Suchergebnisse

"December 1998." ; Cover title. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

AbstractIt has recently been suggested that heterodox economics can benefit from an engagement with classical surplus theory. However, caution is often recommended due to the ideological concepts that are embedded in classical political economy. This article argues that many of the ideological concepts that are often attributed to classical political economy are actually not part of classical political economy, but rather of a "vulgar" form of political economy, a project that emerged after Ricardo. This vulgar project, often termed as "Ricardian economics," is often mistakenly taken to be a development of classical political economy, but it is actually a rupture with the classical political economy of Petty, Smith, and Ricardo, as Marx, and later Sraffa, argued. Once this is acknowledged, the relationship between classical political economy and heterodox economics becomes clearer.

This book probes the hollow rhetoric of debt, deficits and austerity. It explores the decisions of parties of the left which have attempted to deflect criticisms of economic mismanagement and gain trust by depoliticising the budget process and financial management with various rules, albeit with elements of discretion. The book argues that this is a perverse form of trust as it is premised on the belief that political leaders and the public sector cannot be trusted to make appropriate decisions given the economic circumstances of the time and need rules, but at the same time that they can be trusted to follow the rules. The book also explores parties of the right, which often advocate stricter rules and which tend to be the least effective. The book describes how few conservative governments have admirable records on sustained surpluses, given a propensity for unsustainable tax cuts, and the future opportunities this provides to advance a political program of deeper spending cuts. Scott Brenton is a political scientist in the Melbourne School of Government at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has previously worked at the Australian parliament and held teaching and visiting appointments at Australian, British and Scandinavian universities. He has published widely on issues of democratic accountability.

The article explores the question of appropriate development strategy for the so-called peripheral socialist countries using Ethiopia as an example. Based on the economics of surplus and the nature of industrialization in the late-socializing countries, the Ethiopian regime's "surplus squeeze" strategy is critically examined. It is shown that such a strategy is detrimental to the long-term generation of sizable economic surplus and the provisioning of basic needs. (DSE)