[PEN-L:4765] new mercantalism
Reproduced below is an absoutely brilliant analysis of "the ratio of dynamic to stagnant sectors" in an individual nation. The analysis comes from Tilla Siegel who I believe is now a Prof (or perhaps Chair) of Sociology at the Goethe University at Frankfurt. I am hoping it will provoke discussion. In its own fetishistic terms, bourgeois economics is now groping towards an analysis of this ratio. This ratio is perhaps the basis of today's mercantalism, as was once the fetish of gold. A chair of many influential "global competitiveness" committees, Harvard Business Prof Michael Porter has basically equated that concept with this ratio--as can be seen from any of his very tedious contributions to the Harvard Business Review. In other words, he pays careful attention to the actual sectorial composition of economies, not the aggregates of Keynesianism. This sort of attention is sometimes seen as legacy of Schumpeterian economics, as emphasized by noted American business historian Thomas McGraw. As always, the economists must now catch up with the business profs if they want to have any relation to reality! The labor secretary Robert Reich himself is groping at this idea in his chapter on the movement from "high volume to high value" in his Work of Nations. He is explicitly concerned, from a natl. pt. of view, with the expulsion of certain sectors and the monopolization of others. On the other hand, Siegel is able to analyze the reproduction of total capital, not (as with narrow bourgeois minds) just the "growth" an individual nation based on its specific ratio of dynamic to stagnant sectors. To me this illuminates the whole/part relationship in Marx better than can any purely philosophical treatment. "The existence of dynamic and stagnant sectors in capitalism does not contradict the tendency toward an equalization of profit rates. this is not just because the term 'tendency'already implies continually changing inequalities between profit rates. dyanic sectors do not grow faster just because their profit rates, and so rates of accumulation, are above average, but also because these profit rates attract capitals from other sectors. So long as the additional influx of capital does change the relations between supply and demand in such a way that the profit rates fall below average, they will remain dyanmic sectors. And stagnant sectors do not grow more slowly or shrink just because their rates of profit are below average, but also because capitals leave these sectors for others with higher profit rates. In general, the existence of dynamic and stagnant sectors in capitalism is an expression of the capital movements that create the tendency toward an average rate of profit. "With respect to the position of the individual nation in the world market the ratio of dynamic to stagnant sectors in its economy is very important. Even if we assume that all nations have the same wage level and that all nations produce at the highest levels of productivity, a ntion that has specialized in dynamic sectors will have a higher growth rate than one that has specialized in stagnant sectors. Through the imperialistic expansion of capital the international distribution of these sectors has created a partition of the capitalist world market into nations with primarily dynamic sectors (in the center) and nations with primarily stagnant sectors (in the periphery). "But how did this specialization come about? It would be wrong to take the effect for the cause and to argue that it came about because it was favorable for the dominant capitalist nations. One cannot say that the process toward this form of specializtion was consciously created in the sense that the nations of the center transferred staganatn sectors into the periphery by way of state action or by concerned capitalist action. This process was set in motion mainly by the fact that *acquired* advantages in productivity, i.e., advantages resulting from technological progress, have played an increasingly important role in international trade. meanwhile, the nations of the center have been and are monopolizing the development of technology while their capital have destroyed and are destryoing the possibility of this development in the periphery. "On the one hand, the increase of productivity in a sphere of production creates the possibility of extra profits. On the other hand, this increase makes possible the capture of markets in other nations where the level of productivity is lower, and somakes possible an increase in demand and thus the reaping of extra profits over a longer span of time. This sphere of production becomes a dynamic one (because of a higher rate of accumulation and the influx of new capitals) and acquires more weight in the nation concerned wthan other spheres where the relation between falling cost prices and expanding demand is not as favorable. "What was left for the nations of ther periphery were those sectors
[PEN-L:4764] RE: New work on discrimination in credit/housing
Thanks, Patrick, for that provocative reflection on banking and race. I've been thinking a lot about the connections you were musing over, so let me spice the brew before everyone has coffee on Wednesday. BTW, thanks to those who responded privately, and I repeat my interest in hearing from anyone doing new stuff on race/discrimination/banking/housing. Patrick makes several diverse points. I'll crunch through some, and undoubtedly leave others uncrunched. Blame the late hour. First, the point that much radical policy analysis is reactive, not active. In the case of housing/banking, reactive means looking for discrimination per se, hoping to score Fed points; but leaving other connections untouched, or too little touched. I don't agree that the studies have shown discrimination per se; I don't think any have, except for the "paired-testing" types (minority and white person with identical characteristics try to get a loan, get a job, ...). The studies most often replicated have shown that areas with many minority residents -- usually African American population percentage, for most studies -- have lower loan flows per eligible housing unit. This "area" race effect is different than showing "individual" race effects aimed at specific minority applicants. The area race effects show, in Anne Shlay's term, the lack of a "fair share" of credit in those areas -- no more and no less than that. These are the studies that have indeed proliferated around the country. The very volume of these studies is, in a way, impressive -- because lots of activist groups could replicate something done somewhere else, and borrow ideas on how to interpret it. But here's where things have tilted in a way that Patrick doesn't like. Conservative critics responded, "How do you know it's not lack of demand for housing loans in minority areas?" In response, HMDA data on individual applicants were produced thanks to a compromise worked out by the Southern Finance Project and others during the FIRREA negotations. This richer data allowed richer tests on whether in fact there were still fewer loans to minorities once you took applica- tions into account. The answer was, yes; but the conservative rejoinder was again, "How do you know it isn't bad credit history ...? (etc.)?" In efect, there's always an excluded variable problem to contend with. Even the infamous revised Boston study didn't quell the pens of the conservative scribes at the WSJ. The revised Beantown tried to put everything and the kitchen sink into the structural equation; but still there was a flaw -- "What about default rates?" It would take us too far afield to follow this strange debate further here. The point is that a good part of the empirics has definitely involved a dialogue with "conservative" economists; and this has been fought out on terrain these foes understand ... and the empirics have (surprise) proven to be inconclusive. I would vote for continuing that dialogue/duel, but also as Patrick suggests, for mounting new campaigns on new fronts. Here, I'll just throw out a few things, since I've gone on too long. Area race effects can be the legacy of structural discrimination, not just of racist bankers. And structural discrimination can be an amalgam of labor-market inequity, class dynamics, unequal wealth, etc. I have a paper coming out later this year in the Rev. of Black Pol. Economy, which shows how labor-market and credit-market discrimination can interact very perversely. I think that the class and race dynamics are interpenetrating; so I see efforts that are class-based as being complementary with "race" based efforts. I agree completely with the need to look at spatial dimensions. More and more I think this is a key. The racial, of course, is spatial. This is just where we need to add in, say, Robert Bullard and Melvin Oliver, to spice William J. Wilson. The racial is also gendered, as is the class- based. The post-moderns here would say, no problem, find a specific instance and pull it apart. I've don precisely this with my own co-work -- with John Veitch -- on LA. The class/gender/racial separations that are going on, the polarizing processes, interweave, and leave us more and more with very different kinds of space. I don't think I agree with Lash and Urry that it's "ungovernable" -- but it's definitely polarized, and I think polarized in ways richer than can be got at with just one dimension alone. I also like the idea of combining ideas about financial fragility and speculation with ideas about localized credit rationing. Here too there's a lot to be said -- but another time ? And as to literature. The old radical stuff from the 1970's has a lot to say today. Some is a bit functionalist for my taste; but still lots of insights that should be thrown back into circulation. I'd also note that I've been learning a lot from the geographers and sociologists. There's some interesting work on "financial
[PEN-L:4766] Re: Worker (fwd)
Regarding Carl Dassbach's definition: What is a telecommunications operator in a big room filled with dividers and other telecommunications operators working the night shift for a big catalog company? A physical product was part of the definition. What is the physical product? -- Mary Schweitzer Answer - a worker. I never said anything about a physical product which, in my mind, suggests a distinction between productive and non-productive labor. All labor is productive (for owners) insofar as it generates more value then is returned to the laborer, i.e. needed to reproduce that labor power. It is immaterial what form this labor takes - e.g. assembly line work or service labor. The problem is that most labor processes today are socialized - as a result, surplus value is really the global outcome of the collective and socialized labor process and the contribution of individual workers can not be preciserly specified. So-called unproductive activtities, sales, supervision are in fact integral to the process of producing surplus value as a collective socialized activity. Let's not reproduce Senior "Last Hour." - Carl H.A. Dassbach E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Social SciencesPhone: (906)487-2115 Michigan Technological University Fax: (906)487-2468 Houghton, MI 49931USA
[PEN-L:4767] Re: Boyer Reference
Dear Michael: For the second time in the last three months, I've stopped receiving messages from PEN-L. I don't know what is happening. Could you please help? Thank you Cheers Carlos Salas
[PEN-L:4768] RE: New work on discrimination in
Gary, Thanks for the posting. Can you give us the specific references? I've tried to highlight the ones needed. I don't agree that the studies have shown discrimination per se; I don't think any have, except for the "paired-testing" types (minority and white person with identical characteristics try to get a loan, get a job, ...). Can you cite a recent published study via which we can bore into the lit? The studies most often replicated have shown that areas with many minority residents -- usually African American population percentage, for most studies -- have lower loan flows per eligible housing unit. This "area" race effect is different than showing "individual" race effects aimed at specific minority applicants. Again, please give at least on cite as a port of entry. The area race effects show, in Anne Shlay's term, the lack of a "fair ^^ ref? very volume of these studies is, in a way, impressive -- because lots of ^^ Is there a review or academic summary? In response, HMDA data on individual applicants were produced thanks to a compromise worked out by the Southern Finance Project and others during the FIRREA negotations. This richer data allowed richer tests on whether in fact there were still fewer loans to minorities once you took applica- tions into account. The answer was, yes; but the conservative rejoinder Have these studies been published anywhere? conservative scribes at the WSJ. The revised Beantown tried to put ref? Area race effects can be the legacy of structural discrimination, not just of racist bankers. And structural discrimination can be an amalgam of labor-market inequity, class dynamics, unequal wealth, etc. I have a paper coming out later this year in the Rev. of Black Pol. Economy, which ^^ do you know which issue? I agree completely with the need to look at spatial dimensions. More and more I think this is a key. The racial, of course, is spatial. This is just where we need to add in, say, Robert Bullard and Melvin Oliver, to spice William J. Wilson. The racial is also gendered, as is the class- Again, people might want refs. to Bullard, Oliver, and Wilson. -- with John Veitch -- on LA. The class/gender/racial separations that published where? Lash and Urry that it's "ungovernable" -- but it's definitely polarized, ^ cite? And as to literature. The old radical stuff from the 1970's has a lot to ^ anything in particular? that I've been learning a lot from the geographers and sociologists. There's which ones? Where? a second look. For those interested in such trends, a new "Los Angeles" school is arising -- with Ed Soja, Mike Davis, Allen Scott, Jennifer Wolch, Michael Dear at the center -- in response to the older "Chicago model". Hey, we're just jealous about MJ coming back. Why not Magic? Some cites here would help too. BTW, the "Los Angeles" school is not so new (these folks have been plugging along since at least the mid-1970's) and not so LA (see the intro to Mike Storper and Dick Walker's _Capitalist Imperative_). As far as I'm concerned, Manuel Castells nailed the Chicago model from France in 1972 (_The Urban Question_). Thanks again. I'm familiar with some of the lit. here, but it would be nice to know exactly what you're referring to and to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. Marsh Feldman Phone: 401/792-5953 Community Planning, 204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395 The University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kingston, RI 02881-0815 "Marginality confers legitimacy on one's contrariness."
[PEN-L:4769] RE: New work on discrimination in credit/housing
More comments on the problem: To the extent there IS racism behind the imbalance in loans, it is not due to explicit policies on the part of the banks, but rather to the lingering internalized racism of the guys in the trenches, the loan officers who actually sit down and talk with prospective borrowers. It's there, but it's hard to pin down in hard numbers. Second, bankers have devised a number of rules of thumb for distinguishing between a good credit risk and a bad credit risk. these rules of thumb have served them well to the extent that they identify good credit risks. But it leaves plenty of room open for people who are ALSO good credit risks to fall into the automatic category of a bad credit risk. A simple example is the longstanding rule against lending to a woman heading up a household with children. Made sense. They've had to get used to that, because it can be obvious discrimination. But still, a woman heading up a household with children is not going to fit well the standard profile of a good credit risk. There are householders who don't make a lot of money, and have a lot of bills, but would turn out to be steady and able to make their mortgage payments. But the bankers do not have any good methods for telling WHICH ONES THEY ARE. In other words, what has to happen is that NEW rules of thumb have to be created that are (as the saying goes) idiot-proof -- any idiot could follow the instructions and figure out whether or not this person was a good credit risk. You have to find a way of distinguishing AMOLNG women who head households, to pick out who is going to be reliable and who is not. This is where minority-owned/operated and female-owned/operated institutions come in. They are more likely (not always, just MORE) to be able to come up with new rules of thumb that would work WITHIN certain groups that don't fit the older profiles. The advantage to redefining the rules in the end is great: more and more households of all races and ethnic backgrounds are what is called "nontraditional". So figuring out who the good credit risks are WITHIN "nontradtional" groupings is a worthwhile innovation. But. It is a risky innovation. So there has to be public support for those willing to take those risks. A flat-out rule such as the community reinvestment act does not necessarily do anyone any good -- in some cases, it may discourage location within the community, in other cases institutions may work harder to find traditional recipients among the nontraditional majority. What -- sorry -- IT may be easy to enforce a flat-out rule, but what do we learn from it? What is needed is some way to reward innovation in this direction. A learning process that then can be shared. As for the spatial aspects: as long as new peripheral development is rewarded with windfall gains in value and redevelopment is penalized; as long as slumloards can hold on to deteriorating property for decades waiting for the ground beneath to appreciate; the cheap housing will be in the old railroad-hub interior of the city, and that is where the poor will be, and that is where the jobs are not. -- Mary Schweitzer
[PEN-L:4771] Re: min wage
Heather writes: Dear pen-llers, Could any of you min wage experts please suggest to me the *best* most recent article on the social and economic effects of a minimum wage? Thanks in advance!Heather Best with respect to what concerns? Possible candidates are: 1)Card and Krueger's new book from Princeton University Press; 2) Mishel and Bernstein's discussion in THE STATE OF WORKING AMERICA 1994-1995; 3) The excellent but somewhat old survey by Charles Brown, Curtis Gilroy, and Andrew Kohen, published in the June 1982 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE. Of the three I guess I'd pick Card and Krueger's book, but you wanted an article, so perhaps start with the conclusion section of the Brown/Gilroy/Kohen survey. The problem here is that no one source is both recent, utterly comprehensive in theoretical and empirical analyses, and relative short (i.e. an article). Gil Skillman
[PEN-L:4772] Re: min wage
At 11:39 AM 4/19/95, HEATHER GROB wrote: Dear pen-llers, Could any of you min wage experts please suggest to me the *best* most recent article on the social and economic effects of a minimum wage? Thanks in advance!Heather If the Card Krueger book is too much for you, check out two recent publications from your neighbors at the Economic Policy Institute - "Raising the Floor," a longish paper published a few months (?) ago, and "Who Benefits from a Higher Minimum Wage?," a nice short briefing paper. Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:4773] WSJ: Revised NAFTA job prediction,Apr.17 (fwd)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:53:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Dale Wiehoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipients of conference [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Revised NAFTA job prediction From: dwiehoff (Dale Wiehoff) From: The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 1995 By: Bob David Title: The Outlook: Free Trade Is Headed For More Hot Debate: "The Mexican meltdown demolished the Bush and Clinton administrations' formula to sell Nafta: free-trade pacts=exports=jobs. With the peso devaluation, the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico will disappear and with the claim that Nafta will generate jobs, says Gary Hufbauer, a trade economist whose predicition that Nafta would create 130,000 additional jobs in five years was parroted by the White House. 'The best figure for the jobs effect of Nafta is approximately zero,' he says now. 'The lesson for me is to stay away from job forecasting.'" For more on what Hufbauer and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) should stay away from, please see the review of his book, NAFTA: AN ASSESSMENT, by Kai Mander, available at the IATP gopher site:gopher.igc.apc.org:70/11/trade/iatp in the Trade Library conference, topic #139. Some excerpts: "In spite of their own research findings to the contrary, Hufbauer and Schott nevertheless hold up the ideological argument of free trade as proof of long-term benefits. They claim, "Investment by US firms in Mexico is a 'good event' rather than a 'bad event' for the United States" because "foreign investment by US firms creates US jobs, both in the short run, by boosting US exports of capital goods, and in the long run, by establishing channels for the export of US intermediate components, replacement parts, and associated goods and services" (19). The authors hope to quell concern about US companies moving to Mexico, but again their argument is inconsistent. "The fact that some US plants close, just as some Mexican plants close, should be read as evidence that the market system is working, not that it is failing. From the standpoint of the US economy as a whole, what counts is how many net jobs are created by NAFTA" (14). Ten pages later, in arguing the US will benefit from greater competition and a larger continent-wide market created by NAFTA, they claim that increased efficiency and higher output will earn approximately $15 billion a year between Mexico and the US. "Over the long-term, this figure -- not jobs won or lost -- is the true measure of the economic gain from the NAFTA agreement," the authors contend (24). ...Hufbauer and Schott's specific plans are not realistic. Each seems to be based on an amazingly profound faith in the governments and corporations of the US, Canada and Mexico to act in an ethical fashion. They recommend that the US-Mexico Binational Commission not have the "power to levy fines or award money damages against particular firms or industries," but instead should act as "a roving spotlight." If businesses do not conduct themselves properly of their own accord, the authors contend, "The glare of publicity should be sufficient to promote compliance" in most cases. (30) While a great glare of publicity does have its influence, a commission report would be an unlikely source to stir up such a public outcry." Dale Wiehoff Communications Director Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) 1313 5th St.,SE, Suite 303 Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546 USA Tel: (612) 379-5980 Fax: (612) 379-5982 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
