Do economic markets have necessary historical foundations? First, consider how this issue is addressed in liberal and Marxist thought. You may--or may not--wish to distinguish between variants of liberalism. Secondly, consider how these debates over the creation of markets might be brought to bear in thinking about
one of the following two current issues:
-
The role of markets in the transition from planned socialist economies to market economies; or
-
The role of markets in economic development in some of the poorest and least-developed countries in the world.
Note that we do not expect you to have any specialized knowledge about the two current issues; but only an average newspaper reader or TV watcher's conventional understanding. Please do not set out to do further research on these issues. It would be a deviation from the purpose of the essay, which is to explore the potential of the paradigms for setting up research agendas.
The paper should be 12-15 pages (double-spaced) and is due at the beginning of class #7.
Please choose one of these two topics.
-
A central problem in the liberal paradigm is the difficulty which it has in explaining the existence of cohesive social groups and their role in the economy and in politics. Various attempts to understand such groups include pluralism and neo-corporatism. Marxian theory is more hospitable to notions of cohesive groups but the groups that it recognizes are very limited and very specific. Do the socio-cultural theories which we considered in the course really do any better with respect to groups? To what extent do Sahlins, Weber, Polanyi and Swidler have a single set of core ideas which might provide an explanation of such groups? How would that explanation compare to economic class or to pluralism and neo-corporatism? Pick a particular problem from contemporary economics or politics to illustrate your argument.
-
How do the borders between national societies and the international arena function in the paradigms that we have considered in this seminar? Do the theories work only by assuming that the relationships among state, society and economy are confined within the boundaries of domestic societies? Or can they explain the interaction between domestic and international realms? Imagine that (because of globalization or other reasons) the boundaries between domestic and international realms become weaker and more permeable. How well could these paradigms work to provide analytic frames for understanding relationships between politics, society, and economy in a time of globalization? In your essay consider at least three of the paradigms. Illustrate the strengths and/or weaknesses of each paradigm as it confronts the "new" situation of "borderless" societies. (You are of course welcome to challenge the basic assumptions of the question.)
The essay should be 12-15 pages and it is due at the start of the last class.