Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the causes of failure of the neoliberal model of capitalism and rise of state capitalism. The arguments that efficient market economy can thrive under autocracy are refuted.

Both western neoliberal capitalism and state capitalism in China and Russia are juxtaposed and critically analyzed.

Neoliberalism is a conceptual model of enthusiastic true believers who never succeed in developing a workable economic system but rather a travesty of its own ideal. The USA instead of an efficient, competitive market economy became a playground for lobbyists and a corporate autocracy fraught with deep imbalances. Yet due to the rule of law and inherent freedoms the post‐neoliberal USA will be capable of “self repair” which is not possible in state capitalism.

The connections between politics and economics are inherently complex and difficult to be presented as predicable dependences. An interdisciplinary approach is necessary and revealing but it has obvious analytical limitations because of inadequate tools.

The proclamation of the end of the democratic capitalism is unfounded. The neoliberal ideologues are hardly to blame for the failures of the western market economy because they have merely created a pretext for corporate America to reduce the regulatory power of the government. The solution is in returning to the model of interventionist government mindful of the nation's long‐term wellbeing.

The author creates unique functional characteristics of western market capitalism and state capitalism and points out clear advantages of democratic western market capitalism often forgotten in the heat of the post‐crises debates.

To explain the sources of jobless growth in Poland, the country undergoing economic system transition and integration with the European Union (EU).

The research used the Harrod‐Domar model together with an interpretation proposed by Barro and Sala‐i‐Martin to determine the growth threshold level of jobless growth in Poland. The technical, econometric calculation does not dominate the paper, which is destined for both academic and non‐academic readers studying the phenomenon of jobless growth.

The paper provides a review of literature and theories of jobless growth. The calculations show that Poland has a high threshold of jobless growth. The Polish GDP needs to grow at least 4 per cent to add new jobs.

To evaluate the overall long run impact of labor productivity on the job market one needs to include the growth of non‐manufacturing jobs in the service sectors which accommodate the needs of more affluent worker/consumers. This long‐term analysis is outside the scope of the paper.

The authors calculated an important variable for the Polish economy, i.e. the threshold growth rate of jobless growth, which indicates a minimum rate of growth, needed to create a net demand for labor. This research is likely to be quoted by the economists studying sources of unemployment in Poland and as well as in any high growth economies.

It is the only research known to the authors attempting to explain high level of unemployment in transition economies using recognized economic theories. The paper contributes to a better understanding of the phenomenon of jobless growth in market economies in general.

The greatest asset of US capitalism until recently has been a blend of pragmatism with a passion to create the best socio‐economic system in the world. Today the USA is besieged by unprecedented budget deficit, public debt, financial crises, unemployment and rising anti‐governmentalism. The author believes the root cause lies in the elimination of the principles of pragmatism from governance, together with an assumption that the system which triumphed over communism is infallible. The purpose of this paper is not to find proof that an interventionist government would always be better or that higher taxes benefit the economy. Instead, using the examples of various policy mishaps, the paper seeks to prove the superiority of pragmatism over any ideology as a guiding principle of good governance.

The author uses pragmatism as criteria for impartial, non‐partisan, non‐ideological evaluation of the state of the American economy and the causes for the rise of populist movements in the country.

Neoconservatives were right to believe that markets do work. They will be needed to find solutions for skyrocketing costs of medicare, medicaid and job displacement caused by globalization. Neoliberals were correct to allow the development of profitable financial sector and give Americans access to cheap credit. However, what has been dramatically missing is a countervailing government economic policy to address increased riskiness of the financial markets, falling labor income, wealth distribution, education, energy dependence and an aging infrastructure. Liberal democrats did not propose comprehensive plan for government economic interventionism also they well understood its importance.

The paper is believed to be the first interdisciplinary (political economy, history, social economics, social psychology) attempt to identify the causes of the declining economic power of the USA.

The paper can improve understanding of complex socio‐economic phenomena by the students of US economy and those who would like to sort out true facts from unproven beliefs and do not understand complex econometric models.

The paper can improve understanding of complex socio‐economic phenomena affecting lives of millions of people.

The paper states clearly that the problems of the US economy are not caused by globalization but they originate at home from self‐imposed ideological straitjackets by the decision‐making elites and their departure from traditional US pragmatism.

The purpose of this paper is to address the root causes of rising imbalances in the US economy. There is the view that the dominance of the liberal economic philosophy among the American decision makers and business elite resulted in marginalization of the role of the economic government. As a result, the US economy is facing problems in many sectors and might be poorly prepared to face the challenge of globalization in the knowledge‐based industries.

The paper provides review and critique of the contemporary literature of “declininists” proclaiming the end of the American Empire.

In order to restore the strength of the US economy and utilize its potential, Americans must consider a new generation of politicians and legislators capable of reforming the tax system, stepping up the supervision of the financial sector, eliminating inequality in education and reforming the electoral system.

America is at a turning point. The problems of the American economy are home‐made, but their implications are international. In the last two decades the USA pursued a dysfunctional dual dependence on imports of manufactured goods and capital. Allowing the dollar devaluation has been a short‐sighted policy which will have dire consequences on import‐dependent economy and the USA's position in the world economy. Liberal prescriptions of self‐regulating markets cannot replace long‐term government economic strategy which America badly needs today.

Since the liberal wishful‐thinking failed, economists, politicians and legislators should stop evoking conservative liberal mantras and start working on responsible economic policy solutions before the US economy plunges into a deep recession and years of damaging pessimism.

Rather than repeating arguments of the authors proclaiming the end of American Empire, the paper looks for chances and opportunities for the US economy's rejuvenation in the future.

The legacy of the last 50 years of development economics is not very inspiring. In the 1960s and 1970s, instead of looking at the real causes and viable solutions to poverty and underdevelopment, development economics was preoccupied with the politically‐charged debate over the superiority of either state‐controlled or market systems. In the 1980s and 1990s, economists expected that globalization would come to be a panacea for all developing countries. They advocated the abandonment of traditional industries and occupations and their replacement by modern sectors modelled after or imported from the developed countries. Such policies have generally failed with few exceptions–those being countries which chose to implement their own specific policies of development. These countries skillfully combined government interventionism with market system incentives. Despite its past problems, development economics has recently evolved to better reflect the realities of developing countries. For the first time, development economics is on the verge of becoming a real social science in which analysis of traditional institutions, community life, and religious and ethnic factors is not only important but decisive in developing new social and economic growth objectives and economic policies.