Polecon 101 essays

How do the theorists of racial capitalism and feminist economics challenge market liberal and marxist perspectives on capitalism?

Thesis: Market liberalism and Marxist theories critique capitalism in large ways, however they lack full in depth analysis of capitalism. Market liberalism primarily focuses on people as rational actors who operate ignornign hierarhcies. Marxism on the other hand looks at strictly economic exploitation as a result of these hierarchies, but does not account for power dynamics caused by gender and race. Feminist economics and racial capitalism critiques these accounts, arguign that capitalism cannot be fully explained without examining the gender and racial power structures at play. Feminist econoics shows how capitalistic labor relies on reproduction via exploited women ownership while racial capitalism shows that the hierachry of capitalism is inherently intertwined with racial disposession over time. Both account for the incorporation of ideology, 

Paragraph 1: Market Liberalism and Marxism challenged by Feminist economics

1. Cite: Federici caliban and witch 

   1. Explain: Primitive accumulation of the body

   2. Challenges marx’s claim that primitive accumulation is a single event thats largely asset in past

   3. Challenges market liberalism that ignores role of household in markets, gendered exploitation

2. Cite: Hayati Ghosh critiques neoclassical Assumptions

   1. Explkain: Standard economics relies on unfounded assumptions erases power imbalances while feminist economics centers inequality. Says it ignores history (against marxism)

   2. Talks about feminist economic demand to not have deregulation going against market liberalism with lik egreen new deal stuff and min wage

3. Marilyn Waring: GDP and women in Whose Counting

   1. Expllain: Shows GNP doesnt count women 

   2. Challenges market liberalism saying value isnt just in markets

   3. Challenges marx by saying that he didnt theorize reproduction economic value. 

Paragraph 2:  Market Liberalism and Marxism challenged by Feminist Economics

1. Cite: Cedric Ribinson Racial from start

   1. Marx critique saying capitalism wasnt rupture of feudalism but extention of racial hiearhcies. 

   2. Challenge market liberalism bu saying markets arent neutral but embedded in system of racial domination

2. Barbara Fields Race as ideology

   1. Challenges marx by saying underplay ideological role as race shapes economic class

   2. Challenges market liberalism by saying th claim to equality contradicted by racial ideology adn free markets coexist with racial domination since race rationalizes inequaity. 

3. Dantzler and hackworth racially fair system says human capital theory frames black workers lacking skill. 

   1. Challenges market liberalism by saying meritocracy ideological cover for racialized labor devaluation

   2. Challenges to marx byu saying racial exploitation isnt the same as class explotiations. 

Shows capitalism built on non class hiearchesi and requires un;paid labor with ideologies to sustain capitalism. 

How should we define “Development”? And how should we measure it?

Thesis: Traditional Economics understand development as just the growth of a nations gdp but current political econoics studies critiique this understanding as breif and not accounting of the in depth production of development. Development is defined as the growth of a nation’s capabilities and liberties. Meaning institutional, ability to met needs, and expansion of rights. As a result to meet the standard measure gdp to include the social environmental and institutional political landscapes as shown by Sen, Schumacher, Brown, adn Rodrik. 

Paragraph 1: Expanding definition from growth of GDP to the expansion of freedom, institutions, and sustainability. 

1. Cite: Sen Development=freedom

   1. Explain: Rejects traditional idea that development is income growth and freedom is means and end

   2. Political economic social protection development expands the freedoms thater than material accumulation showing political and social capabilites

2. Cite: Instutional perspecties dvelopment needs 3 pillars of instutional foundations (rodik)

   1. Explain: PROPRETY REGULATON STABILITY Development requires political order strong states and functioning markets as the three pollars

   2. Connect: You need rodik who emphasises that development comes from intistuional experienmentaiton in the context of certain nations. 

3. Schumacher: Development as sustainable small is beuatiful

   1. Smal is beuaitull says max welfare minimize consumption

   2. Development as an economical sustainability and human centered rather than growth that harms the environment. 

4. Clair Browth Buddhist economisc:

   1. Development minimizes suffering 

   2. Sustainable prduction ethical environmental social not just financial. 

Paragraph 2: Measuring deveopment to a larger indiciator (schumachera nd brown shows economics wrongly equates consumption with welfare and gdp ignores environment mange and dpenst measure human well being

1. Human development index:

   1. Includes edu health income adds social capabilities

   2. INdex of sustainable economic welfare public non defense spending values unpade work showing ecological and scal costs

   3. Multi dimensional poverty index shows edu health living poverty is constrained cpaabilites

   4. Stigletz sen fitoussi commussi measure what matters in holistic way

   5. Clair brown sustainable shared prosperity index measures market governannces builds metrics into nationa;

2. INsitutional indicators for development measurement

   1. Property rights rule of lwa instiutitonal performance as well 

What are some of the way sto categorize political-economic systems in advanced countries? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the typologies presented by Wilensky and Hall and SOskice

Thesis: Political economic system in advanced industrial economics can be categories instutitonally examining states role gove instudrys and firm coordination. Wilensky categorzes system through degrees of corporatism showing how political incorporation of labor and industry shapes social economic outcomes. Hall and soskice categorize systems by LMEs v CMEs showing how firms coordinate finance labor and production through institutional complementaroeis. Both reveal differences in capitalism but wilensky overemphasizes political structures while hall& siskice oversimplofy countries into two ideal types and understate state role. 

Paragraph 1: Wilensky: Corporatism and State

1. Typologies & Evidence

   1. Corporatism, pluralist, corporatist w/o labor

   2. higher corporatism less income inequality and more social protection

   1. Higher corporatism correlates with lower household inequality v. 

2. Strengths

   1. SHows thaat capitalism embedded in politics and links state capacity and labor incorporation to social performance

3. Weaknesses

   1. Focuses too much on state and interest groups ignoring firm level behaviro strugglign with hybrid systems.

Paragraph 2: categorizing systems though Hall and Soskice FIRMS AND COORDINATION

1. LME

   1. US UK market coordination radical innovation  

2. CME

   1. Germany Japan strategic coordination incremendatl innpvaton, explans how japan shows adaptation without convergenace (voice>exit)

3. Strenghts of Hall & Soskice

   1. Explains firm behavior and innovation patterns showing persistence of national models under globalization. 

4. Weaknesses

   1. Downplays state and overly ridgid in two type model ignoring regional and sectoral aariatiions

What are the political and/or instuttional pre-requisites for economic growth? which institutions are most important for develompent, and why? and how does the legacy of colonialism development trajectories? 

Thesis: Economic growth requires strong political order, strong states, and market supporting isntutions like property rights, regulation, and conflict management to create stability and expand capabilities. Colonialism undermined these institutions in many regions and shaped their development trajectories.  

Paragraph 1: institutional gov prop rights

1. Institutional political order

   1. Political stability law and order

   2. Firms ned to have baseline stability that lead to prop rights regulation more etc

2. Gov institutions (state capaicyt and low corroption)

   1. Strong states with administartiove capaicyt

   2. Credible effective rule enforcement for long term growth

3. Rodrik prop rights regulation social insturance conflict management

   1. Develipmehnth instiuttions protect rights and give assurance

   2. Connect rodrik shows institutions must create environment for investment and innovation

Colonialism shaped trajectories

1. Rodik (ixpreinentation)

   1. Institutions succeed when tailored to local history and social structures colonialism disrupts these imposing external sinttitons

   2. Post colonial states inhereitiyed nonrepresiettive ill fit instutions began independecne without political order

2. Chaudry myths of market

   1. Markets do not arise naturally states must activate create national markets and colonial rule constructed markets rather thant development fragmenting domestic economics

   2. Many countries lacnked integrated makrets and administration structures needed for growth slowing development

3. Fafchamps Market institution and information networks

   1. Development depends on insttutisns that suppor ttrsut and coordination among cifms and colonial economic systems didnt have these networks leaving manufacturing sectors weak

   2. Countries with extractive colonial histories lack istutional depth for industralziation leading to long run divergence

What explains teh very different experiences of Russia and China with Economic Reform? Is there a preferable sequence for reform? Is shock therapy approach better, or a more graudual transition from plan to market?

Thesis: china nad russia had different reform outcomes because chinals gradual experimental approach strengthened institutions while avoiding social collapse where russias shock therapy happened durigmn political crisis and without isnitutional foundations, showing gradual institutional building reforms as preferable to rapid transitions from planned to market. 

Paragraph 1: Russia and china why different reforms

1. China and the USSR on eve of reform

   1. China had a decentralized economy and political crisis russia had centeralied economy and political crisis and china started in stability russia reformed in collapse

   2. Easier stable start for china was able to lead to a gradualism while russia created economic freefall

2. China and Deng phisliosphy of pragmatism

   1. Deng embraced experimentation and reform was trial and error so chinal did dual track pricing etc and household responsibility farming with slow legalization of property

   2. Pragmatism created gradual winners stabilizinig reform adn russia did rapid liberalization with massive privitization creating losers to opposed reform

3. Ueltsin partial reform equilibrium

   1. Afte 1992 russia had hyper inflation so there was a partial reform equilibrium that relied on personal networks not markets. Weak state coundt regulate

   2. Sjock therapy fialed because russia lacke dmarket supporting isntititons and china avoided this by growing markets around the state not overnights. 

Paragraph 2: Is shock therapy better or gradualism?

1. Sachs v stiglitz

   1. Dual track pricing reforms in china incrememntal layering didnt destroy production, supports stigletz thatinstittutions must precede full luberalization.

2. Ginese gradualism  didnt dismantle SOEs overnight

   1. China reformed in steps didnt dismantle soes overnight protected nig one s to minimize layoffs

   2. Shows a wide but slow reform path allowing social stability and maintain privitization

3. TVEs used as parallel institutions

   1. Chinal allowed locally owned firms to expand building new betweorks which is wide but shallpw (better than russia deep but narrow) diversity allowed for success.
      

How does an interdisciplinary Political Economy Perspective shed insight on some of the greatest challenges of our time? Present your own take on which authors from course readings and/or lectures provide more or less useful analytical perspectives. Discuss with respect to to of the following: Globalization, the power of big tech platform firms, adn climate change

Thesis: an interdisciplinary course explains todays most urgent challenges by integrating markets, institutions, power nad social relations. Author from gloibalized studies (polanyi piketty berman and snegovoay) digi economy (khan vogel) and climate political economy (polanyi malm huber) reveal these crisies cannot be understood economically alone. Each reflect instituial design, poliitical ower, historical structures, adn ecological constraints. Polecon therefore privdes a complete and holistic framework for understanding globalization, tech, and climate change. 

Paragraph 1; globalization:

1. Globalization as a large process polanyi

   1. Globalization is the result of the production process markets are politically constricted

   2. Understanding globalization requires polecon not market liberalism because institutions shape how globalization unfolds and who ebnefits. 

2. Pikettys brahmin left

   1. Fear of far right support piketty argies left parties lost working class voters as parties of educated a berman adn snegovovay show social democracy collapsed after embraces neoliberalism

   2. Globalization has unequal distribtional effects leading to social resentment so globalization is fundamentally political not just economics

3. Colleir and grumback deep structure of demographic crisis

   1. Democratic crises arise partly from structural changes liek post industrailiation isntutial weakness and elite driven politics not just globalization

   2. This perspective moves beyond single variable using econ pol institiaionts and elite action shape globalization social efforts

Paragraph 2: big tech platforms

1. Vogel marketcraft

   1. Says markets need to be crafted and digital markets are prime eaamesd

   2. Tech is political and istntional and needs regulators and marketcraft recognizes need for polecon

2. Khan antitrust and digi economy

   1. Identifies 5 structural sources of platform power as a result of networks to diguose monopoly power

   2. Khan demonstrates why antitrust in digital fial s since it shows big tech only understoo dthorugh polecon using law power and markets. 

3. Anti trust chicago v neo brandesian

   1. Chicago school with friedman and shapiro argues monopolies are fragile gov intervention hurts neo brandesians khan lynn argues opposite and we need strong antitrust

   2. Failure of chicago shool shows why polecon needed since its more than markets its governance and democracy

Paragrapjh 3: Climate change

1. Polanyi nature is fictitious commodity

   1. Polanui says nature cannot be fully commodified without destrouign society land as market commodity lead sto failure

   2. Frames climate change as instititonal crisis since markets cannot alone safeguard nature and polecon exposes climate change as a gov failure not econ externality. 

2. Huber energizing historical materialism (energy as value)

   1. Huber shows fossil fuels not incidental to capitalism but structurally necessary for factory discipline and frapid grwoth with production

   2. Climate change not solved by maket tweaks because fossil fuels embedded in capitalism structure so only polecon reveals this depe dependency and why decarboniation is ecnomcially difficult

3. Malm fossil capitalism

   1. Shows capitalists adopted fossilve fuels because coal tighter labor contrals and geographic concentration of facvroties a strategy of class power not jus teffdiciency

   2. Climate cange is fundamentally linked to power relations jot JUST technoligy adn poelc reveals why decarboniation theratesn other interst and cant be solved by solely markets.