Today's Economists Research Articles

GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS AS THE MAIN INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY CREATIVE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS

Research into the creation and functioning of global value chains helps today's economists, business analysts, and policy makers make informed decisions to improve the global economic landscape and ensure sustainable development for all countries. The article examines the influence of global value chains on the world economy. The work uses the method of the unity of historical and logical analysis. Methods of comparative, causal and functional analysis, principles of system analysis, dialectical approach in the study of processes and phenomena are also used. The concept of the "smile curve" was analyzed to highlight the unevenness of the distribution of added value in different segments of the production chain. They point out that GVS often concentrate maximum value in research and development and post-production services. A study of the "sad smile" phenomenon highlighted that industries moving from mass production to personalization through artificial intelligence technologies may experience cost reduction in the initial and final stages of production. At the same time, companies located in the country of origin receive the greatest added value. The article focuses on the challenges that developing countries face in trying to get out of the "middle-income trap." Such challenges include tariff barriers, concentration of patents on knowledge and financing in these countries. The article argues that the GVS institute contributes to the appropriation of imperialist rent by the countries of the center at the expense of the countries of the periphery. Global chains enable the capital of the North to exploit the cheap labor of the South, keeping their incomes low and affecting their ecology. Recommendations are proposed for effective regulation and redistribution of added value to achieve sustainable global development.

Economic Future of Globalization

The article analyzes the perspectives of globalization from theoretical premises of international economics and international political economy. For decades globalization has been looking like a non-alternative direction of economic development of the world. But today economists are no longer unanimous about its future. In practice, the ambiguity in views on the development of global processes has manifested itself in the return of national governments to protectionism in foreign economic policy. In theory - in the actualization of new conceptualizations of globalization and its perspectives. The article compares the axiomatics of monodisciplinary and interdisciplinary economic analysis of globalization. The author shows that the main subject of the discussion here are the changes in the understanding of international economic relations, the role of the state and non-state actors in global processes and the global governance. The comparison of the economic approaches to the study of globalization brings to the forefront the economic nature of the factors that contribute to it and the political nature of the factors that limit it. In modern economic knowledge globalization manifests itself as an irreversible process of growth of cross-border economic interdependence leading to the creation of global supranational political institutions. The key constraint here is the institution of sovereignty: states remain the only subject of global processes that is formally free to ignore international agreements. The future of globalization also rely on the political realization of its economic prerequisites. The evolution of global processes will directly depend on the search and implementation of foreign policy decisions, which on the one hand represent a political compromise at the international level, and on the other, are the result of a consensus of internal political, economic and other social preconditions for the actions of the subjects of global processes. Globalization is the non-alternative direction of the evolution of international economic relations. The protectionism observed today is an inefficient and temporary, at least in the long run. State regulation of national economies would gradually give way to self-regulation of the world market. Such self-regulation de-politicizes global economic relations, making interstate conflicts impossible and weakening manifestations of nationalism and protectionism.

HUMANITARIAN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

Purpose of this study is to explore the possibilities for humanitarian approach to solving the complex problems posed by the current economic system, and that can not be resolved within the economy as a science. Methodology includes the dialectical method, which allows us to consider the economy in two dimensions at the same time. It could be considered as a system, that does not have the dimension, and the economy as a habitat which itself finite and subject to entropy. Results: Today economists are in an awkward position. Trying to maintain the steady-state current economic system, they return to find rational solutions to the management of the individual, institution or society. In such circumstances, many issues of the person economic life remain unresolved: passing through the prism of the dominant ideological constants, they are transformed in a dilemma about the balance of state and market in the management of socio-economic systems, and the influence of individual institutions in the society, or the search for a harmonious setting proliferating market mechanisms. However, the philosopher, armed with a “lantern” of Diogenes, can answer many questions, the solution of which is due to the fact that they see the person and not another system. Practical implications the development of methodological possibilities of social philosophy when applied to the problems of economic theory

The “Treasury View”: An (un-)expected return?

By examining the rhetorical use of an old piece of economic theory by some contemporary economists, this paper intends to report on “how today's economists conduct a public policy debate”. This paper is neither a scholarly history of the interwar debate nor a sophisticated critique of current economic policy. It is an attempt to link the policy and theoretical arguments of two similar debates separated by nearly 80 years. The second part of the paper demonstrates that the (un-)expected return of the Treasury View is a case study illustrating two very different modelling strategies.

Economic History Matters

This paper considers the future of economic history in the context of its relationship with economics. It is argued that there are strong synergies between the two disciplines and that awareness of the economic past is an important resource for today's economists. Examples are given that illustrate these points. It is clear that the past has useful economics but the potential value of economic history to economics will only be realised if economic historians are fluent in economics and organise the presentation of their research findings with a view to addressing questions that matter from a policy perspective.

The economics of John Kenneth Galbraith: introduction, persuasion, and rehabilitation

The recent financial crisis has once again seen John Kenneth Galbraith return to the bestseller lists. Yet, despite the continued popular success of his works, Galbraith's contribution to economic theory is rarely recognized by today's economists. This book redresses the balance by providing an introductory and sympathetic discussion of Galbraith's theoretical contributions, introducing the reader to his economics and his broader vision of the economic process. The book highlights and explains key features of Galbraith's economic thought, including his penetrating critique of society, his distinctive methodology, his specific brand of Keynesianism and his original - but largely ignored - contribution to the theory of the firm. It also presents, for the first time, a detailed examination of Galbraith's monetary economics and revisits his analysis of financial euphoria. This unique work seeks to rehabilitate Galbraith's contribution, setting out several directions for possible future research in the Galbraithian tradition.

Comment on Nathan Rosenberg, "Was Schumpeter a Marxist?"

A leading and respected analyst of the dynamics of industrial capitalism, Nathan Rosenberg is doing economists an important service by reminding them that Joseph Schumpeter was a great admirer of Karl Marx (Rosenberg, 2011). What drew Schumpeter to Marx was, as Rosenberg states toward the beginning of his essay, the intellectual position that capitalism cannot be understood as a general equilibrium system of market exchange. What Marx and Schumpeter had in common was an intellectual approach to analyzing the economy that emphasized the role of technological change in the development process. And what makes both Schumpeter and Marx relevant today is that the economists whose thinking dominates the profession continue to conceive of the economic system as a general equilibrium of market exchange while they ignore the technological transformations that provide the foundations for economic development. A century after the publication of The Theory of Economic Development (Schumpeter, 1934), today's economists still have a lot to learn from Schumpeter—including some critical insights that Schumpeter got from Marx and a least one lesson that Schumpeter should have learned from Marx.

British monetary and fiscal policy in the 1930s

Current economic turbulence has revived interest in interwar macroeconomic instability and policy. This paper provides a guide to the current state of knowledge on British macroeconomic policy between 1929 and the eve of the Second World War for today's economists and policy-makers. Mindful that some will seek 'lessons' from this earlier age, it makes clear the very particular economic and policy context of the time, including the marked difference between British and American economic performance and policies and the challenge posed by the massive rise in debt brought about by the First World War. Knowledge transfer is possible here for policy learning, but what transpires is that lessons are typically stronger as negatives than as positives: namely what should not be done in general, as against what might be done, this largely situation specific. The focus is the role and effectiveness of the monetary and fiscal policies pursued together with an assessment of the principal policy not adopted, namely the Keynesian solution of significant loan-financed public works to remedy mass unemployment. The analysis is comparative with respect to US macroeconomic economic performance and policy; it explores the different macroeconomic shocks of the 'contraction' phase (the term 'Great Depression' is not really appropriate to the British experience) in the two countries; comparative policy regimes; and then, in turn, analyses the policy mix and policy effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policy, including for Britain the counterfactual Keynesian solution. A business-cycle periodization is adopted, with the key role for the abandonment of the gold standard in terms of regaining freedom of choice in macroeconomic policy, itself experiencing significant developments after 1931. The traditional role of the cheap-money-induced housing boom in Britain's post-1932 economic recovery is reaffirmed; the impact of the fiscal policies actually pursued are then discussed, as are assessments of the likely effectiveness of the Keynesian solution had the 1929 Liberal Party's 'We can conquer unemployment'spending package been implemented.

Les marchandises et le signe : Turgot versus Montesquieu

Today economists, by qualifying a kind of money as sign, would only mean to suggest that it is not so real as goods. But, as M. Foucault underlined it in Les mots et les choses, something more important was at stake for some authors of the 18 th century. Montesquieu and Turgot had different theories of sign, which conveyed opposite conceptions of money, and which led to alternative approaches of the object of political economy.

Professional audit; quality control; keeping up to date

To audit, evaluate, appraise or assess the performance of an organization or a professional man's activity is to enter a debate: a debate about how the objectives of the organization are to be defined, what criteria should be used to evaluate the performance, how the audit should be conducted, and who should conduct it. Most importantly, what benefits should be gained by participating in the debate? 'Medical audit' is currently being proclaimed as a cure for some of the ills of Western technological medicine and its escalating cost. By appealing to the 'facts' managers, politicians and the public superficially seem able to resolve the deep ethical and economic ills that beset us. Tragically, as every new 'fact' is rehearsed, the complexity of the issues increases and the legitimacy and authority of the various actors are further questioned. Unfortunately the medical process, with its mixture of behavioural and technological components, is not readily measured; data of input, process, and outcome have a meaning only when there is an agreed policy paradigm. The politicians' expectations of a Health Service are very different from the professionals', and, until we can persuade the politicians to define truthfully what the objectives are, our profession will remain unable to meet their expectations. This inherent weakness in our governmental process ensures that for the foreseeable future the medical profession must define its own standards, audit its own activities, and maintain its own professional primacy. This tension between public policy and our professional ethic has existed since time immemorial. The great king of the Assyro-Babylonians, Hammurabi (1948-1905 BC), attempted to regulate medicine and impose audit with penalties on his doctors, but he was careful not to define what the doctors should do. Like the modem state he did not prescribe how many arrowheads his surgeons would remove each year or how many fractures they would treat, but he did define the maximum fees the doctors could charge. Thus the contemporary administrative concept of controlling medicine by using economics as a proxy for ethics is very old. What is new is the rapid escalation of medical costs in the last decade and it is this inflation of the supply side of health care that is now fuelling the cry for medical audit. In the argot of today's economists and political scientists 'quality' medical care is perceived as 'efficient', 'value for money' or 'costeffective'; the reduction of waiting lists is a measure of 'efficiency', escalat

How can agricultural economist help to solve Europe's agricultural problems?

In the last ten years the agricultural economist has become an indispensable helper for all those who have to make decisions in agricultural and related sectors. His ability to analyse and synthesize agricultural problems, and the scientific rigour of his intellectual approach, make him an invaluable assistant and frequently a leader of the economic research teams which have grown up in recent times in various European countries. The agricultural economist can help to solve the numerous and complicated problems posed by farming in Europe if he is able to make the necessary efforts to express his information requirements, grasp the different economic systems of the world about him and understand man's deep-seated aspirations. By promoting exchanges and contacts between agricultural economists from various European countries, free of theoretical or doctrinaire constraints, it will be possible to obtain of today's economists an even more effective contribution towards solving Europe's agricultural problems. In the years ahead such a contribution should above all concern research into the means to be applied to achieve a more harmonious general organization of European agriculture, an organization of structures and markets which will permit both general economic progress and greater development of human potentialities.

An economic history of Sweden

Abstract A couple of generations ago English economists were hardly on speaking terms with economic historians. No one expected either to answer questions asked by the other; and an introductory history (such as Ashley's tour de force, The Economic Organisation of England) could be written almost without reference to theory. If today economists and economic historians sometimes take counsel of each other this is not, in any large measure, due to a change in the attitude of the economists. It is true that these are more concerned than their predecessors with problems of growth, and that the element of time now enters into their equations. But the ‘time’ of the theorists is not historical time, and, as Heckscher observes, recent disquisitions on economic growth tend to be even more abstract than the earlier equilibrium studies. The rapprochement has come mainly from a shift of ground by the historians, and by far the greatest influence has been that of Heckscher himself. No better account can be found of th...