Beyond Neoliberalism,” in Which They Argued an Economic Paradigm Shift Is Due, One Similar to the Transition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Inclusive Capitalism How We Can Make Independence Work for Everyone
Inclusive Capitalism How we can make independence work for everyone David G. Green Inclusive Capitalism Inclusive Capitalism How we can make independence work for everyone David G. Green First Published October 2017 © Civitas 2017 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL email: [email protected] All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-906837-92-1 Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All publications are independently refereed. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. Typeset by Typetechnique Printed in Great Britain by 4edge Limited, Essex iv Contents Author vi Preface vii Acknowledgements viii 1. Introduction 1 2. Globalisation, the market as a natural condition, 16 and scientism 3. Doubts about capitalism 41 4. Agenda For Independence: Inclusive Capitalism 61 5. Conclusions 100 Notes 103 v Author David G. Green is the Director of Civitas. His books include The New Right: The Counter Revolution in Political, Economic and Social Thought, Wheatsheaf, 1987; Reinventing Civil Society, IEA, 1993; Community Without Politics: A Market Approach to Welfare Reform, IEA, 1996; Benefit Dependency: How Welfare Undermines Independence, IEA, 1999; We’re (Nearly) All Victims Now, Civitas, 2006; Individualists Who Co- operate, Civitas, 2009; Prosperity with Principles: some policies for economic growth, Civitas, 2011; What Have We Done? The surrender of our democracy to the EU, Civitas, 2013; The Demise of the Free State, Civitas, 2014; and Democratic Civilisation or Judicial Supremacy?, Civitas, 2016. -
Swiss IGF 2018 Programme Tuesday, 20 November
Swiss IGF 2018 Programme Tuesday, 20 November Welle 7, Deck 3, Bern 08:00- Registration and welcome coffee 09:00 08:00- Breakfast Session: Artificial intelligence and ethical principles – discuss with 09:00 Google! Questions: How are ethical considerations part of working on new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI)? How do we, as a society, for example think about fairness? About building inclusive experiences? About equipping the workforce for the jobs of the future? The input speakers will briefly present the latest work on AI within Google - also driven by large teams based in the Google Zurich Engineering Center - and then present the Google AI Principles and practices. But most importantly they are looking forward to an open and interactive dialogue on the topic! Inputs: Anton Aschwanden (Google), Daniel Schönberger (Google) The input presentations will be held in English. 09:00- Opening 09:10 with Philipp Metzger, Director of the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) 09:10- Plenum 1: Digital democracy – more than just E-Voting! 10:30 Questions: What are the opportunities and risks concerning digitisation in politics? Does digitisation promote democracy (e.g. thanks to Open Government and Open Data)? Or does digitisation endanger democracy (e.g. through online misinformation)? What is digital sustainability? What lessons can be drawn from the ongoing digital initiatives in Switzerland (e.g. We Collect or Smartvote)? What are the new trends and developments (e.g. Open Government Data, Politik.ch)? What are the quality -
“Yes, We Can Do Better Than Capitalism” Originally Published in Common Dreams
“Yes, We Can Do Better Than Capitalism” Originally published in Common Dreams The following discussion prompts were written by Professor Wolff to create a discussion based around his piece “Yes, We Can Do Better Than Capitalism” Please note, this article was written by Prof. Wolff on 5/01/2019. Keep the date in mind as it offers relevant historical context. 1. How are "reforms" different from system change? 2. Why is the debate pitting "free" markets against "regulated markets" not equivalent to the debate between capitalism and socialism? 3. Given that slave and feudal economic systems both included state-owned-and-operated enterprises alongside privately-owned-and-operated enterprises, why would such enterprises' coexistence inside capitalism raise the idea of a system change to socialism? 4. Given that the slave and feudal economic systems are described first and foremost by their respective interpersonal relationships (master/slave and lord/serf) inside the production process, why did capitalism come to prefer to define itself NOT in terms of a relationship in production (employer/employee) but rather in terms of pruvate vs state enterprise and market vs state planning? Yes, We Can Do Better Than Capitalism By democratizing our workplaces, we can supplant the dominant economic system which cannot escape its intrinsic exploitation of labor Richard D. Wolff 05/01/2019 As capitalism drives itself into ever-greater inequality, instability and injustice, its critics multiply. Worried defenders react in two ways. Many dismiss the criticisms. After all, capitalism has been around a long time and weathered ups and downs before. They presume or hope that criticism will fade as little really changes despite the critics, and frustrations set in. -
Starting Over: the Center-Right After Trump a Niskanen Center Conference on December 11, 2018
1 Starting Over: The Center-Right After Trump A Niskanen Center Conference on December 11, 2018 KEYNOTE: ANNE APPLEBAUM Brink Lindsey: Okay, we’ll move forward with the program now with today’s keynote address. I’m delighted and proud to introduce Anne Applebaum, our keynote speaker. Anne is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and journalist, and the author of numerous books, most notably Gulag: A History, Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956, and Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. Anne is also a columnist for the Washington Post and a Professor in Practice at the London School of Economics. I think we are focused on our political predicament here in the United States, but it is not a one-off, it is not a unique phenomenon. What’s going on here is of a piece with what’s going on in many other countries around the world. And the struggles that liberal democracy is going through now are not unique. It has gone through struggles in the past. So to bring our current moment into a broader perspective, I can’t think of anybody who can do a better job than Anne, given her unique breadth and depth of perspective on these matters — and a transatlantic perspective, certainly, because she lives a transatlantic life. Anne is a citizen of the United States and of Poland… Anne Applebaum: And Britain. Brink Lindsey: And a citizen of Britain too. So a triple club member. That’s good. We’re all looking for Plan Bs. So you’ve got a couple. -
The Inefficiency of Employment and the Case for Workplace Democracy
A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics FitzRoy, Felix; Nolan, Michael A. Working Paper The Inefficiency of Employment and the Case for Workplace Democracy IZA Discussion Papers, No. 14065 Provided in Cooperation with: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Suggested Citation: FitzRoy, Felix; Nolan, Michael A. (2021) : The Inefficiency of Employment and the Case for Workplace Democracy, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 14065, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/232817 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 14065 The Inefficiency of Employment and the Case for Workplace Democracy Felix FitzRoy Michael Nolan JANUARY 2021 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. -
Towards Economic Democracy and Social Justice: Profit Sharing, Co-Determination, and Employee Ownership
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 13238 Towards Economic Democracy and Social Justice: Profit Sharing, Co-Determination, and Employee Ownership Felix FitzRoy Michael Nolan MAY 2020 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 13238 Towards Economic Democracy and Social Justice: Profit Sharing, Co-Determination, and Employee Ownership Felix FitzRoy University of St. Andrews and IZA Michael Nolan University of Hull MAY 2020 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. ISSN: 2365-9793 IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA DP No. 13238 MAY 2020 ABSTRACT Towards Economic Democracy and Social Justice: Profit Sharing, Co-Determination, and Employee Ownership* Modern economies deprive workers of natural democratic rights and any share of the surplus they produce, with most of the benefits of growth appropriated by capital owners. -
Download Full Publication
PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM IN BRITAIN This collection considers key issues in the progressive capitalism and inclusive prosperity debates, setting out a way forward for a new political economy in Brit- ain. It is the result of collaboration between the Policy Network and IPPR think- tanks. About Policy Network Policy Network is an international thinktank and research institute. Its network spans national borders across Europe and the wider world with the aim of promot- ing the best progressive thinking on the major social and economic challenges of the 21st century. Its work is driven by a network of politicians, policymakers, business leaders, public service professionals, and academic researchers who work on long-term issues relating to public policy, political economy, social attitudes, governance and international affairs. This is complemented by the expertise and research excellence of Policy Network’s international team. www.policy-network.net About IPPR IPPR is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. It is an independent registered charity with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Its main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the north of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. Its purpose is to conduct and publish research into, and promote public education in, the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology; including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. www.ippr.org PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM IN BRITAIN Pillars for a New Political Economy Edited by Patrick Diamond, Tony Dolphin and Roger Liddle London • New York Published by Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd. -
Of 17 Nobody Owns the Future* I the Subject of This Chapter Is Economic
Nobody owns the future* I The subject of this chapter is economic democracy. It is an old topic, and one that has generated a rich history of fertile thought and mostly frustrated action. The impetus to economic democracy stems, in part, from a simple intuition: under capitalism, economic life tends to be autocratic; and, yet, we condemn autocracy and praise democracy; therefore, for the sake of consistency, we ought to demand the transformation of the economy along more democratic lines. As the nineteenth century writer Henry Demarest Lloyd put it, ‘there is to be a people in industry, as in government’.1 That demand has always represented an important moral challenge to orthodox beliefs about our society. Defenders of the orthodoxy have never convincingly seen off the challenge, at least not at the level of principle. As a matter of political practice, however, economic democracy has been a marginal phenomenon. In this chapter, I want to suggest that the impulse to economic democracy is in urgent need of revival; and that trade unionists ought to contribute to its resurgence. I refer to the ‘impulse’ to economic democracy because I want to focus on its underlying moral impetus and its general implications. So, I will not consider any particular institutional forms or structures that have been, or might be, imagined for it. The most urgent thing is not to worry about an institutional blueprint for economic democracy. What is needed right now, I will argue, is something more basic—namely, a concerted effort to challenge concentrated economic power, and to do so in a way that gives voice to the democratic impulse. -
Phd Julien Version 1.Indd
Europe’s political frontier On ethics and depoliticization critique Julien Kloeg Europe’s political frontier On ethics and depoliticization critique Europa’s politieke front Over ethiek en depolitiseringskritiek Thesis to obtain the degree of Doctor from the Erasmus University Rotterdam by command of the rector magnificus Prof.dr. R.C.M.E. Engels and in accordance with the decision of the Doctorate Board. The public defence shall be held on Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 15.30 hrs by Joannes Paulus Kloeg born in Dordrecht Doctoral Committee Promotor(s): Prof.dr. W. Schinkel Other members: Prof.dr. E. Balibar Prof. dr. J. de Mul Dr. G.H. van Oenen Copromotor(s): Dr. L.H.J. Noordegraaf-Eelens Table of contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1: Depoliticization and political ontology 13 1.1 Contextualizing depoliticization critique 15 1.2 The ontological aspect of depoliticization critique 25 1.3 From police to populism 29 1.4 The political cases against ethics 38 Chapter 2: European politics and aspects of depoliticization 45 2.1 The primacy of output legitimacy 51 2.2 European policy without politics 58 2.3 Establishing the status of European law 65 2.4 Fait accompli politics 71 2.5 Moral Fortress Europe 78 2.6 Governance with the people 84 2.7 European politics: aspects of depoliticization 87 Chapter 3: Problema Morale: direct relations between politics and ethics 93 3.1 Fixation 98 3.1.1 Rousseau’s openings and closures 100 3.1.2 Kantian moral politics 104 3.1.3 Nietzsche against givenness 112 3.2 Friction 117 3.2.1 Friction in Politics as a vocation -
Is Capitalism Good for Women?
J Bus Ethics DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2185-9 Is Capitalism Good for Women? Ann E. Cudd Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract This paper investigates an aspect of the ques- and the practices of business within the system. Capitalism, tion of whether capitalism can be defended as a morally on his analysis, not only offers the great goods of freedom legitimate economic system by asking whether capitalism and efficiency, but also brings with it moral dangers that serves progressive, feminist ends of freedom and gender must be kept in check through government programs, equality. I argue that although capitalism is subject to namely inequality and indifference to those who cannot critique for increasing economic inequality, it can be seen compete in the market well enough to provide for them- to decrease gender inequality, particularly in traditional selves. Neither capitalism nor socialism, he argues, is societies. Capitalism brings technological and social inherently immoral, yet capitalism offers more goods than innovations that are good for women, and disrupts tradi- socialism. Although business ethics has, for the most part, tions that subordinate women in materially beneficial and assumed the moral legitimacy of capitalism, a variety of socially progressive ways. Capitalism upholds the ideology criticisms have been raised to the system as a whole as well of individual rights and the ideal of mutual advantage. By as to the morality of particular markets. We might call the institutionalizing mutual advantage through the logic of issue of the morality of the capitalist system as a whole a voluntary exchange, progressive capitalism promotes the meta-business ethics question. -
Power, Predistribution, and Social Justice
This is a repository copy of Power, Predistribution, and Social Justice. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/152676/ Version: Accepted Version Article: O'Neill, Martin orcid.org/0000-0003-0487-0196 (2019) Power, Predistribution, and Social Justice. Philosophy. pp. 63-91. ISSN 0031-8191 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819119000482 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Version: 8 Oct 2019 Power, Predistribution, and Social Justice 1 Abstract: The idea of predistribution has the potential to offer a valuable and distinctive approach to political philosophers, political scientists, and economists, in thinking about social justice and the creation of more egalitarian economies. It is also an idea that has drawn the interest of politicians of the left and centre-left, promising an alternative to traditional forms of social democracy. But the idea of predistribution is not well understood, and stands in need of elucidation. -
International Civil Society Centre and Justlabs Innovation Report 2019 Contact
civil society innovation and populism in a digital era INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY CENTRE AND JUSTLABS INNOVATION REPORT 2019 CONTACT Agricolastraße 26 10555 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 (0) 30 20 62 46 97 11 @icscentre.org @ICS_Centre @international-civil-society-centre www.icscentre.org INNOVATION REPORT 2019 Civil Society Innovation and Populism in a Digital Era 4 INTRODUCTION 6 POPULISM AND INNOVATION 16 STRATEGIES 22 CASE STUDIES 22 CORE INNOVATION 24 Resilient Roots 32 Femplatz’s pilot for Resilient Roots 40 Video Volunteers’ pilot for Resilient Roots 50 ADJACENT INNOVATION 52 New narratives for human rights 62 Voices of Inclusion 70 Inclusive communications strategy 78 Together Project 86 Shift 94 TransparenCEE 104 TRANSFORMATIONAL INNOVATION 106 WhatsApp for LGBT+ rights 114 Hope-Based Communications 122 Learn to Discern 130 Operation Libero 138 Citizens’ Voice 146 RECOMMENDATIONS INNOVATION REPORT 2019 POPULISM 4 introduction OUR HOPES FOR THIS REPORT OUR REASONS FOR THE REPORT The International The International Civil Society Centre’s 2019– 21 strategy aims to highlight innovations that Civil Society Centre can benefit the civil society sector internatio- and JustLabs nally. We seek to advance understanding of the most promising innovations, both inside and hope this report: outside our sector, that can be applied to tackle common challenges. Meanwhile, our partner in this shared adventure, JustLabs, was created 1 to provide a space in which such innovations recognises the amazing efforts of the “invisi- can be brought to life, tested and shared with ble innovators” who cannot communicate the wider social change field. To achieve our openly or visibly about their work because it joint aims, we have collected and shared some could put them at risk.