Suchergebnisse

Attitudes towards international trade are remarkably polarised. Most mainstream economists advocate free trade as a mainstay of national and global prosperity. Meanwhile, many critics see it as the major cause of inequality and poverty. This polarisation is remarkable given the weakness of any systematic relationship between the propensity to trade and overall economic well-being and the practical infrequency of complete openness or autarchy. The dualism of trade theory is supported by, and reproduces, a conservative worldview which tends to obscure other more determinant aspects of political economy, and directs opposition to global capital into safe, nationalistic channels.

The article further investigates the relationship between returns to education and trade openness in developed and developing countries. It contests Babones' interpretation of the divergent experiences in terms of the greater credentialism associated with education in poorer countries. It identifies an alternative explanation based on classical trade theory which is at least as convincing. However, it further argues that the heterogeneity of labour markets is greater than either model suggests and that the characteristics of specific national and regional economies, rather than globalization, might be primarily responsible for the interesting statistical differences.

The centrality of social labor to Marxist epistemology and the need to understand relations between capitalist production, strictly defined, and incompletely marketized forms of work require a relatively broad concept of value. Not simply a theory of price, the utility of the concept of value lies precisely in its ability to mediate between understanding the abstract truths of labor's centrality to social life and the complex concreteness of the real world economy. The logical necessity and practical utility of the proposed interpretation is illustrated in relation to state and domestic labor. JEL classification: B51, B54, J01

Global companies have historically relied on stock options to compensate their workforce. Because of the fallout from recent corporate governance breakdowns, the use of corporate equity in compensation programs now faces new pressures. Furthermore, U.S. and international accounting changes will increase the cost of delivering stock options, forcing companies to rethink how they deliver equity-based compensation. Making these compensation delivery changes is especially challenging for global companies, which must consider a wide array of complex global and local issues before modifying the delivery approach. As companies respond to the changing accounting rules as well as shifting market conditions, they must resist making quick decisions relating to the implementation of equity-based compensation plans. Instead, new delivery approaches must be analyzed in the context of their global limitations and cultural effectiveness. Boardroom actions must be supported by input from the many organizational stakeholders who have responsibility for operating the plan and who will be held accountable for plan costs and effectiveness. With this input, these plans can be structured in a way that achieves a company's human resource and financial objectives.

The paper discusses claims that radical restructuring of capitalism in the late 20th century fundamentally changed class relations. It challenges abstract presentations of space & time transformation, in particular contesting the logic of generalized, asocial concepts of spatial compression. Changes in capital mobility are dynamic & contradictory processes & spatial & temporal transformations are experienced inherently uneven. Movements of capital are themselves made by workers. Moreover, the economic weight & social labor involved in transport & communications increased rather than decreased during the last two decades of the 20th century. The paper concretizes this critique, evaluating claims that the "national" scale & national systems of industrial relations became less important, through a preliminary investigation of data of levels of industrial action. It shows that even among key sectors of labor such as transport & communications workers, who might be thought especially implicated in global transformation, the significance of the national scale for labor activity shows no sign of diminishing. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

The paper discusses claims that radical restructuring of capitalism in the late 20th century fundamentally changed class relations. It challenges abstract presentations of space and time transformation, in particular contesting the logic of generalised, asocial concepts of spatial compression. Changes in capital mobility are dynamic and contradictory processes and spatial and temporal transformations are experienced inherently unevenly. Movements of capital are themselves made by workers. Moreover, the economic weight and social labour involved in transport and communications increased rather than decreased during the last two decades of the 20th century. The paper concretises this critique, evaluating claims that the "national" scale and national systems of industrial relations became less important, through a preliminary investigation of data of levels of industrial action. It shows that even amongst key sectors of labour such as transport and communications workers, who might be thought especially implicated in global transformation, the significance of the national scale for labour activity shows no sign of diminishing. (Original abstract)