scholarly journals Uncertainty and Robustness of Surplus Extraction

Author(s):  
Giuseppe Lopomo ◽  
Luca Rigotti ◽  
Chris Shannon
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Baiman

In this paper, Shaikh’s 1949–2011 classical Phillips curve (CPC) is replicated and extended to 2016. This updated CPC does not follow the pattern anticipated by Shaikh for the years 2012 to 2016. This paper hypothesizes that this divergence is a result of an increasingly “rentier” economy based on surplus extraction through unequal exchange (UE). Andrea Ricci’s methodology is then applied to the 2014 US advertising and market research (A&MR) sector as a sample test of this hypothesis. This analysis shows that UE accounts for $64 billion, or almost a half (45.3 percent), of total US A&MR value added ($141.3 billion) in 2014. A modification of Ricci’s methodology for a firm-level UE estimation finds that in 2014 Facebook alone was able to extract a within-industry, within-country, between-firm absolute rent of $3.8 billion. The paper concludes that Shaikh’s analysis needs to be extended with non-classical political economy UE, or “rentier economy,” analysis.


2009 ◽  
Vol 144 (5) ◽  
pp. 2084-2114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subir Bose ◽  
Arup Daripa

Itinerario ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gagan D. S. Sood

From the beginning of the nineteenth century, remarkable developments in the realm of law were witnessed throughout the world. They expressed and paved the way for a new type of dispensation. For those parts of Asia and the Middle East with a substantial European presence, the legitimate rules, principles, and procedures for resolving disputes were progressively assimilated into systems of state-sanctioned legal pluralism. The process—at once gradual, charged, and punctuated—coincided with the initial consolidation of European imperial dominance and the emergence of Europe's modern global empires.Though these changes in the realm of law date from the nineteenth century, the European presence there had long preceded them. This was perhaps most notable in maritime Asia. The Europeans in this region tended to cluster in their factories or in certain quarters of the towns and cities dotting the Indian Ocean rim. Notwithstanding differences between, say, a Mocha and an Aceh in size, location, and form of government, all these settlements had one quality in common: each was able to profit from the traffic conducted along the coast or across the high seas. As for the sovereign justice on offer, the dispensation that governed it in early modern times was far removed from its later analogue. This stemmed in large part from the rationale and basis for the European presence. In particular, Europeans could not dominate maritime Asia's provincial and imperial powers, especially those located inland, and the great majority of those arriving from western Europe intended to return as soon as possible; despite some involvement in racketeering and other forms of surplus extraction—famously in attempts to introduce and enforce a system of passports in maritime transport and travel—their interests were mainly commercial, oriented towards trade and shipping; the indigenous populations remained on the whole large and resilient; and many of the skills and techniques vested in livelihoods long associated with the region retained their primacy. As a result, the only realistic option for Europeans in maritime Asia was to reconcile themselves to the prevailing order. And this they did, with most of the region's fundamentals, not least in the realm of law, continuing to develop along what were essentially indigenous lines.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document