The Bichler and Nitzan Archives
Not a member yet
759 research outputs found
Sort by
Putting Power Back Into Growth Theory
No full text* Winner of the 2014 RECASP Essay Prize *
Neoclassical growth theory assumes that economic growth is an atomistic process in which changes in distribution play no role. Unfortunately, when this assumption is tested against real-world evidence, it is systematically violated. This paper argues that a reality-based growth theory must reject neoclassical principles in favour of a power-centered approach. Building on Nitzan and Bichler’s Capital as Power hypothesis, I argue that hierarchy formation is an integral part of the growth process. I hypothesize that the role of capital accumulation (through profit) is to facilitate hierarchy formation by legitimizing the authority of capitalists
The Empirics of the Labour Theory of Value: Reply to Nitzan and Bichler
Get PDFThe labor theory of value, originated in the classics and reformulated by Marx, has found support in numerous empirical works during the last thirty years. In many economies, sectors in monetary terms are highly correlated with them in terms of labor values. In his book Capital as Power (2009), and in a subsequent discussion online, Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler argue that such results are invalid because the calculations do not use labor value variables but two monetary variables are correlated. Nitzan and Bichler also argue that are spurious correlations by the presence of a third variable. This article refutes both critics and consequently reinforces the empirical support for the theory of labor value.
[For the original exchange, see: "Testing the Labour Theory of Value: An Exchange" here: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/
How Capitalists Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Crisis
No full textDo capitalists really want a recovery? Can they afford it?
On the face of it, the question sounds silly: of course capitalists want a recovery; how else can they prosper? According to the textbooks, both mainstream and heterodox, capital accumulation and economic growth are two sides of the same process. Accumulation generates growth and growth fuels accumulation, so it seems bootless to ask whether capitalists want growth. Growth is their lifeline, and the more of it, the better it is. Or is it?
In the United States, rising unemployment – which hammers the well-being of workers, unincorporated businesses and the unemployed – serves not to undermine but to boost the overall income share of capitalists. And as employment growth decelerates, the income share of the Top 1% – which includes the capitalists as well as their protective power belt – soars. Under these circumstances, what reason do capitalists have to ‘get the economy going’? Why worry about rising unemployment and zero job growth when these very processes serve to boost their income-share-read-power
The Enlightened Capitalist
No full textOn April 16, 2014, we published a short article in the Indian fortnightly Frontline, titled 'Profit from Crisis'. Scarcely had a day passed from the article’s publication that we got an angry email from an asset manager whom we'll call 'Mr. X'. Mr. X is an enlightened capitalist, and reading our piece had set him on fire. Our article, he protested, was 'terribly flawed'. It 'failed miserably' in understanding capitalism, and its allegation that capitalists do not want recovery is doing 'tremendous harm'. This note deconstructs Mr. X's protestations in the context of the current capitalist angst
LSE Public Event: Can Capitalists Afford Recovery? -- Video and Paper
No full textTheorists and policymakers from all directions and of all persuasions remain obsessed with the prospect of recovery. For mainstream economists, the key question is how to bring about such a recovery. For heterodox political economists, the main issue is whether sustained growth is possible to start with. But there is a prior question that nobody seems to ask: can capitalists afford recovery in the first place? If we think of capital not as means of production but as a mode of power, we find that accumulation thrives not on growth and investment, but on unemployment and stagnation. And if accumulation depends on crisis, why should capitalists want to see a recovery?
Video duration: 2:24 hour
Profiter de la crise : Pourquoi les capitalistes ne veulent pas d’une reprise, et ce que cela signifie pour les États-Unis
No full text[Traduit de l’anglais par Jean-Baptiste Bersac]
Pourrait-il être vrai que les capitalistes préfèrent la crise à la croissance ? À première vue, l’idée semble totalement idiote. Selon le B-A-BA de l’économie, tout le monde aime la croissance, particulièrement les capitalistes. Profit et croissance vont la main dans la main. Quand les capitalistes profitent, l’investissement réel augmente et l’économie réelle prospère, et lorsque l’économie fuse les profits des capitalistes s’envolent. La croissance est la voie des capitalistes.
Vraiment
Profit from Crisis: Why Capitalists Do Not Want Recovery, and What That Means for America (Reprint)
No full textCan it be true that capitalists prefer crisis to growth? On the face of it, the idea sounds silly. According to Economics 101, everyone loves growth, especially capitalists. Profit and growth go hand in hand. When capitalists profit, real investment rises and the economy thrives, and when the economy booms the profits of capitalists soar. Growth is the very lifeline of capitalists.
Or is it
Rethinking US Debt -- An Interview with Sandy Brian Hager
No full textU.S. debt is center stage of federal, state and local politics. For a deeper grasp of the nation’s indebtedness, and why that matters we turn to Sandy Brian Hager, a Fellow of International Political Economy in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He received his Ph.D. in 2013 from the Department of Political Science at York University in Toronto. His research examines the political economy of public debt, corporate taxation and financial regulation
The Ethanol Boom and the Restructuring of the Food Regime
No full textThe agrofuel boom has brought about some of the most significant transformations in the world food system in recent decades. A rich and diverse body of agrarian political economy research has emerged that elucidates the conflicts and redistributional shifts engendered by these transformations. However, hitherto, less attention has been given to differences within agri-food capital. This paper contributes to the existing literature on agrofuels, by showing how one cluster of agri-food corporations and farmers within the US have benefited from soaring ethanol production at the expense of another cluster. More specifically, by adopting the method of disaggregation found in the capital as power approach, I delineate and chart the power trajectories of two corporate-led distributional coalitions that have vied over the course taken by the US ethanol sector: the ‘Agro-Trader nexus’ and the ‘Animal Processor nexus’. My main finding is that the US ethanol boom has been a vector of redistribution: increasing the earnings of the Agro-Trader nexus and Corn Belt farmers while reducing the earnings of the Animal Processor nexus and livestock farmers outside of the Corn Belt. This finding points to the limits and contradictions of agrofuels capitalism and the acute tensions that exist at the heart of the corporate food regime
Can Capitalists Afford Recovery? Three Views on Economic Policy in Times of Crisis
No full textEconomic, financial and social commentators from all directions and of various persuasions are obsessed with the prospect of recovery. The world remains mired in a deep, prolonged crisis, and the key question seems to be how to get out of it. The purpose of our paper is to ask a very different question that few if any seem concerned with: can capitalists afford recovery in the first place? The article contextualizes and examines this question from the viewpoint of economic policy. The analysis is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the mainstream macroeconomic perspective. This approach claims to have already solved all the theoretical riddles, so the main emphasis here is on the practical question of how to engineer a recovery. The second part deals with the Marxist view. Marxists stress the inherent contradictions of accumulation, so the question for them is the very possibility of sustained growth. The third and final part takes the view of capital as power. Capitalized power hinges not on growth, but on strategic sabotage. So from this viewpoint, the key question is not how capitalists can achieve and sustain a recovery, but whether they can afford it to start with