on governing the mega corporates. Various theorists consider that there is emptiness within the existing global regulatory armoury concerning the operational activities of TNCs. The convolution of ‘steering’ in this poly-centred, globalised societies with its innate uncertainty makes it tricky to keep an eye on the fix of ‘who actually steers whom’ and ‘with what means’. There also appears to be huge disinclination to spot systemic technical description of the evolving modern institutional structure of economic regulation in a composite and practical manner. Thus, the complexity of international issues, their overlapping nature and the turmoil within the arena in which they surface defy tidy theorizing about effective supervision.

This brings in the wider questions dealt with in the chapter – Is globalisation then a product of material conditions of fundamental technical and economic change or is it collective construct of an artifact of the means we have preferred to arrange political and economic activity? The new reflexive, self-regulatory and horizontal spaces of governance are getting modelled following the logic of competitive market relations whereby multiple formally equal actors (acting or aspiring to act as sources of authority) consult, trade and compete over the deployment of various instruments of authority both intrinsically and in their relations with each other (Shamir, 2008). The chapter also looks into these messy and fluid intersections to situate the key actors at the heart of processes of ‘rearticulation’ and ‘recalibration’ of different modes of governance which operates through a somewhat fuzzy amalgamation of the terrain by corporates, state hierarchy and networks all calibrating and competing to pull off the finest probable’s in metagovernance landscape. Unambiguously, this chapter seeks to elaborate on an institutional-discursive conceptualization of governance while stitching in and out of the complex terrain a weave of governances for modern leviathan – the global corporates.