Joint problem-solving arrangements: Which included routines associated with adjustment and coordination that, despite economists predictions, were more efficient than market-based mechanisms of coordination. The notion that economic action is embedded in social structure has revived debates about the positive and negative effects of social relations on economic behavior. While most organization theorists hold that social structure plays a significant role in economic behavior, many economic theorists maintain that social relations minimally affect economic transacting or create inefficiencies by shielding the transaction from the market (Peterson and Rajan, 1994). In this regard, Granovetter's (1985) embeddedness argument has emerged as a potential theory for joining economic and sociological approaches to organization theory. As presently developed, however, Granovetter's argument lacks its own concrete account of how social relations affect economic exchange.
Merton’s point of view was that America produced a state of anomie because of the greater emphasis on the goals of wealth at the expense of the conventional ways of going about attaining economic success. By 1968, Merton was clarifying his strain theory by arguing for a perspective that views socially deviant behavior, including criminal behavior as a product of social structure (Tibbetts and Hemmons, 2010). The social structure, for Merton, had to do with approved social means. While people can put forth an honest effort to attain the American Dream, Americans are more likely to do whatever it takes to get ahead. However, although doing whatever it takes to succeed might lead to criminality, Merton developed five “modes of adaptation” to strain.
Economic nationalism or mercantilism is the realist approach to international political economy. This theory considers the state to be the most significant actor in the international system, views international economic relations between states as competitive in nature and claims there is a direct relationship between the pursuit of political power and economic wealth. It is the relative economic power of the state, in comparison with other states, that is most important. This perspective criticizes liberal ideas of free trade, claiming that they were not applicable to the reality of a world of nation states. Rather than being in the interest of all individuals, in reality a free trade system would favour the most advanced manufacturing states.
The classical economists’ flirtation with the labor theory of value (LTV) has been criticized as a dead-end street What is the labor theory of value? How does Ricardo use the labor theory of value to critique Smith’s theory of value? What are the chief criticisms of the LTV. The standard critique assumes that the sole point of the LTV was to explain relative prices. Would Sraffa agree?
Marx and Arendt are two brilliant political theorists who pose different concerns, beliefs and ideals when it comes to the relationship between economics and freedom. Marx defines freedom as creative self- actualization which contrasts Arendt’s definition of freedom as worldly and eruptive action. Marx’s definition is more focused on the individual, which in turn will better society while Arendt is more focused on action as community. Marx believes in a society free from economic oppression by the elite while Arendt believes in one where poverty and politics do not meet. Economics and freedom, according to Marx, are intertwined in such a way that they cannot be separated.
Capitalism is an economic-political system where the individual and economic freedom is considered primary compulsion for the country 's development. Unlike other economic systems which eclipses the freedom of the market, it creates an environment for self-regulating market system. The ensuing essay focuses on capitalism as the best economic system. It gives a general idea about other economic systems like socialism, communism and fascism in brief and compares and points out the advantages of capitalism over these systems. The essay casts light upon both the pros and cons of the capitalism but takes a positive position and defends the notion of capitalism as the best economic system with arguments which are supported by suitable facts and figures.
From the cooperation among civilians by a division of labor, to the limitations of government in an effort to achieve a free and competitive market, to the prioritization of the individual profit motive and accumulation of personal wealth, Smith argues that society can succeed in such an environment. Even though Smith’s economic platform revolved around a pre-Industrial Revolution era, his solutions to economic prosperity via the free economy allowed for an adaptable and flexible system. Nowadays, the idea of pursuing one’s own self interest is viewed as narcissistic, and oftentimes overlooked due to the accumulation of personal wealth. Government regulations force wealthy individuals to give a higher portion of their wealth for the betterment of the society, which some may view as unproportionable to their benefits from living in society. Simpler, fairer ways of devising a tax regulation have been proven to promote economic growth, however the current economic platform is seen to be arbitrary and obscure.
The first one, titled, “hyper patrimonial society”(Piketty 247), highlights the generic method of wealth accumulation, usually dominated by unequal societies. The second method of wealth accumulation, which Piketty notes as, “hyper meritocratic society”, highlights the peak of income hierarchy dominated by a very high income of labor rather than inherited wealth. (Piketty 265). Ironically, Piketty, himself, criticizes the truly “ meritocratic” nation of such a society and extends to the idea of a world with super managers being more adequate. Such form of society, recently emerged in the US, is , according to Piketty, “the peak of the income hierarchy dominated by very high incomes from labor rather than by inherited wealth” ( Piketty 265).
Thus, immigration causes good influences rather than threats towards the native-born workers. As reported by Patrice Hill (2014), economists believe that increasing immigration equals to a steady development in the economy. Immigration plays a crucial role and has positive impacts on the United States economy, especially in the twentieth century. Raising the labors’ demand, filling the growing gaps in the labor force, and increasing the native-born wages are some benefits a host country could gain from
It demands that since the government benefits from the labor of its people and while also supporting its interests in specified industries, that it should also give back to infuse and invigorate the flow of money and opportunity when it stagnates. Because in a modern society full of growth and choice, companies that succeed are the ones with deep pockets, strong advertising and political interest of stakeholders and money-makers. Basically, those who benefit continue to feed into the system in order to keep it energized. This way reflects the complexities which support success and lead to inevitable downturn in equal measure. Economist John Maynard Keynes studied this in an attempt to understand how The Great Depression occurred and to outline ways we can prevent such broad economic catastrophe.
Something is rotten in U.S.: at the very least in the realm of economics (and perhaps even politics). It appears that there is an ongoing successful drive to privatization of everything: schools, roads, prisons; programs such as Social Security, and Medicare. What motivates this drive is a belief foisted on the public that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. This belief grows out of the notion that the quest for profit is a regulating factor: efficiency reduces costs. The public sector, on the other hand, is motivated by a completely different objective—to increase the general welfare.
During a debate hosted by intelligence squared, two sides argued the notion the rich in America are taxed too much. Beginning with the side for the notion that the rich are taxed enough was Robert Glenn who took a straightforward approach to the argument. He stated that historically when people begin to tax something you end up producing less or getting less out of it. He suggested that it be better for the rich to
Numerous studies have shown that employment increases from the state and federal level had an overall positive effect on employment (Whitaker et al. 631). Higher wages attract more employees and reduces turnover, which results in company’s saving money. In addition to assisting employees to live above the poverty line, a minimum wage increase would benefit owners. A higher minimum wage would benefit people across the board, it should stop being politicized so
Their arguments based on the economic needs of the Americans are driven by their political ambitions rather than a radical position on important political and leadership matters. As the Republicans seem to be more radical about addressing the economic needs of the people today, they will be forced to apply the same level of aggression in addressing climate change concerns. Putting a price on carbon emissions, the preferred prescription of economists across the political spectrum, could fit well within the Republican canon (Porter). It may cost the United States today, however, it will help to create a long-term economy that guarantees productivity for the current and future generations. In light of this internal party division and indecisiveness over the issue, it is important to put political ambitions and interests for the greater good of the country and the citizens of that country today and in the future.
From the first glance, the rise of the federal minimum wage is beneficial to everyone. It will improve living standards and the country’s overall economy, create more job opportunities, and reduce the poverty rate. However, after analyzing some economic theories and reading presumption made by qualified economists the idea of increasing the federal minimum wage will not look as good as before. Oppositely to benefits the raise may adversely affect standard of living, cause layoffs and fewer hirings, or has negative effect on poverty rate. Both points of view show the significant impact that the raise of the federal minimum wage may cause and both of them are partly correct.