Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies 

About: Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Population & Politics. It has an ISSN identifier of 0278-839X. Over the lifetime, 470 publications have been published receiving 9174 citations.

The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century

Abstract: The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century Thomas L. Friedman Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005 Thomas Friedman is a widely-acclaimed journalist, foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, and author of four best-selling books that include From Beirut to Jerusalem (1989). His eminence as a journalist is clearly demonstrated in the way he prepared for The World is Flat. He traveled throughout the world, interviewing in depth the political and business leaders who have the most direct, hands-on knowledge of the truly incredible developments occurring in the business structures and technology of globalization. Only a journalist who moves freely at the highest levels could interview the likes of Sir John Rose, the chief executive of Rolls-Royce; Nobuyuki Idei, the chairman of Sony; Richard Koo, the chief economist for the Nomura Research Institute; Bill Gates of Microsoft; Wee Theng Tan, the president of Intel China; David Baltimore, president of Caltech; Howard Schultz, founder and chairman of Starbucks; Nandan Nilekani, CEO of Infosys in Bangalore - and many others, each of whom gave him the inside story of how, specifically, the barriers of time and space separating economies, workforces, sources of capital, and technical abilities are crumbling. The result of this unfolding story, already far along but with much farther to go, according to Friedman, is that "the world is flat." With some notable exceptions in sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamic swathe, everything is connected with everything else on a horizontal basis, with distance and erstwhile time-lags no longer mattering. Friedman describes in detail the galloping globalization that has unfolded in even so limited a time as the past five years. Under the impetus of a worldwide network of interconnectivity, the world economy is much-changed from what it was at the turn of the century a mere half-decade ago. Friedman quotes the CEO of India's Infosys: "What happened over the last [few] years is that there was a massive investment in technology, especially in the bubble era, when hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in putting broadband connectivity around the world, undersea cables," while (Friedman paraphrases him) "computers became cheaper and dispersed all over the world, and there was an explosion of software - e-mail, search engines like Google, and proprietary software that can chop up any piece of work and send one part to Boston, one part to Bangalore, and one part to Beijing...." Microprocessors today have 410 million transistors compared to the 2800 they had in 1971. And now, "wireless is what will allow you to take everything that has been digitized, made virtual and personal, and do it from anywhere." The effect on productivity is revolutionary: "It now takes Boeing eleven days to build a 737, down from twenty-eight days just a few years ago. Boeing will build the next generation of planes in three days, because all the parts are computer-designed for assembly." The most strikingly informative aspect of this book, however, is not about technology. Most especially, Friedman explores the rapidly evolving global business systems, each constantly regenerating itself to keep ahead of the others. These are systems that span the continents seeking the lowest-cost providers of everything from expert scientific and engineering work to the lowliest grunt work. Friedman points out that India produces 70,000 accounting graduates each year - and that they are willing to start at $100 a month. It is no wonder that Boeing employs 800 Russian scientists and engineers for passenger-plane design when "a U.S. aeronautical engineer costs $120 per design hour, a Russian costs about one-third of that." Friedman describes a call center in India where outbound callers sell "everything from credit cards to phone minutes," while operators taking inbound calls do "everything from tracing lost luggage for U.S. and European airline passengers to solving computer problems for confused American consumers. …

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Abstract: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Jonathan Haidt Pantheon Books, 2012One has likely heard that, for the sake of decorum, religion and politics should never be topics of conversation with strangers. Even amongst friends or even when it is known that others hold opposing political or religious views, why is it that discussion of religion and politics leads to visceral-level acrimony and that one's views are right and the other's views are wrong? Professor Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia examines the psychological basis of our "righteous minds" without resorting to any of the pejorative labeling that is usually found in a book on politics and religion and eschews a purely comparative approach. Haidt proposes the intriguing hypothesis that our visceral reaction to competing ideologies is a subconscious, rather than leaned, reaction that evolved over human evolution to innate senses of suffering, fairness, cheating and disease, and that moral foundations facilitated intra-group cooperation which in turn conferred survival advantages over other groups. These psychological mechanisms are genetic in origin and not necessarily amenable to rational and voluntary control - this is in part the reason debating one's ideological opposite more often leads to frustration rather than understanding. Haidt also suggests that morality is based on six "psychological systems" or foundations (Moral Foundations Theory), similar to the hypothesized adaptive mental modules which evolved to solve specific problems of survival in the human ancestral environment.While decorum pleads for more civility, it would be better, as Haidt suggests, dragging the issue of partisan politics out into the open in order to understand it and work around our righteous minds. Haidt suggests a few methods by which the level of rhetoric in American politics can be reduced, such that the political parties can at least be cordial as they have been in the past and work together to solve truly pressing social problems.There are a number of fascinating points raised in the current book, but most intriguing is the one that morality, ideology and religion are products of group selection, as adaptations that increased individual cooperation and suppressed selfishness, thereby increasing individual loyalty to the group. That morality, political ideology and religion buttress group survival is probably highly intuitive. However, given the contemporary focus on the individual as the source of adaptations, to the exclusion of all else, to suggest that adaptations such as religion and political ideology arose to enhance survival of groups is heresy or, as Haidt recounts, "foolishness". While previous rejection of group selection itself was due in part to conceptual issues, one could also point out the prevailing individualist social sentiment, "selfish gene" mentality and unrelenting hostility against those who supported the view that group selection did indeed apply to humans and not just to insects. Haidt gives a lengthy and convincing defense of group selection, his main point being that humans can pursue self- interest at the same time they promote self-interest within a group setting - humans are "90 percent chimp, 10 percent bees". One can readily observe in the news and entertainment mediate that religion is a frequent target of derision, even within the scientific community - Haidt points to the strident contempt that the "New Atheists" hold for religion. They claim that religion is purely a by-product of an adaptive psychological trait and as a mere by-product religion serves no useful purpose. However, the religious "sense" has somehow managed to persist in the human psyche. One explanation by the New Atheists of how religion propagated itself is that it is a "parasite" or "virus" which latches onto a susceptible host and induces the host to "infect" others. As a "virus" or "parasite" that is merely interested in its own survival, religion causes people to perform behaviors that do not increase their own reproductive fitness and may even be detrimental to survival, but religion spreads nonetheless. …

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses

Abstract: Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa University of Chicago Press, 2011 This book has much to say that is perceptive about today's undergraduate higher education in the United States. It will be valuable to review the authors' insights. At the same time, it will be as instructive to note the book's weaknesses, and especially what is omitted from the discussion. It is a discussion that is truncated intellectually by the authors' close adherence to the selective awareness that so greatly typifies the mindscape of the contemporary American "establishment" in academia and throughout the commanding heights of American society. That mindscape allows a recognition of many things, but not of others. The authors are both faculty members at major American universities. Richard Arum is a sociology professor at New York University with a tie to the university's school of education. He is the author of several books on education and director of the Education Research Program sponsored by the Social Science Research Council. His co-author, Josipa Roksa, is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. That the book is published by the University of Chicago Press attests to its presumptive merit. Academically Adrift furnishes an example of something that has long been common in social science writing: a rather thin empirical study serving as the work's own contribution, combined with considerable additional material coming out of the literature on whatever subject is being explored. The function of the authors' own research is thus often to serve more or less as scientistic windowdressing. The reason we say the empiricism for this book is "thin" is that the "longitudinal data of 2,322 students," while seemingly ample, involves students spread over "a diverse range of campuses," including "liberal arts colleges and large research institutions, as well as a number of historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions," all "dispersed nationally across all four regions of the country." This must necessarily mean that the "sample" from any given institution or program was quite small. We are told that the authors didn't concern themselves with the appropriateness of each sample, but left the recruitment and retention of the sample's students to each of the respective institutions. The authors acknowledge that the study included fewer men than women, and more good students than those of "lower scholastic ability." So far as this book is concerned, however, the thinness doesn't particularly hurt the content, since so much of what is said doesn't especially depend upon anything unique found by the authors' own research. A brief summary is provided when the authors say that "we will highlight four core 'important lessons' from our research." These are that the institutions and students are "academically adrift" (which is the basis for the book's title), that students gain surprisingly little from their college experience, that there is "persistent and growing inequality" in the students' learning, and that "there is notable variation both within and across institutions" so far as "measurable differences in students' educational experiences" is concerned. Following the lead of former president Derek Bok of Harvard and of the Council for Aid to Education, the authors' ideal for higher education is that it will enhance students' "capacity for critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing." These are the three ingredients measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), which the authors value most among the various assessment tools. The CLA results, they say, show that "growing numbers of students are sent to college at increasingly higher costs, but for a large proportion of them the gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication are either exceedingly small or empirically nonexistent. …

Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy

Abstract: Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy Joseph E. Stiglitz W. W. Norton & Company, 2010 Joseph Stiglitz's Freefall is another excellent discussion of the global economic crisis, authored by a man who ranks high among the commentators. Stiglitz was the chief economist at the World Bank during the East Asian economic crisis in 1997-1998, and then chaired the United Nations commission that sought reforms for the global financial and monetary system. He was a member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. This is his fifth book. There seem to be a great many Nobel Prize winners in Economics (whose collective wisdom doesn't seem to have saved the world from its financial travails), but it would surely be amiss not to mention that Stiglitz is among them. This book testifies to his distinction in that select group. Because Freefall can hardly examine the crisis without covering much of the same ground as the other books we have reviewed, we will avoid repeating that analysis here. We prefer to focus on those aspects of Stiglitz's discussion that address unresolved issues or that most bring his own learning to bear: * His view of the plight in which today's "capitalism" finds itself. * What he says (and yet doesn't say) about the whirlpool of global finance. * His critique of the response that the U.S. Federal Reserve and government have made to the crisis, including what he thinks should have been done. * In connection with this critique, his reflections on the performance both of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations' actions through the end of 2009. * What reforms Stiglitz considers needed. His view of today's "capitalism." Although Stiglitz affirms "that markets lie at the heart of every successful economy" and is by no means anticapitalist, he shares the view that has come to be held by a great many thoughtful commentators that today's "capitalism" bears little resemblance to the competitive "private enterprise" that supporters of a market economy have long championed. He speaks of an "ersatz capitalism" that features a "corporate welfare state" driven by "blatant greed" and an ideology, sponsored by special interests, that has made a fetish of "self-regulating markets." "The current crisis has uncovered fundamental flaws in the capitalist system, or at least the peculiar version of capitalism that emerged in the latter part of the twentieth century in the United States." This realization is an intellectual earthquake. It should profoundly redirect the thinking of America's free-market enthusiasts, who will do their philosophy a great disservice if they insist on blind loyalty to the current system. We saw the same theme in our review of John Bogle's The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism,1 where we wrote that "in common with many others today, Bogle sees that the market system has become untracked - has 'lost its soul' - and needs much devoted attention (especially from capitalism's supporters...)." It is worth noting that Bogle saw the problem as societal, not just economic. "Our society is moving in the wrong direction," with "absurdities and inequities that we've come to accept" in a "wealth-oriented, things-fixated society" within which "the lure of money has overwhelmed the prestige of reputation." This suggests that even though national and international financial reforms are essential, they cannot appropriately be understood as a "quick fix" that will be sufficient to put things right. There needs to be deep concern for the systemic health of the society. What Stiglitz says (and doesn't say) about the multi-trillion dollar ocean of global finance. In our review of David Smick's The World is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy, 2 we found that "the risks Smick describes are so many and so palpable that any objective observer would be justified in considering them intolerable. …

Stocks for the Long Run

Abstract: Stocks for the Long Run Jeremy J. Siegel McGraw Hill, 1998 Jeremy Siegel has written a book that could have a great effect on the reader's wealth while challenging conventional academic views. It is written at the popular level but references the underlying academic articles (i.e. it is footnoted). Siegel is a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, so he is well qualified to draw on the academic literature. The basic message of the book is that stocks have been a wonderful long run investment, and can be expected to continue to be so. The emphasis is on the long run, because there is no doubt that stocks can be exceedingly risky in the short run. As an illustration of stocks' short-run risk, consider October 19, 1987, when the stock market dropped by 22.6% in one day (see Miller 1999 for a review of a book focusing on this episode). Because of the short-run riskiness of stocks, one who is saving for an event in the near future (such as the next vacation), runs a considerable risk of losing money. However, most saving is done not for such short-run purposes but for long-run purposes such as retirement, or to leave money to descendants. Siegel makes a convincing case that stocks are much better for such long-run purposes than either bonds or money market instruments. Bank deposits usually earn even less than money market instruments, and hence are also dominated by stocks. The textbooks I use in teaching finance present evidence that stocks have, on average, outperformed bonds since 1926. Siegel carries this evidence back to 1802, presenting data on the returns from stocks and bonds from 1802 to 1997. Over this long period stocks have had an average return of 8.4%, composed of price increases averaging 3.0%, and dividends averaging 5.4%. In contrast, long-term US government bonds have averaged 4.7%, and short-term US governments, 4.3%. This superiority of stocks held true for major subdivisions of the period studied also. Economists talk about the equity risk premium, the differential between stocks and bonds, which is usually interpreted as the reward to bearing the risks of equity. This of course varies tremendously year to year. Siegel plots a thirty-year running average of the equity risk premium. It is striking that it is virtually always well above 0% (the exceptions appear to be around 1841 and 1861, which are well over a century ago). Thus, for someone investing for the long run, it appears stocks virtually always exceed bonds in return. The riskiness of having stocks underperform bonds turns out to depend very much on the holding period. A fascinating graph (showing data from 1802 to 1997) shows the maximum and minimum real (i.e., inflation adjusted) annualized returns for various holding periods (p. 27). For short holding periods, there is the expected result that one can lose more money on stocks than on either bonds or T-bills, frighteningly more. The worst one-year return on stocks is -30.6% (the best is 66.6%). Incidentally, bonds prove to have appreciable risk over short periods also, with the worse bond performance being -21.9%, and the worst Treasury bill performance -15.6%. The bond and Treasury bill losses occur when high inflation lowers their real purchasing power. Bonds have this risk. In addition, they can experience large losses when interest rates rise unexpectedly, reducing their risk. That stocks are riskier than bonds, and bonds riskier than treasury bills (and bank deposits and other money market instruments) is standard textbook material. It is usually explained by investors disliking risk and being willing to incur higher risk only if rewarded with greater returns. Thus, investors should be willing to hold stocks only if promised much higher returns than bonds. However, most investors (especially those with large sums of money) have longer horizons than one year. However, the equity risk premium appears to shrink with holding periods. …