The Bichler and Nitzan Archives
Not a member yet
759 research outputs found
Sort by
An Open Source Update of the Buy-to-Build Indicator
Get PDFIn a past life I had access to expensive databases of corporate statistics, which I used to calculate the buy-to-build indicator for the United States from the 1880s until 2012. In short, the buy-to-build indicator shows how much corporations are spending on buying other corporations (that is, on mergers and acquisitions) relative to how much they are spending on new productive capacity (fixed capital formation). It gives an indication of whether corporations prefer to expand by buying or by building.
As I no longer have access to those expensive databases, I thought I should update the buy-to-build indicator using an open source. Fortunately, the Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions, and Alliances (IMAA) produces data on expenditure on mergers and acquisitions using those same expensive databases and makes them freely available. I have therefore used them to update my estimates to 2017
Análisis de conflictos y Relaciones Internacionales, una elaboración teórica de Sociología del Poder. Causas de la Guerra del Líbano de 2006
Get PDFSPANISH
Si observamos la literatura sobre la Guerra del Líbano del 2006, llama la atención la ausencia de un marco teórico claro en la mayoría de los análisis. Igualmente se perciben notables discrepancias en algo tan básico como las causas de la guerra y encontramos destacadas diferencias en la explicación de la conducta de los principales actores en conflicto. Probablemente, una de las causas de la ausencia de metodología o de marco teórico en los análisis de la guerra se halla en la dificultad de encontrar modelos teóricos adecuados para tal fin. El peso de distintas entidades subestatales (como el propio Hezbolá) y la complejidad de los sistemas sociopolíticos libanés e israelí, así como el fuerte impacto de las dinámicas que produce dicha complejidad en las decisiones de las élites políticas, desborda cualquier propuesta teórica de Relaciones Internacionales. En realidad nos encontramos frente a un remarcable problema a nivel teórico. Parece evidente que el objeto de estudio (una guerra que incumbe al menos a dos Estados) corresponde a la disciplina de las Relaciones Internacionales. Sin embargo, esta disciplina carece de herramientas operativas para el análisis en profundidad de sistemas de este nivel de complejidad que integran (lo que desde la propia disciplina se considera) distintos niveles de análisis interrelacionados entre ellos.
La Sociología del Poder en su momento ya surgió con la voluntad de ofrecer una propuesta teórica operativa que resolviera las lagunas y respondiera las cuestiones que desde otras perspectivas teóricas no tenían respuesta. Esta tesis, siguiendo los debates abiertos en Relaciones Internacionales y en el ámbito más amplio de las Ciencias Sociales, ofrece una base teórica ontológica a esta propuesta teórica. Esto nos ha permitido aclarar y definir major conceptos como actor, agente, recursos de poder y estructura, y explicar como interaccionan entre ellos. Asimismo consideramos que ello nos ha permitido superar críticas que se podrían haber formulado desde las Ciencias Sociales, mostrando que los agentes de esta propuesta no son “ahistóricos ” y proponiendo una solución al debate sobre la cuestión de su “rational choice”. Igualmente, el hecho de acercarnos al cuerpo teórico de la Sociología nos ha permitido incorporar conceptos de esta disciplina, notablemente provenientes de Bourdieu, como los recursos de poder simbólicos o el campo del poder, adaptándolos a nuestra propuesta.
Igualmente se desarrolla una propuesta específica para el análisis de conflictos internacionales. Manteniendo un diálogo con autores principalmente del ámbito de la Resolución de Conflictos, se propone una nueva metodología y nuevos conceptos teóricos basados en la Sociología del Poder para el análisis de conflictos internacionales. Esta elaboración teórica incluye una propuesta propia del concepto de conflicto, y desarrolla varios conceptos nuevos, como complejo conflictual, conflicto dominante, o recursos de poder disputados, que ayudan a desvelar dinámicas de los conflictos internacionales que hasta el momento pasaban fácilmente desapercibidas.
La aplicación de esta propuesta teórica a la Guerra del Líbano de 2006 permite desvelar las causas de este conflicto armado y establecer que, a diferencia de lo que indicaban los análisis precedentes, las dinámicas de competición para la acumulación diferencial de poder entre las élites dentro de cada uno de los Estados son la causa del estallido de la Guerra del Líbano del 2006. Dicho de otro modo, lo que lleva a los principales actores hacia la Guerra no es la confrontación con el que será su adversario durante el conflicto armado, sino las dinámicas de conflicto internas en cada uno de estos Estados.
Asimismo, el estudio nos desvela, tanto a nivel teórico como en el estudio de caso, dinámicas que dificultan la resolución de los complejos conflictuales, explicando su perduración en el tiempo. A modo de ejemplo vemos la convergencia de intereses y las sinergias entre actores de distintos países que supuestamente están enfrentados, pero que salen beneficiados de la conflictividad entre ellos: no sólo justifican sus discursos mutuamente, como se había podido señalar hasta ahora, sino que incluso comparten los mismos objetivos e intereses en el campo del poder, defendiendo con sus acciones el valor de los recursos de poder que ambos disponen. Es decir, los distintos actores (supuestamente enfrentados) producen sinergias para defender la importancia que tienen, en el sistema estudiado, recursos de poder como el prestigio ganado a través de acciones bélicas, la ideología militarista, o la propia capacidad militar como recurso material. Sin las acciones del adversario, estos recursos de poder se irían devaluando progresivamente con el tiempo.
ENGLISH
If we look at the literature on the 2006 Lebanon War, the absence of a clear theoretical framework in most analyses is noteworthy. In addition, there are notable disagreements on the causes of the war and outstanding differences in the explanation of the behaviour of the main actors involved in the conflict. One of the causes of the absence of methodology or theoretical framework for the analysis of the war probably lies in the difficulty of finding suitable theoretical models to this purpose. The weight of different sub-state entities (such as Hezbollah itself) and the complexity of the Lebanese and Israeli sociopolitical systems, as well as the strong impact of the dynamics produced by this complexity on the decisions of the political elites, go beyond any theoretical proposal of International Relations. We are facing a remarkable problem at the theoretical level. Indeed, it seems clear that the subject of study (a war that concerns at least two States) belongs to the discipline of International Relations. However, this discipline lacks operational tools to perform an in-depth analysis of systems with such level of complexity, systems that integrate (what from the International relations discipline itself are considered) different levels of analysis interrelated among themselves.
The Sociology of Power emerged from the desire to offer an operational theoretical proposal that would bridge these analysis gaps. Following open debates in International Relations and more broadly in Social Sciences, this thesis offers an ontological theoretical basis to this theoretical proposal. Based upon this work, we were able to clarify and better define concepts such as actor, agent, resources of power and structure, and to explain how they interact with each other. We also consider that this enabled us to overcome criticisms that could have come from the Social Science disciplines, by showing that according to this proposal, the agents are not “ahistorical”, and by suggesting a solution to the debate on the question of their “rational choice”. Likewise, approaching the theoretical body of Sociology has enabled us to incorporate concepts originating from this discipline, notably from Bourdieu's work, such as symbolic power resources or the field of power, adapting them to our proposal.
In addition, a specific proposal for the analysis of international conflicts is developed. Through a dialogue with authors belonging mainly to the field of Conflict Resolution, we propose a new methodology and new theoretical concepts for the analysis of international conflicts based on the Sociology of Power. This theoretical work includes a proposal of definition of conflict, and the development of several new concepts, such as conflictual complex, dominant conflict, or disputed power resources, which help reveal certain dynamics of international conflicts that until now were easily overlooked.
The application of this theoretical proposal to the 2006 Lebanon War sheds a new light on the causes of this armed conflict. This work establishes that, unlike what had been found in previous analyses, the dynamics of the competition for differential accumulation of power between the elites within each State are the cause of the outbreak of the war. In other words, what leads the main actors to go to war is not the confrontation with who will be their adversary during the armed conflict, but the internal dynamics of conflict in each State.
The study identifies, both in the theoretical part and in the case study, dynamics that hinder the resolution of conflictual complexes, explaining their durability over time. As an example, we observe convergence of interests and synergies between actors from different countries that are supposedly at odds, but who benefit from the conflict: they not only mutually justify their discourse, as it had been pointed out so far, but they even share the same objectives and interests in the field of power, defending through their actions the value of the resources of power that they possess over the other resources. That is, the different actors (supposedly confronted) produce synergies to defend the importance that, in the given system, some resources of power have, such as prestige gained through military actions, militarist ideology, or military capacity as a material resource. Without the actions of the adversary, these resources of power would be progressively devalued over time
Trump's Trade Wars Threaten US Foreign Investment
Get PDFThere is a lot of buzz about Trump’s recently launched trade wars, but much of this buzz misses the point. The key issue here is not foreign trade, but foreign investment
A Hierarchy Model of Income Distribution
Get PDFBased on worldly experience, most people would agree that firms are hierarchically organized, and that pay tends to increase as one moves up the hierarchy. But how this hierarchical structure affects income distribution has not been widely studied. To remedy this situation, this paper presents a new model of income distribution that explores the effects of social hierarchy. This ‘hierarchy model’ takes the limited available evidence on the structure of firm hierarchies and generalizes it to create a large-scale simulation of the hierarchical structure of the United States economy. Using this model, I conduct the first quantitative investigation of hierarchy’s effect on income distribution. I find that hierarchy plays a dominant role in shaping the tail of US income distribution. The model suggests that hierarchy is responsible for generating the power-law scaling of top incomes. Moreover, I find that hierarchy can be used to unify the study of personal and functional income distribution, as well as to understand historical trends in income inequality
The Autocatalytic Sprawl of Pseudorational Mastery (version 0.12)
Get PDFAccording to Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan capital is not an economic quantity but a mode of power; it could be sumarized as: “Capital is power quantified in monetary terms”. So, what do we do when we “quantify”? What is the nature of “money” in a capitalist society? And, indeed, what is “power” in the first place?
In the following I will try to develop a concept of power as the ability of persons to create particular formations. The kind of formations persons can think of depends on the society a person lives in, which can be identified by what Cornelius Castoriadis called its social imaginary significations (SIS). The core SIS of capitalism is rational mastery operating with computational rationality. Computational rationality in turn rest on a particular understanding of how signification works: operational symbolism, as theories by Sybille Krämer (following Leibniz). When the concept of the SIS of modern rationality was developed in the 1950s and 60s, bureaucracy was seen as its main organisational mode or rational mastery. I will argue that capitalisation and bureaucratisation are the two modes of rational mastery which interact with each other. The paper concludes with deliberations on the future of rational mastery and the possibility of “ways out”
Economics from the Top Down: Does Hierarchy Unify Economic Theory?
Get PDFWhat is the unit of analysis in economics? The prevailing orthodoxy in mainstream economic theory is that the individual is the ‘ultimate’ unit of analysis. The implicit goal of mainstream economics is to root macro-level social structure in the micro-level actions of individuals. But there is a simple problem with this approach: our knowledge of human behavior is hopelessly inadequate for the task at hand. Faced with real-world complexities, economists are forced to make bold (and seldom tested) assumptions about human behavior in order to make models tractable. The result is theory that has little to do with the real world.
This dissertation investigates an alternative approach to economics that I call ‘economics from the top down’. This approach begins with the following question: what happens when we take the analytical focus off individuals and put it into social hierarchy? The effect of this analytical shift is that we are forced to deal with the realities of concentrated power. The focus on hierarchy leads to some surprising discoveries. First, I find evidence that hierarchical organization has a biophysical basis. I show that institution size (firms and governments) is strongly correlated with rates of energy consumption, and that the growth of institutions can be interpreted as the growth of social hierarchy. Second, I find that hierarchy plays an important role in shaping income and income distribution. I find that income scales strongly with hierarchical power (defined as the number of subordinates under one’s control), and that hierarchical power affects income more strongly than any other factor measured. Lastly, using an empirically informed model of the hierarchical structure of US firms, I find that hierarchy plays a dominant role in shaping the income distribution tail.
These results hint that hierarchy can be used to unify the study of economic growth (understood in biophysical terms) and income distribution. I conclude by making the first prediction of how the concentration of hierarchical power should relate to the growth of energy consumption. This prediction sheds new light on the origin of inequality. While this ‘top down’ approach to economics is in its infancy, the results are encouraging. Focusing on hierarchy gives fresh insight into many of the important questions facing society—insight that cannot be obtained by focusing on individuals
Arms and Oil in the Middle East: A Biography of Research
Get PDFThis essay interweaves two stories—one theoretical and empirical, the other autobiographical. The first story embeds the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the broader political economy of the Middle East and the global accumulation of “capital as power.” The second story narrates the authors’ personal journey to uncover, theorize, and research this enfoldment. The essay explores and contextualizes the misleading duality of politics and economics; the link between military spending, finance, and stagflation; the concepts of “dominant capital” and “differential accumulation” and their evolution through “breadth” and “depth”; the manner in which these concepts and processes inform the political economy of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and the ways in which they help identify the key role of the Weapondollar-Petrodollar Coalition and predict the periodic eruption of Middle East “energy conflicts.” In their explorations, the authors have encountered numerous gatekeepers who tried to derail their research as well as a few open-minded editors who sought to promote it, and it is probably fair to say that, dialectically, they have benefited from both.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2018.153443
Capital as Power @ Historical Materialism 2018: Panel Series at The Great Transition Conference, Montreal, May 17-20, 2018
Get PDFThe Forum on Capital as Power presents a panel series at the Montreal 2018 Great Transition Conference, May 17-20. The panels include the following papers:
1. ‘What is Capital as Power?’
Shimshon Bichler, Israel and Jonathan Nitzan, Canada
2. ‘Capitalization, Capital Goods and the State of Capital: The Boundaries of Accumulation’
DT Cochrane, Ryerson University
3. ‘Financial Derivatives or the Autocatalytic Sprawl of Pseudorational Capitalist Power’
Ulf Martin, Germany
4. ‘Uneven and Combined Confusion: On the Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism and the Rise of the West’
Tim Di Muzio, University of Wollongong and Matthew Dow, York University
5. ‘Energy and Institution Size’
Blair Fix, York University
6. ‘Growing through Sabotage: Energizing Hierarchical Power’
Shimshon Bichler, Israel and Jonathan Nitzan, Canada
7. ‘Is the Power of Mass Culture Profitable?’
James McMahon, University of Toronto
8. ‘Trump's Corporate Tax Reform: What's Power Got to Do with It?’
Sandy Hager, City, University of London
9. ‘Theorizing Income-Wealth Inequality Data – a CasP Approach’
Max Grubman, Tel Aviv Universit
On Literature and Research: An Arabesque (על ספרות ומחקר: ערבסקה)
Get PDFהדברים הבאים נכתבו ב-2007 כטיוטה שטרם נסתיימה. במקורם, הם היו אמורים להיות ראשיתו של מאמר שיתאר את סופרי "המלחמה הגדולה", מלחמת-העולם הראשונה, אלה שכתבו עליה כחיילים, כנפגעים, כפליטים או כמשקיפים. אלא שהמאמר הלך והסתלסל ויצא לדרכים חדשות עד שקיבל חיים משלו. מכל מקום, הוא לא נכתב כסקירה אקדמית בעלת יומרות תיאורטיות, אלא כמעגלי זרימה מתחברים, ערבסקות של מחשבות וצלליות חומקות המשתלבות למבנה רופף שמתגלה ונעלם. העבודה על המאמר, שהיה אמור להיות רחב בהיקפו, לא הסתיימה, וכנראה לא נשוב אליו עוד. ואף על פי כן מצאנו עניין בפרסומו כפי שהוא בתוספת כמה הבהרות והערו
Remembering Allen Fenichel, 1936-2018
Get PDFI met Allen in September of 1980. He was 44, I was 24. I had just arrived in Montreal to begin my economics degree at McGill and was ready to ‘take on’ the economists. It was the first session of the first course of the program ‘Introduction to Economics’, which was to be taught by Professor Fenichel to an audience of 300 students. Although I didn’t know much economics, I considered myself ‘critical’. I walked into the auditorium fully expecting McGill’s Economics faculty to be gatekeepers of capitalism and conservative apostles of ‘neoclassical economics’ – and I had made it my mission to debunk their dogma. But I was quickly disappointed