About: State capitalism is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 769 publications have been published within this topic receiving 12620 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
01 May 1973
TL;DR: O'Connor as discussed by the authors argued that the economic crisis of the U.S. is the result of the simultaneous growth of monopoly power and the state itself, and pointed out that the state can be seen as a form of economic exploitation and thus a problem for class analysis.
Abstract: Fiscal Crisis of the State refers to the tendency of government expenditures to outpace revenues in the U.S. in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but its relevance to other countries of the period and also in today's global economy is evident. When government expenditure constitutes a larger and larger share of total economy theorists who ignore the impact of the state budget do so at their own (and capitalism's) peril. This volume examines how changes in tax rates and tax structure used to regulate private economic activity. O'Connor theorizes that particular expenditures and programs and the budget as a whole can be understood only in terms of power relationships within the private economy. O'Connor's analysis includes an anatomy of American state capitalism, political power and budgetary control in the United States, social capital expenditures, social expenses of production, financing the budget, and the scope and limits of reform. He shows that the simultaneous growth of monopoly power and the state itself generate an increasingly severe social crisis. State monopolies indirectly determine the state budget by generating needs that the state must satisfy. The state administration organizes production as a result of a series of political decisions. Over time, there is a tendency for what O'Connor calls the social expenses of production to rise, and the state is increasingly compelled to socialize these expenses. The state has three ways to finance increased budgetary outlays: create state enterprises that produce social expenditures; issue debt and borrowing against further tax revenues; raise tax rates and introduce new taxes. None of these mechanisms are satisfactory. Neither the development of state enterprise nor the growth of state debt liberates the state from fiscal concerns. Similarly, tax finance is a form of economic exploitation and thus a problem for class analysis. O'Connor contends that the fiscal crisis of the capitalist state is the inev
TL;DR: In a period of severe crisis for the global capitalist system, state capitalism challenges free-market capitalism conceptually and practically: it offers an attractive alternative to leaders of emerging economies and it distorts capitalism's efficiency, thus undermining future recovery.
Abstract: Leaders of authoritarian governments have embraced the capitalist system not only in order to maximise economic performance in their countries but also with the aim of promoting their political goals and furthering their political dominance. This practice gave rise to the phenomenon of state capitalism. In a period of severe crisis for the global capitalist system, state capitalism challenges free-market capitalism conceptually and practically: it offers an attractive alternative to leaders of emerging economies and it distorts capitalism’s efficiency, thus undermining future recovery. Free-market states need to counter this double challenge by answering the call of smart regulation while practicing the tenets of free trade and open markets that they preach.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the interests driving capital account liberalization without a framework of regulation, the single most irresponsible act of public authorities in the whole crisis, and assesses the evidence.
Abstract: Interpretations of the Asian crisis have coalesced around two rival stories: the “death throes of Asian state capitalism” story about internal, real economy causes; and the “panic triggering debt deflation in a basically sound but under-regulated system” story that gives more role to external and financial system causes. The paper presents the stories and assesses the evidence. The evidence — in particular, the chronology of the crisis — supports the second rather better than the first. The paper discusses the interests driving capital account liberalization without a framework of regulation, the single most irresponsible act of public authorities in the whole crisis. US and UK financial firms, allied with their treasuries and with the IMF, the WTO, and the OECD, saw themselves at a chronic disadvantage in the Asian system of long-term relationships and patient capital. This alliance, supported by segments of Asian political and financial elites, achieved dramatic domestic financial sector liberalization and capital account opening in Asia over the 1990s, setting up the conditions for crisis. Paradoxically, the crisis may be looked back upon not as the triumph of benign globalization and neoliberal economic doctrine but as the beginning of its end.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyze the new varieties of state capitalism in the 21st century and explore their implications in terms of both strategic and governance outcomes, and discuss how the current theoretical perspectives conceptualize state-owned enterprises' strategic behavior.
Abstract: We analyze the new varieties of state capitalism in the 21st century and explore their implications in terms of both strategic and governance outcomes. We begin by discussing how the current theoretical perspectives conceptualize state-owned enterprises' strategic behavior. Then we introduce a stylized distinction between four broad, new varieties of state capitalism—wholly owned state-owned enterprises, the state as a majority investor, the state as a minority investor, and the state as a strategic supporter of specific sectors—and survey each type within the different theoretical perspectives. Last, we examine firm performance for each type of state capitalism relative to private firms and contingent on country-level institutional contingencies. This article contributes to existing debates on comparative capitalisms and the current role of the state.
TL;DR: The authors argued that there are still at least three types of market and managed capitalism in Europe: market, managed and state-enhanced market-and state-driven market-based economies.
Abstract: Rather than one or two varieties of capitalism, this paper argues that there are still at least three in Europe, following along lines of development from the three post-war models: market capitalism, characteristic of Britain; managed capitalism, typical of Germany; and state capitalism, epitomized by France. While France’s state capitalism has been transformed through market-oriented reforms, it has become neither market capitalist nor managed capitalist. Rather, it has moved from ‘state-led’ capitalism to a kind of ‘state-enhanced’ capitalism, in which the state still plays an active albeit much reduced role, where CEOs exercise much greater autonomy, and labour relations have become much more market-reliant.
Trending Questions (9)