Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Demonstrates the relevance of a stages methodology as a basis for understanding and analysing the evolutionary metamorphosis leading to the current Russian malaise. Addresses the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology, such as the unilinear fallacy, and analyses economic stagnation and decline in the context of the dynamics of culture evolution in the stage of modern economic growth. Given the Kuznetsian emphasis on a science‐fed technology, how then to explain the lack of Russian permeability to that technological flow? Many variables, such as excessive military spending, nationalism, rigid centralization, ideology, and so on, enter into such an analytical purview. It appears that neither tsarist nor Soviet Russia was able to create a culture adequately permeable to the dynamics of an ongoing science‐fed technological flow. The basic problem for Russia to overcome today is one of a cultural lag. A greater democratization of social and economic organization, concomitant with the needs of a modern industrial society, appears in order.

This paper analyzes and explains the dynamics of corporate evolution in the context of anthropologist conception of culture. The multinational corporate characterizing the Galbraithian world, as The New Industrial State, dominates the current economic landscape. The conception of corporate culture and its dynamics lays bare the locus of corporate power which resides in the control of corporate technology. Granting this dynamic, the question then arises concerning the agency which controls the application and use of this cumulated corporate power. Corporate power and policy in the USA are currently directed by a social institution in the form of profits without social responsibility. This policy is manifest in a “low road” of cost reduction. Such a policy direction exacerbates rather than ameliorates the current economic malaise now characterizing the US economy.

This is the second part of a long investigation under the title of, Principia Oeconomica; the first having appeared in this journal in 1986. The substance of the argument in this contribution is in the form of a dialogue with Henri Guitton, member of l'Institut de France and author of a book in French, De l'Imperfection en Economie (1979). Guitton is leading a new French Economic School critical of a modern economy characterised by ‘Econosm” or “Economy of Counter‐sense”. Economism refers to the practice of conceiving problems of a modern society in strictly economic‐accounting terms and neglecting a host of social and human aspects. The second term means that the sole attention given to growth in production did not increase the happiness of man but on the contrary it created for him new problems (pollution, noise, atomic radiation and other hazards). To cope with these problems, the French school recommends wise policies which Guitton called “creative imperfection”. Guitton's presentation is followed step by step, with an interpretation in terms of stable equilibrium. The recommendation stresses structural reforms to solve the same problems but following a road of “creative perfection” leading to the same goal sought by Guitton: a better world of tomorrow.

Analyses and clarifies the concept of federalism outside such limited paradigmatic boundaries and includes the relevant social and economic variables. Applies a holistic and interdisciplinary methodology in the framework of the processes of general culture evolution to interrelate the social, the political and the economic. Compares the West European experiences and the US prototype, to that of the current movement towards an evolving Russian federation. Analyses the apparent positive and centripetal movement towards West European federalism, in the context of the European Union, juxtoposed to the centrifrugal forces evident in the collapse of the USSR. Analyses the current movement towards a Russian federation.