Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction: Public Debate in a Free Society -- PART ONE Models from a Mature Democracy -- Models from a Mature Democracy: Editors' Introduction -- 1 The Fifth Estate: Institutions for Extending Public Policy Debate in Emerging Democracies-Lessons from the American Experience -- 2 The American National Security Debate: Its Relevance for Emerging Democracies -- 3 Two Decades in the Front Office: Reflections on How the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Operated in Cold War Washington -- PART TWO Debate during Transitions to Democracy -- Debate during Transitions to Democracy: Editors' Introduction -- 4 Democratic Citizens in Wild Markets: Menem's Neoliberal Experiment in Argentina -- 5 PARTICIPA "Lobbies" for Democracy -- 6 Hope and Anguish: Prospects for Political Pluralism in Post-Ceausescu Romania -- 7 The Opening of Public Debate on Economic Policy in Bulgaria -- PART THREE Areas of Public Policy Debate -- Areas of Public Policy Debate: Editors' Introduction -- 8 The Czechoslovakian Divorce: "Velvet" Settlement or Muted Coexistence? -- 9 Public Debate on Poverty in Hungary since the 1960s -- 10 Economic Policy in Public Debate: A Romanian Perspective -- 11 Decentralization as a Tool for Democratic Consolidation: The Brazilian Challenge -- 12 Environmental Politics and Policy in Bulgaria: Challenges and Constraints to Democratization -- PART FOUR Institutions That Foster Debate -- Institutions That Foster Debate: Editors' Introduction -- 13 Democracy and Institution Building in Mexico: A Case Study -- 14 The Role of the Press in the Democratization of Poland -- 15 Academies of Science in Emerging Democracies -- 16 The Role of the Intelligentsia as a Political Elite in Czechoslovakia.

Walter Lippmann was the most distinguished American journalist and public philosopher of the twentieth century. But he was also something more: a public economist who helped millions of ordinary citizens make sense of the most devastating economic depression in history. Craufurd Goodwin offers a new perspective from which to view this celebrated but only partly understood icon of American letters. From 1931 to 1946 Lippmann pursued a far-ranging correspondence with leading economic thinkers: John Maynard Keynes, Lionel Robbins, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Simons, Adolf Berle, Frank Taussig, and others. Sifting through their divergent views, Lippmann formed his own ideas about economic policy during the Great Depression and shared them with a vast readership in his syndicated column, Today and Tomorrow. Unemployment, monetary and fiscal policy, and the merits and drawbacks of free markets were just a few of the issues he helped explain to the public, at a time when professional economists who were also skilled at translating abstract concepts for a lay audience had yet to come on the scene. After World War II Lippmann focused on foreign affairs but revisited economic policy when he saw threats to liberal democracy. In addition to pointing out the significance of the Marshall Plan and the World Bank, he addressed the emerging challenge of inflation and what he called "the riddle of the Sphinx": whether price stability and full employment could be achieved in an economy with strong unions

This article explores the interactions between the disciplines of economics and psychology as they emerged from the mother discipline of philosophy and moved into the twentieth century. Some of the early contributors who are examined include Simon Nelson Patten, William McDougall, William James, Thorstein Veblen, and Rexford Tugwell. Vigorous controversies took place over instinct theory, marginal utility, and behaviorism. Attention to the confluence of the two disciplines was stimulated by concerns over human relations during World War I, the success of propaganda, and mounting political instability. Among economists, American institutionalists were most attracted to psychology, notably Wesley Clair Mitchell and John Maurice Clark. Herbert Davenport, Thomas Nixon Carver, and Frank Knight were among the critics. It is suggested that the cultural context of America may explain some of the resistance to psychology in economics. Tensions were reduced when psychology moved to the subdisciplines of economics, especially those in business schools.

Some novelists in the nineteenth century, for example Harriet Martineau and Charles Dickens, used fiction to illustrate the economic behavior postulated by the early political economists and their critics. "Realist" novelists later in this century and into the twentieth examined aspects of the economy as background for their storytelling. This essay looks at the work of two realist novelists who observed economic circumstances in their time with unusual subtlety and perception. Frank Norris in The Octopus, influenced perhaps by Thorstein Veblen, described western expansion in the United States on the new farms and ranches, driven by the railways. Then he examined the Chicago commodities exchange in The Pit as a manifestation of the new global economy. E.M. Forster, a friend of John Maynard Keynes, focused in Howards End on the hazards of unemployment and destruction of the environment in a modern market economy. In Passage to India he demonstrated that the notion of empire and of the white man's burden was obsolete. Neither of these novelists saw himself as a contributor to economics, but both contributed to the popular understanding of the economy.

The Bloomsbury group was a multidisciplinary association of friends who came together early in the twentieth century. It contained John Maynard Keynes and others who had an interest in economic questions, including the art critic Roger Fry, the novelists Virginia Woolf and E. M. Forster, and the man of letters Leonard Woolf. The group had little formal organization but cooperated in various ways and resembled in some respects a pioneering think tank. They rejoiced in intellectual and artistic radicalism. They had fans and critics in Britain and elsewhere. They collaborated through Fry's Omega Workshops, the Woolfs' Hogarth Press, Keynes's magazine the Nation, and the Contemporary Art Society. They rejected the teachings of Jeremy Bentham and looked for enlightenment to modern psychology and biography. In their search for "civilization" they discussed how to achieve peace and economic progress through a new world order, how to sustain the arts in an advanced market economy, how to improve the position of women and minorities, and how to protect the environment. They were influenced by many thinkers including the American institutionalists.

Early in the 18th century, before the birth of political economy as a discipline, two of the earliest novels in the English language were published: Robinson Crusoe (1719) by writer and economic entrepreneur Daniel Defoe, and Gulliver's Travels (1726) by the cleric and political adviser Jonathan Swift. The first was widely perceived as an entertaining adventure story, the latter as a pioneering work of science fiction. Both contain indirect comment on the foreign policy of Britain at the time. When viewed from the perspective of the modern economist, however, the works appear to be expressions of opposing positions on the desirability of a nation pursuing integration within a world economy. Crusoe demonstrated the gains from international trade and colonization and even the attendant social and political benefits. He explores the instinct to trade overseas, stages of growth, and the need for careful cost-benefit calculations. By contrast Swift warned of the complex entanglements that would arise from globalization, especially with foreign leaders who operated from theory and models rather than common sense. He makes a case for economic autarky.

It has always been a puzzle why nineteenth century political economists were quite so gloomy. Why did they picture economic actors as motivated so single-mindedly by self-interest? Why did they see ahead the negative effects of diminishing returns, especially falling profit rates and rising rent shares, while all around them the evidence was pointing in the other direction? Why did they go on about the stationary state at a time when technical change was everywhere the norm? This gloom was hardly foreshadowed by the eighteenth century founders of political economy—Hume, Smith, and the Physiocrats (although for a contrary view see Robert Heilbroner 1973). It seems to have begun with Malthus and Ricardo, but it remained strong in the marginalist economists as well. Alfred Marshall and his followers rested their case for the necessity of careful marginal allocation of resources, and the intolerability of the costs imposed by trade unions and other rent seekers, on the ground that there were just not enough goods and services to go around. The notion of scarcity legitimized gloom.