A considerable body of literature has been published, during the last century, arguing that a movement away from competitive markets must be recognized in trying to describe and understanding contemporary capitalism. The literature I am thinking of emphasizes big business, corporations, and finance. Here are some selections, not all of which I have read:
- Rudolf Hilferding (1910). Finance Capital: A study of the latest phase of capitalist development.
- Adolfe A. Berle and Means (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property.
- Bruno Rizzi (1939). The Bureaucratization of the World
- James Burnham (1941). The Managerial Revolution: What is happening in the world.
- Joseph Schumpeter (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
- Josef Steindl (1952). Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism.
- Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy (1966). Monopoly Capital: An essay on the American economic and social order.
- Robin Marris (1967). The Economic Theory of Managerial Capitalism.
- John Kenneth Galbraith (1967). The New Industrial State.
- Michal Kalecki (1971). Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy.
- Jonathan Nizan and Shimshon Bichler (2009). Capital as Power: A study of order and creorder.
I find that I have provided a similar list before. If I wanted to include journal articles, I would say something about Paulo Sylos-Labini. There was a nearby literature arguing the convergence of different systems across, say, the first and second worlds. Another related literature develops theories of imperialism, especially in the context of north-south relations.
As I understand it, many of the above writers were influenced by Marx. But I think even those who accepted the labor theory of value for competitive conditions, argued that the developments they were writing about implied that it no longer applies. For instance, Baran and Sweezy replaced surplus value by the (non-quantitative?) concept of the economic surplus. I was surprised to find myself arguing against this conclusion in recent work.
Posts
7 comments:
«arguing that a movement away from competitive markets must be recognized in trying to describe and understanding contemporary capitalism.»
Competitive markets have existed and still exist, but usually were quite a minor phenomenon outside labor markets, consider the home of liberalism, England, and the innumerable restriction to competition imposed on imperial markets (e.g. New England colonists were forbidden from making nails).
To add to your list there are also some works by J Robinson, not just that on imperfect competition. Also "What are the questions?" https://www.jstor.org/stable/2722966
I have heard it argued that the idea that 19th century England or America were examples of competitive markets is a myth. If so, I've probably fallen into following that myth in my post.
You present quite an impressive list of historical books! In retrospect some of them are a bit funny. Scientifically, your previous list from 2013 is more instructive. Nowadays, the subject is covered well by books with titles such as Industrial organization or The theory of the firm.
This list leans more towards Marxists who argue that the advent of big business implies Marx's theory of value is no longer quantitatively valid. I put Hilferding, Rizzi, and Burnham on the list as a reminder that I want to check them out to see if they fit my claim about the history of thought.
«To add to your list there are also some works by J Robinson»
You may also be delighted to listen to this lecture by a more-eminent-than-usual Cambridge political economist on her lifetime work and the Cambridges Capital Controvery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WhU1wxVHPo
In particular beginning at 27:30 there is the pithy summary and at 28:00 there is this statement (he is effectively retired...):
“The proposition that prices theoretically (the theory tells you that prices are determined by supply and demand), is still taught to to undergraduates in universities around the world including this one.”
«In particular beginning at 27:30 there is the pithy summary and at 28:00 there is this statement (he is effectively retired...):
“The proposition that prices theoretically (the theory tells you that prices are determined by supply and demand), is still taught to to undergraduates in universities around the world including this one.”»
Oops, a terrible misquote, I forgot the important bit:
“The proposition that prices theoretically... the theory tells you that prices are determined by supply and demand, is still taught to to undergraduates in universities around the world including this one. I actually think this is a disgrace. But there we go.”
Thanks. I added a link to that Eatwell talk on the next post.
Post a Comment