Search results

Development economics emerged as a separate discipline of economic science in the 1950s but it wasn't until the 1960s and mid-1970s that it began to draw serious attention. Gradually, an extensive literature concerning economic development was built up. In the 1980s it turned out, however, that despite some successes, the economic growth in most of medium and less developed countries was not as high as expected. During the 1980s and 1990s, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated the theory and practice of economic development. This notion covered the whole range of activities that were to lead the developing countries to improved welfare and prosperity. It included strict fiscal and monetary policies, deregulation, foreign trade and capital flow liberalisation, elimination of government subsidies, moderate taxation, liberalisation of interest rates, maintaining low inflation, etc. Based on the developmental experience of over past ten years, a new paradigm of development is emerging, the elements of which can be described as follows: (1) the basic economic environment should encourage the long-term investment in (2) the economy should have a high sensitivity to market stimuli (3) human capital must complement physical capital (4) due to the fast flow and absorption of information in the rapidly changing world, the key role is played by institutions and mechanisms that jointly respond to stimuli (5) wherever market failures occur, an intervention of the state should be market-friendly 6) social equality must be guaranteed if the economic development is to take place on a sustainable basis.

Development economics emerged as a separate discipline of economic science in the 1950s but it wasn't until the 1960s and mid-1970s that it began to draw serious attention. Gradually, an extensive literature concerning economic development was built up. In the 1980s it turned out, however, that despite some successes, the economic growth in most of medium and less developed countries was not as high as expected. During the 1980s and 1990s, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated the theory and practice of economic development. This notion covered the whole range of activities that were to lead the developing countries to improved welfare and prosperity. It included strict fiscal and monetary policies, deregulation, foreign trade and capital flow liberalisation, elimination of government subsidies, moderate taxation, liberalisation of interest rates, maintaining low inflation, etc. Based on the developmental experience of over past ten years, a new paradigm of development is emerging, the elements of which can be described as follows: (1) the basic economic environment should encourage the long-term investment in (2) the economy should have a high sensitivity to market stimuli (3) human capital must complement physical capital (4) due to the fast flow and absorption of information in the rapidly changing world, the key role is played by institutions and mechanisms that jointly respond to stimuli (5) wherever market failures occur, an intervention of the state should be market-friendly 6) social equality must be guaranteed if the economic development is to take place on a sustainable basis. ; Publication of English-language versions of the volumes of the "Annales. Ethics in Economic Life" financed through contract no. 501/1/P-DUN/2017 from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education devoted to the promotion of scholarship.

This publication was written for a Global Political Economy course taught in business schools offering undergraduate or graduate levels of education. The textbook focuses on select countries and regions which, in our opinion, will be the most important consumer and export markets in the next two decades.

Abstract

Objective: The main aim of the article is to send a message to the general public that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no different than any inventions disruptive for the mode of production discovered before. In the past, Luddites looked with fear at steam-powered industry and mechanized looms; today we look at Artificial Intelligence (AI) with equal anxiety and fear of the unknown.

Methodology: We analyze the world literature on this subject and compare the main economic actors: the USA and China. We also use some historic analogies like discoveries of Thomas Edison and Nicola Tesla.

Findings: AI is a ground-breaking technology which will fundamentally change human relations to the outside world. It will disrupt all known paradigms or production, medicine, shopping and, generally, the exploration of human environment, blurring the barrier between virtual and real.

Value Added: The luddite-type fears are unfounded. AI will enhance the concentration power, polarize societies between winners and losers, capital and labor and enhance the gaps which were on rise with the industrial revolution. We are at the outset of another revolution which will give humans a better command of nature. The negative effects of the revolution should be addressed and resolved in the future.

Recommendations: AI was created by people and can be ultimately governed by the people who set it in motion. Perhaps AI will provide answers how to control ourselves from a runaway deep or general AI. But this is a subject of another paper.

The postwar experience has shown that the implanting of European consciousness, or Europeanness, calls for coordinated efforts among the European institutions, national states, and NGOs. Such consciousness, a key pillar of the European integration, is necessary for the EU to effectively function and motivate member states' – also the EU's – citizens. And yet European institutions and EU governments show little interest in promoting the formation of this European consciousness. Pro-European social movements are weak, while anti-European ones gain strength. This désintéressement of the EU countries probably results from the conviction that the goal has been reached and that there is no more need for a widespread pro-European education of their societies. However analysis of the problem, and in particular of the interaction between European and national identities, shows that this is not the case. We fear that this lack of proactive measures mobilizing EU citizens to keep on struggling for a common Europe will lead to the erosion of existing achievements of integration within the EU, and undermine European values. It may threaten the future of the EU, which is not an ordinary integration grouping but a great peaceful, civilizational, social and economic project. Our hypothesis – positively verified in this article – is that the promotion of Europeanness in the EU societies is urgently needed to maintain the unity (and even membership) of the Union, and to avert trends unfavorable for all of Europe and therefore for the West as a whole. ; Powojenne doświadczenie wykazuje, że zaszczepienie świadomości europejskiej (poczucia europejskości) – to proces wymagający skoordynowanych działań systemu instytucji europejskich, państw narodowych i NGOs. A jest ona niezbędna dla sprawnego funkcjonowania UE i skutecznego motywowania obywateli państw członkowskich i zarazem UE. Stanowi kluczowy element poparcia integracji europejskiej. Tymczasem zainteresowanie instytucji unijnych i państw UE działaniami na rzecz tożsamości europejskiej jest nikłe, proeuropejskie ruchy społeczne słabną, a antyeuropejskie umacniają. Désintéressement państw UE w tej kwestii wynika z błędnego przekonania, że cel został już osiągnięty i nie ma potrzeby szerokiej proeuropejskiej edukacji ich społeczeństw. Wskazuje na to analiza problemu, w tym interakcji między tożsamością europejską a narodową. Obawiamy się, że brak proaktywnych przedsięwzięć, mobilizujących obywateli UE do walki o wspólną Europę, doprowadzi do erozji integracji w ramach Unii i zatracenia europejskich wartości i zagrozi przyszłości Unii, która nie jest zwyczajnym ugrupowaniem integracyjnym, lecz wielkim pokojowym, cywilizacyjnym i społeczno-gospodarczym projektem. Stąd nasza hipoteza, poddana weryfikacji w artykułu, o pilnej potrzebie energicznego krzewienia poczucia europejskości w społeczeństwach UE, aby utrzymać jedność (a nawet członkostwo) Unii i odwrócić niekorzystne – dla całej Europy i Zachodu – tendencje.

The postwar experience has shown that the implanting of European consciousness, or Europeanness, calls for coordinated efforts among the European institutions, national states, and NGOs. Such consciousness, a key pillar of the European integration, is necessary for the EU to effectively function and motivate member states' - also the EU's - citizens. And yet European institutions and EU governments show little interest in promoting the formation of this European consciousness. Pro-European social movements are weak, while anti- European ones gain strength. This désintéressement of the EU countries probably results from the conviction that the goal has been reached and that there is no more need for a widespread pro-European education of their societies. However analysis of the problem, and in particular of the interaction between European and national identities, shows that this is not the case. We fear that this lack of proactive measures mobilizing EU citizens to keep on struggling for a common Europe will lead to the erosion of existing achievements of integration within the EU, and undermine European values. It may threaten the future of the EU, which is not an ordinary integration grouping but a great peaceful, civilizational, social and economic project. Our hypothesis - positively verified in this article - is that the promotion of Europeanness in the EU societies is urgently needed to maintain the unity (and even membership) of the Union, and to avert trends unfavorable for all of Europe and therefore for the West as a whole.

Jusqu'à aujourd'hui, nous avons l'Union européenne sans les Européens. La majorité des citoyens de l'UE traite l'adhésion d'une manière instrumentale (Schengen, Erasmus, fonds européens, etc.). L'attachement à l'UE doit être établi et consolidé. Il va acquérir une importance clé si nous voulons que l'UE joue un rôle important et affirmé sur la scène internationale. En fait, l'UE attire des gens de l'extérieur et se soucie peu de son image auprès de ses propres habitants. De nombreux experts perçoivent ce problème en ce qui concerne l'avenir de l'UE. Une avancée pourrait peut-être venir d'un progrès dans le sens d'une union politique, comme aux États-Unis après la proclamation de l'indépendance, et simultanément d'une union sociale fondée sur des obligations communes qui découleraient de la citoyenneté européenne.

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT:

Purpose – The paper aims to clarify the relationship between the rise of the sovereign debt in the G20 and the relative underpayment of labor versus capital.

Design/methodology/approach – The historic analysis of successes and failures of demand management in the leading market economies. Provide data to support and illustrate the claims made in the paper.

Findings – The argument presented in the paper is that the root cause of the rapidly rising sovereign debt lies in the demand deficiency originating in the cumulative effect of lagging labor compensation relative to productivity gains. Developed market democracies desperately need policies to mend the failing social contract between labor and capital. The real solution of the debt is to address demand deficiency, increase labor participation and wages, or basically, introduce a new social contract between labor and capital.

Research limitations/implications – The detailed analysis of demand management policies would have to be country specific which goes beyond the scope of the paper.

Practical implications – The paper implies that G20 policies go into a wrong direction and increase the risk of chain debt defaults in the leading market economies.

Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified need to study the root cause of the demand deficiency syndrome and the need to introduce long term policies needed to restore growth in the market economies.