Suchergebnisse

In the Bretton Woods era the controversy over cross-border use of national monies turned on how to create 'symmetries' and avoid significant 'asymmetries' in the way national currencies shared specific international currency functions. We examine the twentieth-century work of prominent economists on the nature, choice, and functions of international currencies. Prescriptive approaches to international currency formation are considered, beginning with the discussion of the Bretton Woods plans, followed by doctrinal developments stimulated by the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. Why are those developments instructive, given recent revisitation of the currency internationalization question in modern international monetary thought and policy? The modern revival of this question resembles a rehabilitation and restatement of earlier controversies, though it underestimates the gradual encroachment of the idea of international currency competition. This idea came to dominate other doctrines from the 1970s; it accommodates the ongoing adaptation of national currencies to the full range of international currency functions.

The case made for market-determined, flexible exchange rates by Princeton economist Frank D. Graham between the 1920s and the late 1940s is examined. It is argued that Graham's case embodied all essential elements of a monetary approach to exchange rates and the balance of payments. Exchange rates are monetary variables, and monetary policy strongly influences their movement. Contrary to received commentaries, Graham was the first twentieth-century economist to make a coherent case for flexible rates; he was an unappreciated forerunner of postwar, Chicago-based advocacy of flexible rates culminating in Friedman's 1953 classic. Graham's antipathy toward the Bretton Woods plans for exchange rates mirrored that of the Chicagoans. He advanced a liberal policy agenda including flexible exchange rates, capital mobility, rule-based independent monetary policies, and free trade. In the form of Frank Graham, Princeton was not far from Chicago.

AbstractWe examine brand building from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. Brand building is a neglected engine of capital formation, innovation and institutional change in market economies. The nature of brands and the service streams they generate have been construed too narrowly. Brands are capital: entrepreneurs use brands as market-making devices that create value and capture profit, while consumers use brands to derive psychic income and lifestyle benefits. Brands are building blocks that can be combined in production to fill perceived gaps in brand architectures and capital structures. These structures are themselves complex adaptive systems. In an era of digital technological platforms, complex generative networks are the institutional locus of brand creation and brand extensions. Innovation in brand building is a socially distributed, service-intensive and interpretive process; it entails combinatorial experiments in resource integration by heterogeneous and socially connected actors, such as entrepreneur-producers, end-users and distributors. Legal brand owners never have total control over their brands – customer networks often exercise substantial de facto control rights (economic property rights) over the use and transformation of brands. Both the entire branding system (as a form of organization) and individual iconic brands can crystallize into relatively stable institutions that orient and coordinate market behaviour.

Abstract:We undertake a close textual study of the entire corpus of Ludwig Lachmann's publications from 1936 to 1991 and demonstrate that his theory of entrepreneurial behaviour is sufficiently distinctive to warrant ranking alongside the theories of Schumpeter and Kirzner. Lachmann's entrepreneurs are creatively constructive change-agents who discover, exploit and create gaps in capital structures. Entrepreneurs select and interpret specific market and institutional phenomena using pre-existent rules and mental 'instruments', extract meaning about capital-forming opportunities, and generate all subsequent capital combinations. Lachmannian entrepreneurs are problem-solvers and communicate problem 'solutions' by dissolving and reforming capital combinations. We examine 20th-century Lachmannian research that builds on these foundations – research that emphasizes the institutional and material embeddedness of entrepreneurial behaviour and that appreciates the capacity of Lachmann's approach to explain entrepreneurial success, imitation and failure in a dynamic endogenous process. To underscore the distinctiveness of the Lachmannian entrepreneur, we compare it with Schumpeterian and Kirznerian approaches.

We examine various, sometimes divergent, conceptions of capital and its structure in the Austrian tradition from Menger (1871) to Lachmann (1956). We outline Menger's methodological and philosophical position that recommends investigating the morphology of capital—its shape, form, and structure; it also recommends maintaining some "realisticness" in the treatment of capital in economics. Prominent Austrian contributions are examined and compared along various dimensions: the existence or otherwise of "original" factors of production; time conceptions; analytical domain assumptions; real and money capital doctrines; the causal role of the entrepreneur in creating capital; and the fundamental question of capital aggregation into a stock or fund. We consider the extent to which Menger's avowed followers and successors diverged from his original vision of capital, subsequent consequences for the development of Austrian capital theory, and implications of Mengerian structural analysis for the study of capital more generally.