Showing papers on "Veblen good published in 1997"

Institutional Economics Revisited

Abstract: Shigeto Tsuru is one of Japan's most respected senior economists. In these lectures, he provides a reappraisal of institutionalism as a school of thought and discusses its relevance for the issues which the economic profession today must tackle. Tsuru reconsiders Marxian political economy as an 'institutionalist school', which provides a context for the following discussion of J. M. Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen. He goes on to present the four key elements of modern institutionalism - i.e., the open-system character of the economy; the problem of planning; the evolutionary process of modern economics; and the normative character of economics - by way of an examination of three present-day institutionalists, Gunnar Myrdal, John K. Galbraith, and K. William Kapp. Tsuru concludes with an evaluation of modern institutionalism and the future of institutional economics.

From Private to State Capitalism: How the Permanent War Economy Transformed the Institutions of American Capitalism: Remarks Upon Receiving the Veblen-Commons Award

Abstract: (1997). From Private to State Capitalism: How the Permanent War Economy Transformed the Institutions of American Capitalism. Journal of Economic Issues: Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 311-332.

Toward a Culture-Conception of Technology

Abstract: A clear and non-controversial definition of what is often called "the Veblenian dichotomy" has continued to elude modern institutional economists. This is odd and a matter of concern given that some have argued that this dichotomy is the distinguishing characteristic of institutionalism [Munkirs 1988, 1043; Waller 1982, 752]. My contention in this paper is that the barrier to a clear conception is to be found in an issue that plagued the work of Clarence Ayres, who is arguably the dominant figure in institutional economics in the World War II era. Ayres passed the problem on to succeeding institutionalists without resolving it, and subsequent "solutions" have failed as well. Put briefly, the issue is this: Ayres interpreted the distinction that Veblen drew between "the industrial" and "the pecuniary" as a contrast between "the technological" (or instrumental) and the "ceremonial" (or institutional). However, Ayres's conception of this distinction was neither consistent nor always clear. The conception of technology offered by Ayres apparently evolved over time.2 Culture, as the primary explanation of human behavior, was divided by Ayres into two parts: the material and the nonmaterial. He did not include all of material cul-

Veblen and Technical Efficiency

Abstract: It is well known that Thorstein Veblen accused the turn-of-the-century captains of industry of sabotage. What is not so well known is that, for Veblen, sabotage was not simply a pejorative term. By sabotage, he meant a "conscientious withdrawal of efficiency" [Veblen 1990a, 38]. But efficiency, as both Veblen and a number of the engineers of his time used the term, was not the now-standard microeconomic efficiency represented by the minimum point on a U-shaped long-run average total cost curve. Veblen espoused a "technical," rather than a cost-based, definition of efficiency. The difference between these two views of efficiency can best be understood by focusing on some of the early engineers-in particular the early Tayloritesfrom whom Veblen borrowed heavily and who were in turn influenced greatly by Veblen in their own thinking about efficiency.

Veblen's critique of Marx's philosophical preconceptions of political economy

Abstract: This paper explores some of the theoretical linkages between Thorstein Veblen and Karl Marx. Special reference is placed Veblen's criticisms of Marx and the Marxist tradition for adhering to the preconceptions of (a) the natural right of labour to the full product, and (b) the teleology of conscious agents directing action towards change. Veblen was incorrect to believe that Marx adhered to the natural right of labour thesis, but he was correct to assert that Marx utilized undesirable teleologies. Overall, however, Veblen was attempting to reformulate and modernise the materialistic conception of history through an evolutionary analysis of institutions. The two thinkers complement each other in important ways, although Veblen's analysis is more evolutionary, collectivist and holistic.

Prelude to a theory of homo absurdus: variations on themes from Thorstein Veblen and Jean Baudrillard

Abstract: Homo absurdus refers to an economic character who differs markedly from the leading characters in both orthodox and Marxist interpretations of economic life. The social and psychological characteristics of absurdus are drawn from Thorstein Veblen's ironical and existential insights into business culture. In particular, the article shows how Veblen uses irony to describe and explore the type of despair that results from a dichotomy between industrial and pecuniary practices and frames the experience of absurdity in this culture. Jean Baudrillard's critique of Marxism in The Mirror of Production is discussed as an example of the contemporary relevance of Veblen's approach. Beyond its theoretical uses, absurdus is described as a therapeutic response to escapism born of despair. Copyright 1997 by Oxford University Press.

In Search of Thorstein Veblen: Further Inquiries into His Life and Work

Abstract: The enigmatic legacy of Thorstein Veblen owes less to the eccentricities of Veblen himself than to the inadequacies of his interpreters. Among those interpreters Joseph Dorfman (1904-1991) occupies a central place, for it is primarily to him that scholars have turned when seeking insights into Veblen the man. There are grievous; faults in Dorfman's voluminous work, however, which, disguised in sheer scholarly mass, have entered the literature on Veblen as accepted truths—truths that do not always tolerate close scrutiny; that in the decades since Veblen's death have often grotesquely distorted his persona; and which in varying degrees have prejudiced critical appraisals of Veblen's place in the intellectual history of the past one hundred years.1

The Rhetoricality of Economic Theory: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Thorstein Veblen

Abstract: (1997). The Rhetoricality of Economic Theory: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Thorstein Veblen. Journal of Economic Issues: Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 417-424.

Economics and evolution

Abstract: This work represents a revolutionary approach to economics. It goes back to the 18th and 19th centuries, covering the work of Darwin, Smith and Malthus. It also traces the ideas that have developed since that time through Marx, Veblen and Marshall.

An economic silence: Women and social credit

Abstract: The growing interest in the possibility of a feminist economics has antecedents originating in a blend of socialism with a strain of institutionalism as developed by the American, Thorstein Veblen. The social credit movement, popular throughout the English-speaking world in the inter-war years, arose out of the alternative economics of Clifford Hugh Doulgas and Alfred Richard Orage. Published between 1919 and 1924, the texts outlined theories and politics that could result in economic democracy based upon a universal right to an unearned income from a National Dividend arising from the common cultural inheritance. Women were particularly drawn to study and promote the “new economics,” which offered economic justice to all regardless of “biographical colouring.” In this paper, we introduce the background history of the social credit movement and the basic tenents of the Douglas/New Age texts.

Thorstein Veblen and Henry George on War, Conflict, and the Military: An Institutionalist Connection

Abstract: Unlike most of their contemporaries, Henry George and Thorstein Veblen perceived the nature of war to be central to the study of economics. The two heterodox thinkers investigated the warlike animus almost a half century before the Cold War and the subsequent arms buildup that characterizes the post-World War II era. Their ability to distinguish between the latent and manifest functions of war remains as penetrating today as it was at the end of the nineteenth century (when George was writing) and in the early part of the twentieth century (when Veblen published most of his work). The analysis of war remains only a minor part of mainstream economics despite the permanent institutional framework known as the military-industrial complex. Ergo, the dichotomies of George and Veblen provide valuable insights as they examine the latent uses of patriotism and religion as tools to perpetrate war and violence. Their evolutionary approach exposes the nexus among the military effort, religion, and nation to reveal the coercive power of the military, which serves as a tool for domestic control as well as external control. The Veblenian dichotomy

An “Examination of Premises”

Abstract: During his teaching at Amherst, Clark began “an examination of premises” of the received economic thinking. Hardly indicative of a rebellious attitude on his part, Clark’s search was largely brought on by the criticisms which thinkers like Thorstein Veblen and Herbert J. Davenport had directed against the theories of the elder Clark and the marginal utility school in general. As he much later recalled, “the development of his studies, relative to order of teaching positions held and relative to times when the studies were made”: Overhead Costs came first, 1905–23. Next in time Fd put the working out of a position relative to Veblen’s & Davenport’s criticisms of J.B.C., centering on “social productivity vs. private acquisition.” This pointed to examination of premises.… All this in the Amherst period. Criticisms of the psychological assumptions of utility theory remained a challenge, & led to the two 1918 articles on psychology, with Wm. James’ Psychology the most obvious source; Cooley’s Human Nature and Social Organization [sic] next, perhaps. Carleton Parker came later, I think, as did Cooley’s Social Process. “Inappropriables” formed a natural key concept, and Ely’s Property and Contract (1914) put content into it, followed by Roscoe Pound and Ernest Freund. Meanwhile Pigou’s Wealth and Welfare (1912) and Hobson’s Work and Wealth (1914) put “Welfare Economics” on the map relative to social productivity vs. private acquisition. Mitchell’s Business Cycles (1913) led to the acceleration article, as you indicate.1