Suchergebnisse

We were asked by the Independent Evaluation Office to outline political science methods for assessing the chances of reform implementation in an ex-ante fashion. We agreed to illustrate how these tools 'work' by using Pakistan as a case study. The recent literature on IMF-sponsored reforms points out that successful implementation not only depends on the nature and severity of the economic crisis and on the design of the reforms, but very much also on the political economy of reform politics. We have identified the following as salient political factors for identifying chances of reform success: - the power of sections of the economy and polity that will lose from effective implementation; - the political independence of reform-minded branches of government vis-à-vis politicians that depend on popular support; - the institutional capacity to implement reform; - a high degree of acceptance of the reforms among the major stakeholders (the 'ownership' factor). We have designed three tools that help forecast how these factors will develop in the future. Each tool comprises three dimensions of analysis: - how these factors will develop after signing an agreement, given visible trends in the immediate past (trend extrapolation); - how these factors would be influenced by an effective reform implementation (impact analysis); - how other political framework conditions will evolve and what impact this may have for the reform prospects (scenario building). The three tools belong to different types of forecasting techniques and thus illustrate the wide range methods available. They also address different combinations of the four political factors. The three tools are summarized below. Tool 1: Stakeholder analysis This tool forecasts how the political struggle over reform will end by assessing the relative power and influence of the major stakeholders and by estimating how this balance of power will develop in the future. The three dimensions of analysis could look as follows: Trend extrapolation involves a close inspection of: 1) the reform steps undertaken during and before the negotiation period; 2) the negotiation style of the government (inclusiveness and transparency); 3) the degree of ownership of the reform idea among the major stakeholders. Impact analysis estimates how the power base of the actual government (factor 1) and the relation between civil servants and elected politicians (factor 2) will change due to effective implementation of the reforms and how this in turn influences the probability of continued implementation in the mid-term. Scenario building integrates other independent trends (e.g. declining power base of a party in power) as well as unforeseeable events (such as a foreign policy crisis) into the assessment exercise. The scenarios may be ranked by probability. Tool 2: Institutional analysis This tool would comprise three different elements of analysis. Institutional mapping describes the network of institutions (both governmental and non-governmental and at different levels) involved in decision making and reform implementation. The veto power analysis then determines the relative power and independence of those branches of the bureaucracy that are able and determined to implement reforms. The capacity assessment would look at levels of professionalism, recruitment procedures, educational background and motivation in those branches of government. Trend extrapolation would take into account actual trends of institutional change in determining the chances of reform implementation. Under the impact analysis, the institutional consequences of the reform programme itself and their impact on capacity and willingness to reform can be assessed. The scenario technique could be used to produce different scenarios of mid-term institutional change and see how they influence the prospects for economic reform. Tool 3: Delphi study Delphi studies belong to the pool of expert opinion tools. It consists of at least three rounds of surveys administered by a questionnaire. The experts may adjust their responses in the second and subsequent rounds after having been informed about the mean answers of the previous round. We suggest to ask at least 15 experts from think tanks, advisory bodies, the media, universities etc. to assess a) the prospects for the reforms being implemented given current political trends; b) the political impact of the reforms and how it may affect the possibility of sustained reform; and c) the probability of various mid-term political scenarios and the chances for sustaining reform under these scenarios. One of the comparative advantages of Delphi studies is that the results are not influenced by opinion leader phenomena. They can be used to quickly assess the constellations of opinions with regard to specific policy options and the probabilities associated with different future developments. In the concluding section we recommend - to apply the maximum possible number of tools in order to arrive at a solid assessment of the political feasibility of a programme from different perspectives. - to apply the 'triangulation of methods' approach whenever it is necessary to outbalance different results produced by the different tools. This means to reinterpret results and search for new evidence until more coherent overall conclusions can be reached; - to develop a multi-tier assessment system, where the basic tier, streamlined to all IMFsupported programmes, would consist in the trend extrapolation and impact assessment components of stakeholder analysis; institutional analysis would represent a second tier, to be applied to cases where doubts about implementation prospects are higher; a Delphi study, including scenario building, represents the most complex exercise reserved for the most contested cases; - to rely on careful judgement when deciding to more systematically include political factors, taking into account the risks of becoming involved in political and institutional engineering in sovereign nation states.

We use two waves of data from the India Human Development Survey to investigate the effect of family size on (i) parental expenditures on children's education; and (ii) test scores of proficiency in reading, writing, and maths for 8–11-year-old children. We investigate whether these effects vary by gender, birth order of children, and sibling sex composition. We address the endogeneity of family size, using an instrumental variable approach. Our ordinary least squares estimates provide evidence of quantity–quality trade-offs in children's educational expenditures, the existence of birth-order effects, and a sizeable pro-son bias. For test scores as well, ordinary least squares estimates indicate negative spillovers from additional children. The instrumental variable estimates, in contrast, find no evidence of quantity–quality trade-offs, birth order, or sibling sex composition effects in either expenditures or test scores. However, instrumental variable estimates of the male premium are bigger than ordinary least squares estimates. They also suggest that children enrolled in private schools do no better than those in government schools. Moreover, the advantage that boys appear to have over girls in maths is largely reversed in private schools.

The spread of COVID-19, an unprecedented anomaly of our times, is so wide and rapid that even most advanced economies are unable to respond to it quickly and appropriately. If this situation persists longer, not only the global health system may collapse but also there are apprehensions of large-scale socioeconomic meltdown. The Global North is currently the most-affected region due to Coronavirus outbreak where most of the governments have clamped complete lockdowns (Map A). These countries not only drive the global economy, trade and politics but also paved the way for labour migration from the Global South, which is underdeveloped or least developed. The Global South is heavily dependent on financial remittances from migrants. In 2019, the global flow of remittances to developing countries was recoded US$ 550 billion, which is larger than Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Official Development Assistance (ODA) (Plaza et al. 2019). This flow of remittances helped the developing countries to reduce poverty, overcome food insecurity, support balance of payments, and contribute to national economic growth. Pakistan is among top 10 recipients of global remittances (Plaza et al. 2019). In 2019, Pakistan received Rs 21.8 billion foreign remittances, which contribute to about 8 percent of its GDP. In the meantime, the migrant workers in GCC countries dropped to about 60 percent in 2018 compared to 2015, which is mainly due to the nationalization policies opted by these countries (Plaza et al. 2019). The decline in demand for Pakistani migrant workers is alarming and needs immediate attention of the government. Likewise, the strict regulations imposed by the European Union against refugees and asylum seekers during the migrants crisis in 2019 also aggravated the situation. In this backdrop, this policy review looks into the ways how COVID-19 spread can impact remittance flows and what should be the policy options to mitigate this impact.

A 'bottom up' regional Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGE) model for Vietnam is constructed for 28 commodities and 8 regions (using a GSO input-output table for 2005). The model is used to analyze the recent dramatic increases in the world price of rice on the regional economy of Vietnam, and the Vietnamese policy response to limit exports. Although results show limited 'pro-poor' outcomes, the CGE model and a micro-simulation (using 2006 VHLSS - Vietnamese Household Living Standard Survey data) show that recent rice export quotas resulted in falls total rural savings as measured by the difference in total income less total production cost and consumption of rice. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section two provides the background and reviews existing studies in Vietnam that have tried to estimate the welfare impact of government policies in rice market. Section three describes the methods and data. The results from the CGE model and micro-simulation on household data are discussed in section four. Section five offer concluding remarks.

What is capital? Despite centuries of debate, there is no clear answer to this question – and for a good reason. Capital is a polemic term. The way we define it attests our theoretical biases, ideological disposition, view of politics, class consciousness, social position, and more. Is capital the same as machines, or is it merely a financial asset? Is it a material article or a social process? Is it a static substance or a dynamic entity? The form of capital, its existence as monetary wealth, is hardly in doubt. The problem is with the content, the stuff that makes capital grow – and on this issue there is no agreement whatsoever. For example, does capital accumulate because it is productive, or due to the exploitation of workers? Does capital expand from within capitalism, or does it need non-capitalist institutions like the state and other external forces? Is accumulation synonymous with economic growth, or can capital expand by damaging production and undermining efficiency? What exactly is being accumulated? Does the value of capital represent utility, abstract labour – or perhaps something totally different, such as power or force? What units should we use to measure its accumulation? Surprisingly, these questions remain unanswered; in fact, with the victory of liberalism, most of them are no longer being asked. However, the silence is incomplete. As crisis and social strife intensify, the questions resurface. The accumulation of capital is the central process of capitalism, and unless we can clarify what that process means, we remain unable to understand our world, let alone change it. The seminar has two related goals: substantive and pedagogical. The substantive purpose is to tackle the question of capital head on. The course explores a spectrum of liberal and Marxist theories, ideologies and dogmas – as well as a radical alternative to these views. The argument is developed theoretically, historically and empirically. The first part of the seminar provides a critical overview of political economy, examining its historical emergence, triumph and eventual demise. The second part deals with the two 'materialistic' schools of capital – the liberal theory of utility and the Marxist theory of labour time – dissecting their structure, strengths and limitations. The third part brings power back in: it analyses the relation between accumulation and sabotage, studies the institutions of the corporation and the state and introduces a new framework – the capitalist mode of power. The fourth and final part offers an alternative approach – the theory of capital as power (or CasP for short) – and illustrates how this approach can shed light on conflict-ridden processes such as corporate merger, stagflation, imperialism and the new wars of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Pedagogically, the seminar seeks to prepare students toward conducting their own independent re-search. Students are introduced to various electronic data sources, instructed in different methods of analysis and tutored in developing their empirical research skills. As the seminar progresses, these skills are used both to assess various theories and to develop the students' own theoretical/empirical research projects.

What is capital? Despite centuries of debate, there is no clear answer to this question – and for a good reason. Capital is a polemic term. The way we define it attests our theoretical biases, ideological disposition, view of politics, class consciousness, social position, and more. Is capital the same as machines, or is it merely a financial asset? Is it a material article or a social process? Is it a static substance or a dynamic entity? The form of capital, its existence as monetary wealth, is hardly in doubt. The problem is with the content, the stuff that makes capital grow – and on this issue there is no agreement whatsoever. For example, does capital accumulate because it is productive, or due to the exploitation of workers? Does capital expand from within capitalism, or does it need non-capitalist institutions like the state and other external forces? Is accumulation synonymous with economic growth, or can capital expand by damaging production and undermining efficiency? What exactly is being accumulated? Does the value of capital represent utility, abstract labour – or perhaps something totally different, such as power or force? What units should we use to measure its accumulation? Surprisingly, these questions remain unanswered; in fact, with the victory of liberalism, most of them are no longer being asked. However, the silence is incomplete. As crisis and social strife intensify, the questions resurface. The accumulation of capital is the central process of capitalism, and unless we can clarify what that process means, we remain unable to understand our world, let alone change it. The seminar has two related goals: substantive and pedagogical. The substantive purpose is to tackle the question of capital head on. The course explores a spectrum of liberal and Marxist theories, ideologies and dogmas – as well as a radical alternative to these views. The argument is developed theoretically, historically and empirically. The first part of the seminar provides a critical overview of political economy, examining its historical emergence, triumph and eventual demise. The second part deals with the two 'materialistic' schools of capital – the liberal theory of utility and the Marxist theory of labour time – dissecting their structure, strengths and limitations. The third part brings power back in: it analyses the relation between accumulation and sabotage, studies the institutions of the corporation and the state and introduces a new framework – the capitalist mode of power. The fourth and final part offers an alternative approach – the theory of capital as power (or CasP for short) – and illustrates how this approach can shed light on conflict-ridden processes such as corporate merger, stagflation, imperialism and the new wars of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Pedagogically, the seminar seeks to prepare students toward conducting their own independent re-search. Students are introduced to various electronic data sources, instructed in different methods of analysis and tutored in developing their empirical research skills. As the seminar progresses, these skills are used both to assess various theories and to develop the students' own theoretical/empirical research projects.

International audience ; Agreements about reciprocal recognition of patent rights between nations were at the heart of discussions at the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property held in Paris in 1883. Yet while some treat the so-called "Paris Union" as a starting point for the subsequent globalization in patent rights, the context of early attempts at patent law harmonization was international tension and disagreements. Divergences in patent laws have their roots in the strong heterogeneity manifest among national patent systems developing before 1883. The sheer diversity of patent systems available was indeed highlighted by those critics who sought the abolition of patents rights. The project of harmonization should thus be seen as a defensive response to critics of patenting per se, rather than as the advent of a natural process of legislative convergence. In looking at the 1883 Convention in this light, we see that negotiations there can only be understood in terms of a strong rivalry between the French and German models. Such rivalries continued to characterize the membership of the Paris Union even into the interwar period, raising major doubts about whether the project of harmonization could ever be completed.

International audience ; Agreements about reciprocal recognition of patent rights between nations were at the heart of discussions at the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property held in Paris in 1883. Yet while some treat the so-called "Paris Union" as a starting point for the subsequent globalization in patent rights, the context of early attempts at patent law harmonization was international tension and disagreements. Divergences in patent laws have their roots in the strong heterogeneity manifest among national patent systems developing before 1883. The sheer diversity of patent systems available was indeed highlighted by those critics who sought the abolition of patents rights. The project of harmonization should thus be seen as a defensive response to critics of patenting per se, rather than as the advent of a natural process of legislative convergence. In looking at the 1883 Convention in this light, we see that negotiations there can only be understood in terms of a strong rivalry between the French and German models. Such rivalries continued to characterize the membership of the Paris Union even into the interwar period, raising major doubts about whether the project of harmonization could ever be completed.

What is capital? Despite centuries of debate, there is no clear answer to this question – and for a good reason. Capital is a polemic term. The way we define it attests our theoretical biases, ideological disposition, view of politics, class consciousness, social position, and more. Is capital the same as machines, or is it merely a financial asset? Is it a material article or a social process? Is it a static substance or a dynamic entity? The form of capital, its existence as monetary wealth, is hardly in doubt. The problem is with the content, the stuff that makes capital grow – and on this issue there is no agreement whatsoever. For example, does capital accumulate because it is productive, or due to the exploitation of workers? Does capital expand from within capitalism, or does it need non-capitalist institutions like the state and other external forces? Is accumulation synonymous with economic growth, or can capital expand by damaging production and undermining efficiency? What exactly is being accumulated? Does the value of capital represent utility, abstract labour – or perhaps something totally different, such as power or force? What units should we use to measure its accumulation? Surprisingly, these questions remain unanswered; in fact, with the victory of liberalism, most of them are no longer being asked. However, the silence is incomplete. As crisis and social strife intensify, the questions resurface. The accumulation of capital is the central process of capitalism, and unless we can clarify what that process means, we remain unable to understand our world, let alone change it. The seminar has two related goals: substantive and pedagogical. The substantive purpose is to tackle the question of capital head on. The course explores a spectrum of liberal and Marxist theories, ideologies and dogmas – as well as a radical alternative to these views. The argument is developed theoretically, historically and empirically. The first part of the seminar provides a critical overview of political economy, examining its historical emergence, triumph and eventual demise. The second part deals with the two 'materialistic' schools of capital – the liberal theory of utility and the Marxist theory of labour time – dissecting their structure, strengths and limitations. The third part brings power back in: it analyses the relation between accumulation and sabotage, studies the institutions of the corporation and the state and introduces a new framework – the capitalist mode of power. The fourth and final part offers an alternative approach – the theory of capital as power (or CasP for short) – and illustrates how this approach can shed light on conflict-ridden processes such as corporate merger, stagflation, imperialism and the new wars of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Pedagogically, the seminar seeks to prepare students toward conducting their own independent research. Students are introduced to various electronic data sources, instructed in different methods of analysis and tutored in developing their empirical research skills. As the seminar progresses, these skills are used both to assess various theories and to develop the students' own theoretical/empirical research projects.

What is capital? Despite centuries of debate, there is no clear answer to this question – and for a good reason. Capital is a polemic term. The way we define it attests our theoretical biases, ideological disposition, view of politics, class consciousness, social position, and more. Is capital the same as machines, or is it merely a financial asset? Is it a material article or a social process? Is it a static substance or a dynamic entity? The form of capital, its existence as monetary wealth, is hardly in doubt. The problem is with the content, the stuff that makes capital grow – and on this issue there is no agreement whatsoever. For example, does capital accumulate because it is productive, or due to the exploitation of workers? Does capital expand from within capitalism, or does it need non-capitalist institutions like the state and other 'external' forces? Is accumulation synonymous with economic growth, or can capital expand by damaging production and undermining efficiency? What exactly is being accumulated? Does the value of capital represent utility, abstract labour – or perhaps something totally different, such as power or force? What units should we use to measure its accumulation? Surprisingly, these questions remain unanswered; in fact, with the victory of liberalism, most of them are no longer being asked. But the silence cannot last for long. As crisis and social strife intensify, the questions are bound to resurface. The accumulation of capital is the central process of capitalism, and unless we can clarify what that process means, we'll remain unable to understand our world, let alone change it. The seminar has two related goals: substantive and pedagogical. The substantive purpose is to tackle the question of capital head on. The course explores a spectrum of liberal and Marxist theories, ideologies and dogmas – as well as a radical alternative to these views. The argument is developed theoretically, historically and empirically. The first part of the seminar provides a critical overview of political economy, examining its historical emergence, triumph and eventual demise. The second part deals with the two 'materialistic' schools of capital – the liberal theory of utility and the Marxist theory of labour time – dissecting their structure, strengths and limitations. The third part brings power back in: it analyses the relation between accumulation and sabotage, studies the institutions of the corporation and the state and introduces a new framework – the capitalist mode of power. The final part offers an alternative approach – the theory of capital as power – and illustrates how this approach can shed light on conflict-ridden processes such as corporate merger, stagflation, imperialism and the new wars of the twenty-first century. Pedagogically, the seminar seeks to prepare students toward conducting their own independent research. Students are introduced to various electronic data sources, instructed in different methods of analysis and tutored in developing their empirical research skills. As the seminar progresses, these skills are used both to assess various theories and to develop the students' own theoretical/empirical research projects.

En esta séptima edición del Reporte de Sistemas de Pago los recuadros se centran en tres temas de interés para la industria que presta servicios de compensación y liquidación de pagos, así como también para sus participantes. Primero, se aborda el debate internacional alrededor del nivel óptimo patrimonial de las Entidades de Contrapartida Central (ECC). Debido a que los riesgos derivados de las actividades de compensación están cubiertos en gran medida por los recursos financieros específicos (márgenes y fondos colectivos), las ECC deben contar con recursos financieros propios para velar que en todo momento esta se encuentre adecuadamente capitalizada, para hacer frente a riesgos de crédito, de contraparte, de mercado, operativos, jurídicos y empresariales, que no estén cubiertos por recursos financieros específicos. Segundo, como complemento al recuadro sobre la experiencia internacional de la figura de transferencia temporal de valores que se explicó en la versión anterior de este reporte, se presenta un recuadro sobre el mercado de préstamo de valores en Colombia, y la función que juegan en dicho mercado infraestructuras financieras como la Bolsa de Valores de Colombia y el Depósito Central de Valores. Tercero, con base en la información del sistema de pagos de alto valor CUD, se realiza un análisis para establecer la evolución de los pagos para determinados periodos, y el uso de las diversas fuentes de liquidez como estrategia para cumplirlos. Este análisis permite comprender el comportamiento individual de cada participante y establecer patrones de comportamiento (perfiles) cuyos cambios en el tiempo se puedan analizar con el objetivo de identificar y dimensionar riesgos financieros con incidencia sistémica, asociados a las actividades de compensación y liquidación de operaciones en los mercados financieros locales. ; In this seventh edition of the Payment Systems Report, the boxes focus on three topics of interest to the industry that renders payments clearing and settlement services as well as to those taking part in them. First, the international debate revolving around the optimal capital level of Central Counterparties (CCPs) is approached. Due to the fact that risks arising from clearing activities are to a great extent covered by specific financial resources (i.e. margins and collective funds), CCPs must count on their own financial resources to ensure they are properly capitalized at all times to address credit, counterparty, market operational, legal and corporate risks not being hedged by specific financial resources. Second, as a supplement to the previous Report's box about international experience on securities' temporary transfer operations, a box is included with respect to securities' lending in Colombia, and the function and role played in that market by certain financial infrastructures such as the Stock Exchange of Colombia and the Central Securities Depository. Third, based on information on the large-value payments system–CUD, an analysis is carried out in order to establish the evolution of payments for certain periods as well as the use of diverse liquidity sources as a strategy designed to meet them. This analysis makes it possible to understand the individual behavior of each participant and helps to establish behavioral patterns (profiles), the changes of which can be analyzed over time for the purpose of identifying and dimensioning financial risks with a systemic impact, related to clearing and settlement activities in local financial markets.

FROM THE BACK COVER: The Scientist and the Church is a wide-ranging biography of research, showcasing Bichler and Nitzan's attempts to break through the stifling dogmas of the academic church and chart a new scientific cosmology of capitalism. Central to the authors' work is the notion that capital is not a productive economic category but capitalized power, and that capitalism should be conceived and researched not as a mode of production and consumption but as a mode of power. The articles collected in this volume outline the general contours of their approach, flesh out some of their recent research and offer personal insights into the broader politics of their journey. The first chapters reexamine the common foundations of the neoclassical and Marxist doctrines, sketch the contours of the authors' alternative cosmology of capitalized power, identify the asymptotes – or limits – of this power and explore the all-encompassing logic of modern finance. Subsequent chapters research the connection between redistribution and cyclical crises, reassess the Marxist nexus between imperialism and financialism, rethink the oft-misunderstood role of crime and punishment in the capitalist mode of power and articulate a new theory and history of Middle-East energy conflicts. The closing chapters include two big-picture interviews, as well as riveting reflections on the authors' own scientific clashes with the church.

FROM THE INTRODUCTION: Human society, one may argue, is propelled by a dynamic clash of two primordial drives: creativity and power. The urge to invent confronts the impulse to conserve, the desire to change contests the quest to impose, the will to transcend conflicts with the impetus to restrict, harness and sabotage. It seems that the ever-present need to create something new always stands against the itch to redistribute and appropriate. Arthur Koestler described this clash, somewhat romantically, in his masterful history of cosmology, 'The Sleepwalkers' (1959). His lone scientists grope in the dark. They search for cues, hints and leads. They often stumble, falling flat on their faces. Rarely do they know exactly what they are looking for. But they go on. And then, suddenly, comes a revelation. The scientist sees a spark. Many a time the spark fizzles out and dies. But sometimes it persists long enough to ignite a fire. Novel ideas, syllogisms, explanations, equations and theories start to emerge in quick succession. Before long, a whirlwind of light builds up in the middle of the darkness. The whirlwind twists and turns, drawing in other scientists, generating more light, more ideas, more findings. In rare cases, it even gives rise to a totally new cosmology. But this creativity is never easy to manifest. Wherever they go, the scientists find themselves faced with a monolithic wall of resistance. Confronting them are the dominant power institutions of society, the opaque and seemingly impenetrable complex of church, academy, state, army and business organizations that control and leverage the prevailing beliefs, ideologies, dogmas and paradigms. Occasionally, a single scientist manages to break through the wall. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein, among others, were immortalized for doing so. But of those who try, the vast majority fail and sink into oblivion. The odds are overwhelmingly against them. To challenge power with creativity is to risk your life, job, reputation, family and future – as the heroic Cecilia Paine, the first to discover what stars are made of, was to learn the hard way (see Chapter 11). Those who contest the dogma – like the poet in George Orwell's 'Keep the Aspidistra Flying' (1936) – face ridicule, poverty, life in the shadows. No wonder most people end up taking the safe route of consent, moving obediently with the herd. Many of those who examined the clash between creativity and power – from Socrates and Plato to Freud and Marcuse – searched for universal drives and inhibitions, for the eternal underpinnings of Eros and Civilization. But while the drives and inhibitions may be universal, their social manifestations are often unique. The clash of creativity and power is the engine of the social creorder – the ongoing creation of order that propels and transforms all historical societies. And so, whatever its sources, this clash is always specific to the mode of power in which it is manifested. The first mode of power we know of was born in Mesopotamia, about six thousand years ago. . . . *** BUY THE FULL BOOK PDF HERE: http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/downloads/the-scientist-and-the-church/

What is capital? Despite centuries of debate, there is no clear answer to this question – and for a good reason. Capital is a polemic term. The way we define it attests our theoretical biases, ideological disposition, view of politics, class consciousness, social position, and more. Is capital the same as machines, or is it merely a financial asset? Is it a material article or a social process? Is it a static substance or a dynamic entity? The form of capital, its existence as monetary wealth, is hardly in doubt. The problem is with the content, the stuff that makes capital grow – and on this issue there is no agreement whatsoever. For example, does capital accumulate because it is productive, or due to the exploitation of workers? Does capital expand from within capitalism, or does it need non-capitalist institutions like the state and other 'external' forces? Is accumulation synonymous with economic growth, or can capital expand by damaging production and undermining efficiency? What exactly is being accumulated? Does the value of capital represent utility, abstract labour – or perhaps something totally different, such as power or force? What units should we use to measure its accumulation? Surprisingly, these questions remain unanswered; in fact, with the victory of liberalism, most of them are no longer being asked. But the silence cannot last for long. As crisis and social strife intensify, the questions are bound to resurface. The accumulation of capital is the central process of capitalism, and unless we can clarify what that process means, we'll remain unable to understand our world, let alone to change it. The seminar has two related goals: substantive and pedagogical. The substantive purpose is to tackle the question of capital head on. The course explores a spectrum of liberal and Marxist theories, ideologies and dogmas – as well as a radical alternative to these views. The argument is developed theoretically, historically and empirically. The first part of the seminar provides a critical overview of political economy, examining its historical emergence, triumph and eventual demise. The second part deals with the two 'materialistic' schools of capital – the liberal theory of utility and the Marxist theory of labour time – dissecting their structure, strengths and limitations. The third part brings power back in: it analyses the relation between accumulation and sabotage, studies the institutions of the corporation and the state and introduces a new framework – the capitalist mode of power. The final part offers an alternative approach – the theory of capital as power – and illustrates how this approach can shed light on conflict-ridden processes such as corporate merger, stagflation, imperialism and Middle East wars. Pedagogically, the seminar seeks to prepare students toward conducting their own independent re-search. Students are introduced to various electronic data sources, instructed in different methods of analysis and tutored in developing their empirical research skills. As the seminar progresses, these skills are used both to assess various theories and to develop the students' own theoretical/empirical research projects.