A statistical field approach to capital accumulation

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the nature and dynamics of capital accumulation in the rubber and iron ore sectors of Liberia. In other words, how is capital accumulated in Liberia’s rubber and iron ore sectors? In order to address this research question, the chapter is divided into four major parts. First is the examination of the peripheral capitalist Liberian state as the crucible for capital accumulation. Second, the capital accumulation processes in Liberia are deciphered for the purpose of locating the major actors that are involved in capital accumulation there. Third, the chapter analyzes the sectoral accumulation of capital by examining the major actors in the rubber and iron ore sectors. Finally, the study draws several major conclusions.

This essay seeks to explain the constitutive role that space-time plays in the dynamics of capital accumulation. Through a close reading of David Harvey's work, I show that time and space work together in ways particular to the capitalist mode of producing, distributing, selling, consuming and disposing of commodities. This does not, I argue, mean that space-time is reducible to capital accumulation — there are, to be sure, other forms of space-time that are relatively autonomous from the now dominant mode of production. My aim is not to provide a definitive account of space-time tout court but, instead, to show both the organic connection between space and time within capitalism specifically as well as the necessary — rather than simply contingent — role that space-time plays in the dynamics of accumulation. My argument is that capitalist space is inconceivable in abstraction from capitalism's temporal compulsions, and that space-time functions as a concrete abstraction that internalizes the whole gamut of contradictions that Marx identified over a century ago. The essay makes its analytical contribution by surveying previous Marxist and non-Marxist contributions to understanding space and time in the social sciences, en route to a close reading of Harvey's Limits to Capital. The political implications of paying careful attention to capitalist space-time are explored by counter-posing Harvey's work with Doreen Massey's recent writings about spatio-temporality.

The rise of the platform economy marks the latest phase in the ongoing digital revolution Indeed, the platform is to this digital era what the factory was to the industrial era, both a symbol and an organizing mechanism Gernot Grabher and Jonas Konig (2020) used Karl Polanyi's analysis of what he termed the “great transformation” to frame the rise of platform economy The platform economy is remarkable as it confirms Polanyi's (and Marx's before him) insight that the reach of the market is based upon increased commodification as it has been able to reach into ever more parts of social life We introduced the term “platform economy” in 2015 because we recognized that the digital platforms were changing the dynamics of capitalist accumulation - an analysis framed by regulationist school of political economy The intuition was that the socio-technical innovation of digital online platforms was the critical fulcrum for an economic restructuring that would rewire the flows of data and ultimately money and power The firms we have termed the “mega-platforms”, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, have become the most valuable and powerful firms in the world Importantly, the reach of these platforms is global and yet local and personal Moreover, this platform power has only been reinforced during the COVID-19 pandemic Copyright © 2021 Martin F Kenney, John Zysman, Dafna Bearson

Capital accumulation with tangible assets

This paper examines the effect of land market liberalization on the dynamics of capital accumulation. It is shown that the land market liberalization, which is accompanied with the transfer of agricultural technology, may not always offer a “win‐win” outcome for developed and developing countries. Improved agricultural productivity generates a growth enhancing externality. However, land market liberalization affects the balance between the equalizing force of the diminishing returns technology and the un‐equalizing force of the low income elasticity of the agricultural commodity demand. As a result, land market liberalization accompanied with the transfer of agricultural productivity, may not always guarantee a “win‐win” outcome for developed and developing countries. If improvement of agricultural productivity is insignificant then land market liberalization can cause “win‐lose” situation for developed and developing countries. This result suggests that one should be very careful in a policy proposal designed to foster the process of development through foreign land ownership. It is important to recognize that apart from benefits, foreign land ownership also creates a disadvantage for capital accumulation and causes the magnification of the world income inequality.JEL classificationF43, O11, R14

Uneven Development endeavours to derive a theory of uneven geographical development by putting in motion a ‘historical dialogue’ between Marx's critical theorisation of capitalism and the geograhical reality of capitalism at the close of the twentieth century, and by theorising the relations between material nature and the spatial dynamics of capitalist accumulation. The result, however, is a theory of uneven development predicated on a logical rather than a historical conception of capitalism, which furthermore supersedes the question of the production of nature in conceptualising the spatial dynamics of (contemporary) capitalism. This article argues for a re-theorisation of uneven geographical development that considers the production of nature, namely extractive industry, as a point of departure in theorising the spatial dynamics of contemporary capitalist accumulation, focusing briefly on the concentration and centralisation of capital.

The article discusses François Quesnay’s dynamics of capital accumulation. First, we analyze the notion of bon prix to highlight the central analytical role played by profits in Quesnay’s growth dynamics. This leads us to challenge Ronald Meek’s interpretation ([1962] 2003) and to (re)propose Peter Groenewegen’s suggestion (1974 and 1983) that profits are not included in the net product for policy reasons. We also show that profits display features resembling a stable income component such as supervision wages (see Marx [1863] 1963). Second, we contest Steven Pressman’s argument (1994, pp. 143–154) that Quesnay missed the distinction between nominal and real variables by modeling how the farmers’ monetary interest (and profit) initiates the capital accumulation process (see Vaggi 1985), which over time leads to an increase of the (physical) surplus rate and thus of the net product in real terms.

This article develops a dependent economy model of determination of employment and asset prices that integrates the roles of relative prices, expectations and dynamics of capital accumulation. In this model, money wage is rigid which leads to persistence of unemployment. Labour and capital are used as factors of production in the traded sector while the non-traded sector uses labour and imported intermediate inputs. The article examines macroeconomic implications of selective economic reforms for asset price dynamics, growth and employment. The discussion of comparative static exercises shows that not only the effects of different policies are ambiguous but also the short-run and the long-run effects are qualitatively different. For example, tariff liberalization causes the short-run expansions of both traded and non-traded sectors but overtime it may depress the capital stock leading to contraction of both the sectors and an increase in unemployment. The broad message of this article is that the design of macroeconomic policy should not be purely based on considerations of the short-run effects of policy changes. JEL: E22, F13, F41

The dynamics of capital accumulation in an overlapping generations model

If Proudhonism in the 19th century was, as Marx argued, a petty bourgeois ideology, this paper argues that the new communism of the commons propounded by Badiou, Hardt and Negri and Žižek is a 21st century avatar of it. It speaks not for what Poulantzas called the ‘traditional petty bourgeoisie’, as Proudhon did, but for the ‘new petty bourgeoisie’ of ‘non-productive wage-earners’, which has also lately styled itself the ‘creative class.’ A failure to comprehend the dynamics of capitalist accumulation and a general antipathy to any general organization of labour in society, and thus to any serious politics, are common to both. In addition, the paper shows that the protection of the cultural commons, the core of the project, is but a programme aiming for the continued reproduction of the creative class within capitalism. It is also prey to a series of misunderstandings - of the concept of the commons itself, of contemporary capitalism whose dynamics forms the backdrop of their project and key economic and political ideas of Marx whose authority they seek to attach to their project. This is a pre-print of an article published in the journal International Critical Thought (c) 2011 Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article is available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21598282.2011.584163

We illustrate two differential oligopoly games using, respectively, the capital accumulation dynamics a la Nerlove-Arrow, and the capital accumulation dynamics a la Ramsey. We prove that these games benefit from the property that closed-loop memoryless solutions degenerate into open-loop solutions, since the best reply of a generic firm is independent of the rivals’ state variables, which entails that the cross effect from rivals’ states to own controls disappears.

Renewable Resources, Capital Accumulation, and Economic Growth This paper proposes a dynamic economic model with physical capital and renewable resources. Different from most of the neoclassical growth models with renewable resources which are based on microeconomic foundation and neglect physical capital accumulation, this study proposes a growth model with dynamics of renewable resources and physical capital accumulation. The model is a synthesis of the neoclassical growth theory and the traditional dynamic models of renewable resources with an alternative approach to household behavior. The model describes a dynamic interdependence among physical accumulation, resource change, and division of labor under perfect competition. Because of its refined economic structure, our study enables some interactions among economic variables which are not found in the existing literature on economic growth with renewable resources. We simulate the model to demonstrate the existence of equilibrium points and motion of the dynamic system. Our comparative dynamic analysis shows, for instance, that a rise in the propensity to consume the renewable resource increases the interest rate and reduces the national and production sector's capital stocks, wage rate and level of the consumption good. Moreover, it initially reduces and then increases the capital stocks of the resource sector and the consumption and price of the renewable resource. The stock of the renewable resource is initially increased and then reduced. Finally, labor is redistributed from the production to the resource sector.

We study why capital accumulation in Argentina was slow in the 1990s and 2000s, despite high productivity growth and low international interest rates. We show that limited commitment constraints introduce two mechanisms. First, the response of investment to a total factor productivity increase is muted and short-lived, while the response to a decrease is large and persistent. Second, unlike in a first-best economy, low international interest rates may reduce capital accumulation, because they increase the relevance of future commitment constraints. A quantitative implementation of the model economy shows that the two mechanisms are quantitatively important for the dynamics of Argentina's capital accumulation. The model accounts for between 50% and 85% of the capital missing from Argentina in the two decades mentioned above, relative to what it would be in the absence of the limited commitment frictions.

We construct a dynamic neoclassical model of banking capital where the dynamics are governed by the process of financial capital accumulation and credit risk realizations in a structure where stylized banking characteristics are maintained. This is aimed at focusing on how the profit‐maximizing capital ratio of banks evolves and how it reacts to exogenous shocks particularly so during periods of prolonged downturn of the economy. We examine impulse responses of our model to credit risk shock, business cycle shock, and monetary policy shock. The convergence of financial capital to its optimal level is also explored.

In a society characterized by a multitude of heterogeneous agents and a large number of possibly immaterial goods, each one having distinct social and personal values, we study the impact of these relative values on intergenerational capital accumulation, as a function of economic and social parameters such as capital mobility, productivity and personal and social values discrepancies. Each agent is modelled by a one-period production function and a two-period intertemporal utility. Agents live, produce and consume over one period, but optimize over two periods, so providing a remaining stock of goods for the next generation. This creates a dynamics in capital accumulation depending on social and individual values. A threshold appears in capital stock accumulation that depends on personal and social values’ volatilities, and below which the initial stock will be depleted. Whereas volatility in social values increases the threshold, impairing capital accumulation, adverse shocks in goods’ values may reverse the dynamics of the accumulation process. Finally, capital mobility specifically favors forerunners, but capital accumulation in one or several sectors may shift social values in their direction, at the expense of other sectors.