DOCSLIB.ORG

For a Better World

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For a Better World For a Better World Excerpts from the First Conference on Albert Hirschman’s Legacy: Theory and Practice Luca Meldolesi and Nicoletta Stame, eds. Table of Contents Nicoletta Stame & Luca Meldolesi: Preface 7 Adela Pineda: Welcome address 11 Luca Meldolesi: Some introductory notes 13 Morality and Social Science 23 Kathryn Sikkink: Morality, human rights and transparency 24 Fonna Forman: Adam Smith as a Public Thinker; Latin American Urban Development as an Exemplary Case in That Context 33 Debate: Christopher Jencks, Nicoletta Stame 42 Appendix 46 Nicoletta Stame: Interpretive social science and morality 46 Development 74 Michele Alacevich: Albert Hirschman’s approach of observation in “Development Projects Observed” 75 Kevin Gallagher: Hirschman’s Contribution to Development Economics and Policy 83 Tom Kenyon & Alberto Criscuolo: Social Learning and the World Bank 86 Osvaldo Feinstein: A Hirschmanian approach to development evaluation 104 Debate: Craig Murphy, Tom Kenyon, Alberto Criscuolo, Osvaldo Feinstein, Kevin Gallagher, Vijayendra Rao, Luca Meldolesi 108 Teaching and Influence 117 Richard Adelstein: “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty” in the History of Economics 118 Monica Romis: a Comment 124 Tito Bianchi: In good intellectual company: Judith Tendler and Hirschman’s tradition 126 Monica Romis: a Comment 133 Alessandro Balducci: “Development Projects Observed” and the Influence of Albert Hirschman on Planning Thought 136 Monica Romis: a Comment 147 Revisiting Texts 150 Marianne Egger de Campo: How the Rhetoric of Reaction justifies the Legalized Exploitation of Migrant Care Labor 151 Q&A: Kathryn Sikkink, Marianne Egger de Campo 162 Judith A. Swanson: Hirschman’s “The Passions and the Interests” from the Perspective of Political Philosophy 164 Charles S. Maier: On the Applicability of Albert Hirschman’s “Shifting Involvements” for the Historian: Notes for a Research Proposal 179 Debate: Charles Lindholm, Liah Greenfeld, Charles Maier, Vijayendra Rao, Luca Meldolesi, Sandro Balducci 188 Exit, Voice, and Loyalty 196 Lesley Amede Obiora: Intersecting Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Feedback from Nigeria 197 Vijayendra Rao: Deliberation inequality in a Hirschmanian context 212 Rajiv Sethi and Lisa Son: Dimensions of Voice 216 Debate: Alexander Gourevitch, William Lazonick 226 Entrepreneurial Activities 233 Renato Bruno: Hirschman’s theory in business management practice 234 Paolo di Nola: Turning obstacles into allies 241 Irene Magistro: The power of failure and the courage of creativity 245 Francesco Cicione: A short story 252 Elena Saraceno: Being Hirschmanian without knowing it 267 Fabio Zilberstein: Collaboration in a public administration: Examples of IT-driven innovation 274 Robert Darnton: Hirschman, Geertz, and my experience. A comment 287 Appendix 292 Vincenzo Marino: Colornian entrepreneurship? Findings and ideas for reflection 292 Field Research and Local Development 326 Elizabeth Jelin: Unexpected linkages and social energy in collective action 327 Laura Tagle: Evaluation for local development 337 Salo Coslovsky: Is there a future to qualitative evaluation research? 345 National Power, Passions and Interests, and the World Today 355 Baruch Knei-Paz: From expected to unintended consequences 356 Q&A: Marianne Egger de Campo, Baruch Knei-Paz 362 Luca Meldolesi: Infinitely Naïve? An Introductory Note to “National Power” 364 Marinella Ariano: How firms cope with crime and violence 371 Q&A: Marianne Egger de Campo, Marinella Ariano 375 William Lazonick: The role of innovative enterprise in Hirschman’s “Rival Views of Market Society” 376 Q&A: Elena Saraceno, William Lazonick 378 Debate: Liah Greenfeld, Marianne Egger de Campo, Luca Meldolesi 380 Conclusions 386 Nicoletta Stame: Concluding remarks 387 Nicoletta Stame & Luca Meldolesi Preface Even for us, who followed the gradual day-to-day assem- bling of its sessions and participants, the unfolding of the “First Conference on Albert Hirschman’s Legacy” has been a pleasant surprise. Retrospectively, we recognize that (yes!) the final surge of papers and participants (nearly double vis-à-vis a normal conference) was indeed going to lead to a significant result. But the difficulties and skepticism that accompanied us in this adventure suggested that we ought not to emphasize that positive process: perhaps “scaraman- tically” (in quest of luck). Hence the vitality and passion for understanding and for changing for the better rapidly con- quered our Conference. It gave the participants the flavor of a rare experience. Eventually, if you obtain an ex-ante improbable result, people feel something they could not have dared to hope for, and get enthusiastic – it is, some- how, an odd sort of “possibilism”. The very numerous, post-factum e-mails we received bear that out. What happened then on October 6th-7th at the Pardee Center of Boston University? Participants, most of whom we did not know in advance, from all over the world em- bodied great differences in age, experience, and past con- nection with Albert Hirschman. But, once at work in their respective sessions, they immediately and unexpectedly un- leashed abilities and resources previously dormant. It was an exercise in intellectual and practical “cross-contamina- 7 tion”, a torrent of arguments, questions and tentative an- swers. It was a first test of what Albert’s legacy may really look like: for territorial references, professions and disci- plines (political science and history first). With an emphasis on putting into practice what we have learned from Hirsch- man and his friends: in researching, teaching, directing, managing, enterprising etc. Some of the participants declared that they were Hirschma- nian without knowing it. Some had personal recollections to draw from. Most of them referred to the title of this e- book (together with what Albert used to call “a passion for change”) and asked for continuity. The need to keep in touch, post factum, with the fleeting moments they brought into being (and, of course, with the important perspective that that entails) pushed us toward what follows. Beyond a simple documentation (such as authorized publication of the papers on our web-site) and a short report, we took the tiring and risky road of choosing ourselves what, of the available materials (understandably recorded, written, or rewritten), looked most telling. And also most readable: to evoke and represent in part what effectively happened at the “First Conference on Albert Hirschman’s Legacy”. We hope that our effort has been worthwhile. Therefore the content of the e-book follows the sequence of the eight sessions at the Conference. These sessions were organized around two main topics: works by Albert Hirsch- man (most of his main books, and even some articles) and activities where his ideas have had a strong influence (teach- ing, enterprising, field research). Helped by a group of dis- tinguished discussants (Jencks, Murphy, Lindholm, Green- feld, Gourevitch), the intention was that of showing what is vital in his intellectual production, and how people have 8 used it in practical activities. Three trends, intermingled in all sections, can be detected. First. There are Hirschman’s texts that show their ever- green vitality. They are revisited, they are put in their his- torical context, their message is distilled. This is the case of Alacevich and Balducci on Development Projects Ob- served, Swanson on The Passions and the Interests, Jelin on Getting Ahead Collectively, Meldolesi on National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade, Stame on “Mo- rality and social sciences”. In some cases, Hirschman’s texts are discussed with a view to see how they can orient future research, as with Adelstein on Exit, Voice and Loyalty , Maier on Shifting Involvements, Knei-Paz on The Pas- sions and the Interests, Lazonick on “Rival Views of market Society”. Second. There are texts that help our understanding of current problems, and can be used in making sense of day- to-day struggles. Exit , Voice and Loyalty has offered the framework with which Rao has analyzed grass root democ- racy in India, Obiora has reflected on her contested partic- ipation in a government position in Nigeria, Son and Sethi have commented current reactions to voice suppression, Darnton has reflected on a decision-making process about Harvard Libraries digitalization in which he was involved. Rhetoric of Reactions helped interpret current debates about legalizing migrant labor employed in personal care (Egger de Campo). The Passions and the Interests has of- fered Forman a clue for criticizing the misuse of Adam Smith by market worshippers neo-liberal economists and their disastrous deeds in Latin America. 9 Third. There are ideas that run through Hirschman’s pro- duction and that have been utilized by practitioners in their own activity. “Preaching and proving” (“Morality and so- cial sciences”) helps Sikkink debate with negative ap- proaches to human rights. Possibilism is the thread linking the many activities of entrepreneurs (Bruno, Cicione, Ma- rino, Magistro), development agents (Ariano), public man- agers (Di Nola, Zilberstein). The idea of development as mobilizing resources that are hidden, dispersed and un- derutilized is still inspiring development practitioners (Kenyon and Criscuolo, Saraceno). Hirschman’s research method, that was labeled “observation-based”, is a strong tool in the hands of evaluation research and practice (Fein- stein, Gallagher, Romis, Coslovsky, Tagle), as was also shown by the extraordinary partnership between Hirsch- man
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Struggle to Redevelop a Jim Crow State, 1960–2000
    Educating for a New Economy: The Struggle to Redevelop a Jim Crow State, 1960–2000 by William D. Goldsmith Department of History Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Nancy MacLean, Supervisor ___________________________ Edward J. Balleisen ___________________________ Adriane Lentz-Smith ___________________________ Gary Gereffi ___________________________ Helen Ladd Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in The Graduate School of Duke University 2018 ABSTRACT Educating for a New Economy: The Struggle to Redevelop a Jim Crow State, 1960–2000 by William D. Goldsmith Department of History Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Nancy MacLean, Supervisor ___________________________ Edward J. Balleisen ___________________________ Adriane Lentz-Smith ___________________________ Gary Gereffi ___________________________ Helen Ladd An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of Duke University 2018 Copyright by William D. Goldsmith 2018 Abstract This dissertation shows how an array of policymakers, invested in uprooting an unequal political economy descended from the plantation system and Jim Crow, gravitated to education as a centerpiece of development strategy, and why so many are still disappointed in its outcomes. By looking at state-wide policymaking in North Carolina and policy effects in the state’s black belt counties, this study shows why the civil rights movement was vital for shifting state policy in former Jim Crow states towards greater investment in human resources. By breaking down employment barriers to African Americans and opening up the South to new people and ideas, the civil rights movement fostered a new climate for economic policymaking, and a new ecosystem of organizations flourished to promote equitable growth.
    [Show full text]
  • NAME: LOUIS A. FERLEGER Address: Department of History Boston University 226 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215 (617) 353-8305 Emai
    NAME: LOUIS A. FERLEGER Address: Department of History Boston University 226 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215 (617) 353-8305 Email: [email protected] Education: Temple University (B.B.A., 1971) Temple University (MA, Economics, 1973) Temple University (Ph.D., Economics, 1978) Teaching and Professional Employment: Professor, Department of History, Boston University, 1999-present. Executive Director, The Historical Society, 1999-2008. Associate Director, Honors Program, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1997-99. Adjunct Professor, Department of History, Boston College, Spring 1997. Associate Director, Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research, 1994-97. Chair, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1992-93. Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1991-1999. Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1989-1991. Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1984-1991. Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1978-84. Academic Honors: Honored for Excellence in Teaching, University of Massachusetts Boston, March 1988. Outstanding Achievement Award, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1984-85. Grants and Fellowships: National Endowment for the Humanities Chairman’s Grant, 2008 Earhart Foundation Fellowship, 2005-06 1 Research Grant, Twentieth Century Fund, jointly with Jay Mandle, Spring, 1992 Charles Warren Fellowship, Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History, Department of History, Harvard University, Spring 1992. Arthur H. Cole Grant-in-Aid, Economic History Association, Summer 1988. National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship, 1988. Research Grant, Joseph P. Healey Endowment Grant, University of Massachusetts Boston, Spring, 1986. Research Grant, American Association for State and Local History, 1985. Faculty Development Research and Travel Grants, University of Massachusetts Boston: 1979, 1981, 1982-1984, 1996-98.
    [Show full text]
  • William Lazonick
    September 2010 WILLIAM LAZONICK Center for Industrial Competitiveness University of Massachusetts Lowell One University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854 Phone: 1 617 576-0880 Fax: 1 425 491-4964 Email: [email protected] Personal website: http://www.uml.edu/centers/CIC/lazonick.html Date and Place of Birth: June 8, 1945 at Toronto, Ontario, Canada Countries of Citizenship: USA, Canada Current Principal Academic Positions: Professor, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Department of Economics (1993-1997 Policy & Planning; 1997-2010 Regional Economic and Social Development) Director, Center for Industrial Competitiveness, University of Massachusetts Lowell Previous Principal Academic Positions: Research Professor, INSEAD 1996-2007 Professor of Economics, University of Tokyo 1996-1997 Professor of Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University 1985-1993 Research Fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration 1984-1986 Associate Professor of Economics, Harvard University 1980-1984 Assistant Professor of Economics, Harvard University 1975-1980 Academic Honors: Schumpeter Prize, International Schumpeter Society 2010 Honorary Doctor of Philosophy, Uppsala University 1991 President, Business History Conference 1990-1991 Visiting Member, Social Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton 1989-1990 German Marshall Fund of the United States Research Fellow 1985-1986 Harvard-Newcomen Business History Research Fellow 1984-1985 Newcomen Award in Business History for the outstanding article in Business History Review in 1983 1984
    [Show full text]
  • The Financialization of the US Corporation: What Has Been Lost, and How It Can Be Regained
    The Financialization of the US Corporation: What Has Been Lost, and How It Can Be Regained William Lazonick University of Massachusetts Lowell The Academic-Industry Research Network [email protected] Revised, July 2012 Background paper for a presentation to the Seattle University School of Law Berle IV Symposiun, “The Future of Financial/Securities Markets,” London June 14-15, 2012. The research in this paper has been funded by the Ford Foundation project on Financial Institutions for Innovation and Development, the INET project on the Stock Market and Innovative Enterprise, the European Commission project on Finance, Innovation, and Growth, and the Connect Innovation Institute project on Innovation and Production: Reviving U.S. Prosperity. Mustafa Erdem Sakinç, has coordinated the development and maintenance of the stock-buyback database, and Dongxu Li, Qiaoling Ma, Xiahui Xia, and Yue Zhang have provided research assistance. Lazonick: The Financialization of the US Corporation 1 What Happened to Economic Prosperity? Many of us know what a prosperous economy looks like. People who want to work have no problem finding jobs. People who want to build careers can accumulate the necessary work experience over time. People who want to start their own businesses can tap into sources of committed finance that can enable them to get their firms up and running. When the work has been done, careers have been built, and businesses have become going concerns, the prosperous economy yields a distribution of income that most people regard as fair. The prosperous economy has a large and stable middle class, with hard-working and dedicated people finding opportunities to climb up the economic ladder.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value-Extracting CEO: How Executive Stock-Based Pay Undermines Investment in Productive Capabilities
    The Value-Extracting CEO: How Executive Stock-Based Pay Undermines Investment in Productive Capabilities William Lazonick∗ Working Paper No. 54 December 3, 2016 ABSTRACT The business corporation is the central economic institution in a modern economy. A company’s senior executives, with the advice and support of the board of directors, are responsible for the allocation of corporate resources to investments in productive capabilities. Senior executives also advise the board on the extent to which, given the need to invest in productive capabilities, the company can afford to make cash distributions to shareholders. Motivating corporate resource- William Lazonick is Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Lowell; President, The Academic- Industry Research Network; Visiting Professor, University of Ljubljana; Distinguished Research Associate, Institut Mines-Télécom, Paris; Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London. (email: [email protected]). This paper reflects research being carried out under grants from the Institute for New Economic Thinking (Collective and Cumulative Careers project through the Academic-Industry Research Network) and the European Commission (Innovation-Fuelled Sustainable and Inclusive Growth through the University of Ljubljana). It also builds on research done on previous grants from the Institute for New Economic Thinking and from the Ford Foundation (Financial Institutions for Innovation and Development through UMass Lowell). Some of the material in this paper draws on Matt Hopkins and William Lazonick, “The Mismeasure of Mammon,” Uses and Abuses of Executive Pay Data,” Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper No. 49, August 29, 2016, at https://www.ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/research-papers/the-mismeasure-of-mammon-uses-and-abuses-of- executive-pay-data Lazonick: The Value-Extracting CEO allocation decisions are the modes of remuneration that incentivize and reward the top executives of these companies.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MIT JAPAN I PROGRAM
    THE MIT JAPAN i PROGRAM ) 7 j AeA N I Science, Technology, Management 0 'Y NNIP 0 N-1-T-111 i i -6 Indigenous Innovation and Industrialization: Foundations of Japanese Development and Advantage William Lazonick and William Mass i MITJP 95-03 Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology i----- Indigenous Innovation and Industrialization: Foundations of Japanese Development and Advantage William Lazonick and William Mass MITJP 95-03 Distributed Courtesy of the MIT Japan Program Science * Technology * Management Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology Room E38-7th Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 phone: 617-253-2839 fax: 617-258-7432 © MIT Japan Program About the MIT Japan Program and its Working Paper Series The MIT Japan Program was founded in 1981 to create a new generation of technologically sophisticated "Japan-aware" scientists, engineers, and managers in the United States. The Program's corporate sponsors, as well as support from the government and from private foundations, have made it the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely emulated center of applied Japanese studies in the world. The intellectual focus of the Program is to integrate the research methodologies of the social sciences, the humanities, and technology to approach issues confronting the United States and Japan in their relations involving science and technology. The Program is uniquely positioned to make use of MIT's extensive network of Japan-related resources, which include faculty, researchers, and library collections, as well as a Tokyo-based office. Through its three core activities, namely, education, research, and public awareness, the Program disseminates both to its sponsors and to the interested public its expertise on Japanese science and technology and on how that science and technology is managed.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Democracy at Work: Why (And How) Workers Should Be Represented on US Corporate Boards
    Lenore Palladino, University of Massachusetts, Amherst∗ Economic Democracy at Work: Why (and How) Workers Should be Represented on US Corporate Boards Abstract: Workers should have representation on corporate boards of directors in the United States. Employees are key stakeholders whose contribution is necessary for the success of innovative enterprises. In contrast to the “shareholder primacy” theory of corporate governance, which claims that only shareholders should have decision-making authority, the argument made here is that also granting employees a voice on the corporate board will have positive effects for employees and the company as a whole. Yet implementing such a reform in the twenty-first-century US context is not simply a matter of importing a European model. Effective policy design requires consideration of the US workforce structure and the important prohibition on employer-dominated organizations in US labor law, and developing appropriate mechanisms for worker-director election, representation, and worker organization. Worker representation on boards will not be effective in a vacuum, but is an important component of overall reform efforts to strengthen the US economy. Keywords: Boards of directors; corporate governance; stakeholders; worker representation on corporate boards I. Introduction For the past four decades, US corporate governance has followed a “shareholder primacy” model (Lazonick and O’Sullivan 2000; van der Zwan 2014). The Law and Economics theory of shareholder primacy claims that the shareholder is the sole corporate stakeholder who makes a risky investment; therefore, the maximization of shareholder value is defended as the sole goal of corporations, and management “agents” owe allegiance only to the shareholder “principals” (Jensen and Meckling 1976).
    [Show full text]
  • William Lazonick*+
    The Functions of the Stock Market and the Fallacies of Shareholder Value William Lazonick*+ Working Paper No. 58 June 3, 2017 (revised July 20, 2017) ABSTRACT Conventional wisdom has it that the primary function of the stock market is to raise cash for companies for the purpose of investing in productive capabilities. The conventional wisdom is wrong. Academic research on sources of corporate finance shows that, compared with other sources of funds, stock markets in advanced countries have been insignificant suppliers of capital for corporations. The purpose of this essay is to build a rigorous and relevant conception of the evolving role of the stock market in the U.S. corporate economy. In fact, the functions of the stock market go well beyond “cash” to include four other functions, which can be summarized as “control,” “creation,” “combination,” and “compensation.” In this paper, I argue, based on historical evidence, that in the growth of the U.S. economy the key function of the stock market was control. Specifically, the stock market enabled the separation of managerial control over the allocation of corporate resources from the ownership of the company’s shares. Yet, assuming that the key function of the stock market * University of Massachusetts Lowell and the Academic-Industry Research Network. [email protected] + This paper has been prepared for a volume What Next for Corporate Governance? edited by Ciaran Driver and Grahame Thompson. Funding for this research came from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the European Union Horizon 2020 Project No. 649186 on Innovation-Fuelled Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, and the Korea Economic Research Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Business History and Economics
    PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS Business History and Economics William Lazonick Barnard College,Columbia University The presidentialaddress is traditionallyheavily auto-biographical. As your typicalegotistical, white, male academic,I am in principlequite happy to perpetuatethe tradition. But for practicalreasons, I havesecond thoughts about tellingyou the storyof my life. Normally the presidentialaddress at the BusinessHistory Conferencehas been part of a banquetformat that has createda captiveaudience. With the receptionand the eveningstill aheadof you rather thanbehind you, I fear that if I try to take thishour to recountthe life and times of William H. Lazonickyou might all start headingfor the doors. It alsohappens that, despitemy still valid Canadianpassport, I am not the presidentof the CanadianBusiness History Conference. In view of the joint sponsorshipof thesemeetings, my "presidential"address is beingbilled as a "keynoteaddress". ! havestrong doubts about the wisdomof offeringmy life storyas the keynotetheme of thesemeetings. I shall, therefore,refrain from tellingyou that I wasborn and bred in the very city where we are havingthese meetings. And I won't let you know that just a ten minutewalk from where we standright now, my father has for overforty years run a businessthat bearsmy name(but just in caseanybody is interestedyou can look for a sign that saysH. WILLIAMS & CO. on ChurchStreet, north of Queen). Nor shallI bothertelling you that overtwo decadesago the Universityof Toronto awardedme a Bachelorof Commerce degree. Surely,you haveno interestin suchdetails of my personallife, so I shalloblige you by keepingthem to myself. But I mustwarn you that I won't spareyou completely. What I shall talk about is how an economistcame to the studyof businesshistory. In relatingthis tale, my purposeis to ask not what the economistcan do for businesshistory but what businesshistory can do for the economist.For, as manyof you may know,the academicdiscipline that callsitself economicsis in a sorrystate.
    [Show full text]
  • Penrosian Learning Confronts the Neoclassical Fallacy
    Is the Most Unproductive Firm the Foundation of the Most Efficient Economy? Penrosian Learning Confronts the Neoclassical Fallacy * William Lazonick Working Paper No. 111 January 26, 2020 ABSTRACT Edith Penrose’s 1959 book The Theory of the Growth of the Firm [TGF] provides intellectual foundations for a theory of innovative enterprise, which is essential to any attempt to explain productivity growth, employment opportunity, and income distribution. Properly understood, Penrose’s theory of the firm is also an antidote to the deception that is foundational to neoclassical economics: The theory, taught by PhD economists to millions upon millions of college students for over seven decades, that the most unproductive firm is the foundation of the most efficient economy. The dissemination of this “neoclassical fallacy” to a mass audience of college students began with Paul A. Samuelson’s textbook, Economics: An Introductory Analysis, first published in 1948. Over the decades, the neoclassical fallacy has persisted through * President of The Academic-industry Research Network; Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts; Open Society Fellow; CIFAR Fellow; Professeur Associé, Institut Mines-Télécom, Paris; Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London. Lazonick: Is the Most Unproductive Firm the Foundation of the Most Efficient Economy? 18 revisions of Samuelson, Economics and in its countless “economics principles” clones. This essay challenges the intellectual hegemony of neoclassical economics by exposing the illogic of its foundational assumptions about how a modern economy functions and performs. The neoclassical fallacy gained popularity in the 1950s, during which decade Samuelson revised Economics three times. Meanwhile, Penrose derived the logic of organizational learning that she lays out in TGF from the facts of firm growth, absorbing what was known in the 1950s about the large corporations that had come to dominate the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Enterprise and Sustainable Prosperity
    Innovative Enterprise and Sustainable Prosperity William Lazonick University of Massachusetts Lowell The Academic-Industry Research Network OECD April 12, 2018 ©William Lazonick Sustainable prosperity Stable and equitable economic growth = “sustainable prosperity” • Growth: real per capita productivity gains that can raise standards of living • that is stable: employment and income that are not subject to boom and bust, over a working life of some four decades, with retirement income for two decades • that is equitable: gains from growth shared fairly among those who contribute to it, at a point in time and over time (including equitable use of the planet’s resources) Unstable employment, inequitable income, and slow growth The economic performance of the United States is the antithesis of sustainable prosperity. • Unstable employment: since the 1980s “middle class” employment opportunities with US business corporations have eroded • Inequitable income: U.S. productivity gains have gone mainly to the richest households, with stagnating real incomes for most Americans • Slow productivity growth: gains from innovation have been less forthcoming, even as the world faces major health and environmental challenges Gini Coefficient for all families of all races in the United States, 1948-2015 Two different eras of income growth Source: David Leonhardt, “Our broken economy, in one simple chart,” New York Times, August 7, 2017, at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html. Cumulative annual percent
    [Show full text]
  • William Lazonick
    Marketization, Globalization, Financialization: The Fragility of the US Economy in an Era of Global Change William Lazonick University of Massachusetts and University of Bordeaux Revised March 2010 This paper has been written for the project on “National Adjustments to a Changing Global Economy,” led by Dan Breznitz and John Zysman, funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. This paper builds on research in William Lazonick, Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy? Business Organization and High-Tech Employment in the United States, Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2009; “The New Economy Business Model and the Crisis of US Capitalism,” Capitalism and Society, 4, 2, 2009; and “The Explosion of Executive Pay and the Erosion of American Prosperity,” Entreprises et Histoire, 57, 2010 (forthcoming). The most recent research contained in this paper was funded by FINNOV project through Theme 8 of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission (Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities), under the topic “The role of finance for growth, employment and competitiveness in Europe” (SSH-2007-1.2- 03) as well as the Ford Foundation project on “Financial institutions for innovation and development.” I am grateful to Ebru Bekaslan, Yin Li, and Mustafa Erdem Sakinç for research assistance. Lazonick: Marketization, Globalization, Financialization 1. Fragile The United States has the world’s largest economy in terms of GDP. In 2008 it was the home base of 140 of the world’s top 500 business corporations by revenues. In the first decade of the 21st century, it is the world’s only superpower. At the same time, the US economy is fragile because of a failure of its leading corporations to make sufficient investments in innovation and job creation in the United States in a new age of global competition.
    [Show full text]