Suchergebnisse

The book is devoted to a theoretical and econometric analysis of structural unemployment by making use of the Beveridge curve, i. e., the relationship between unemployment and vacancies. It is investigated to what extent various kinds of inflexibilities such as a higher regional and qualifications mismatch between labor supplied and demanded and an increasedchoosiness of employers and job seekers can contribute to an explanation forthe high and persistent unemployment in the eighties. Based on theoretical foundations the studies marshall the empirical evidence for or against the mismatch hypotheses and give a critical assessment of theBeveridge curve. Moreover, policy implications and recommendations are discussed at some length

AbstractIt is commonly claimed that workers in sweatshops are wrongfully exploited by their employers. The economist's standard response to this claim is to point out that sweatshops provide their workers with tremendous benefits, more than most workers elsewhere in the economy receive and more than most of those who complain about sweatshop exploitation provide. Perhaps, though, the wrongfulness of sweatshop exploitation is to be found not in the discrete interaction between a sweatshop and its employees, but in the unjust political and economic institutions against which that interaction takes place. This paper tries to assess what role, if any, consideration of background injustice should play in the correct understanding of exploitation. Its answer, in brief, is that it should play fairly little. Structural injustice matters, of course, but it does not typically matter for determining whether a sweatshop is acting exploitatively, and it does not typically matter in a way that grounds any kind of special moral responsibility or fault on the part of sweatshops or the Multinational Enterprises with which they contract.

THE SWEEPING TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALISM HAS CHANGED THE ORGANIC COMPOSITION OF CAPITAL IN ALL OF ITS ASPECTS. THIS ARTICLE OFFERS A REDEFINITION OF LABOR, AND THEN EXPLORES THE NEW WORK DISCIPLINES, SOCIAL CLASSES, THE STATE, AND CULTURE. THE TRANSFIGURATIONS OF CAPITALISM IN LATIN AMERICA, CHANGES IN THE 1980S, SOCIAL TRAUMAS, STRUCTURAL INCOMPETENCE, THE NEW DIVISION OF CAPITALIST RELATIONS, AND, THE NEW PLATFORM OF WOR D COMPETITION ARE EACH EXAMINED. THE CHAPTER CONCLUDES WITH AN EXAMINATION OF IMMINENT CHANGES IN LATIN AMERICA AND RELFLECTIONS IN HOPE OF FUNDAMENTALS.

After an initial period of feminist theorizing concerned with understanding patriarchy as a structure of male domination, many thinkers turned away from theorizing domination as such and focused instead on women's (constructed) subjectivity, identity, and agency. While this has fostered important insights into the formation of women's preferences, desires, and choices, this focus on subjectivity and subject formation has largely overshadowed deeper understandings of patriarchy as a structure of male domination while producing elisions between agency and freedom. In this article, I move to show how domination as a structural concept can help us to reclaim the idea of 'patriarchy' as a source of women's systematic oppression while freedom as non-domination, derived from early republican conceptualizations of freedom, can help us to disambiguate freedom from agency by taking as central the relative positions of actors within social and political structures. Structural freedom as non-domination is thus useful for feminist thinkers in that it gives us critical purchase on the dynamics inherent in unequal social and political relationships and can be linked clearly to the institutions and ideologies that shape and justify interactions between more powerful and less powerful groups. Further, from this point of view intersecting structures of domination can be analysed rather than intersecting identity categories, allowing us to take intersectionality into account and avoiding the need to ground feminist action on a unitary 'category woman'. Finally, this analysis points toward the radical democratic connexion between freedom and participation in the creation of the material and symbolic structures that frame our collective lives.

A key factor for a stable and solid development is the gain in labor productivity. The regions that manage to pull out of poverty and improve the living standards of their inhabitants, in fact, need to be able to diversify away from agriculture and other traditional sectors. In doing this, the speed with which labour and other resources move to modern economic activities is the key factor that differentiates successful regions from unsuccessful ones. In the paper productivity growth is decomposed in two parts: the ?within? and the ?structural? variation. The first denotes the variation of productivity due exclusively to a change inside individual sectors (employment is kept unaltered) while the second term captures the productivity effect of labour reallocations across different sectors. It is essentially the inner product of productivity levels (at the end of the time period) with the change in employment shares across sectors. When changes in employment shares are positively correlated with productivity levels, this term will be positive, and structural change will increase economy-wide productivity growth. The spatial distribution of ?within? and ?structural? variation gives an interpretation of the spatial patterns that characterize European productivity growth and its sustainability in the long run. In the second part of the paper, to assess what are the impacts of the variables that play a role on ?structural? and ?within? variation, a cross-sectional growth regression model is used. At this regard, it is conceivable that the growth of productivity, and of its two components, depends on own region as well as neighbouring region characteristics, on the spatial connectivity structure of the regions, and on the strength of spatial dependence. In order to take account all these aspects in the analysis, a spatial Durbin model is adopted. This spatial econometric model allows also to solve both the problem of spatial dependence in the residuals and of omitted explanatory variables. Furthermore it includes both spatially lagged dependent and independent variables and allows to accounts for spatial spillover effects: a change in a single explanatory variable in a certain region has a ?direct impact? on that region as well an ?indirect impact? on other regions due to the spatial connectivity relationships. Finally regarding the conditioning variables included in the regression model, emphasis is put on the Structural Funds and on an institutional regional quality indicator. Assessing their roles on structural change is essential to develop politics able to use the full potential of the Structural Funds.

ABSTRACTDevelopment economics appears to have come full circle, as interest in and concern for industrialization have made a comeback, echoing major concerns of the early development economists. However, when it comes to the practice of industrialization strategy and industrial policy, the default recommendation is still the market and static comparative advantage — the main task of governments, in the new view, is to impose institutional reforms and improve governance so as to allow markets to perform more efficiently. History is thus about to repeat itself, but this time as farce, because no country has managed to climb the industrial ladder just by 'getting prices and institutions right'. We have to re‐learn the old lessons of how to industrialize, learning from past mistakes and taking into account new challenges posed by today's global realities.