Easing myself into the week with a bit of browsing, this review by Michael McCarthy in The Boston Review of a new book about Karl Polanyi piqued my interest. The book is [amazon_link id=”0674050711″ target=”_blank” ]The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique[/amazon_link] by Fred Block and Margaret Somers.
[amazon_image id=”0674050711″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique[/amazon_image]
As stated in the review, I wholeheartedly agree with the Polanyi perspective on markets: “Polanyi’s key work, [amazon_link id=”080705643X” target=”_blank” ]The Great Transformation[/amazon_link], demonstrates that markets and states are not separate entities, which each have their own unique and endogenous dynamics, but instead are inescapably intertwined and mutually constitutive.” Yet when I first read[amazon_link id=”080705643X” target=”_blank” ]The Great Transformation[/amazon_link] – some time in the mid-1980s – it irritated me enormously. I can’t remember why, and my brief notes on the book give no clue, but I do remember the emotion. So I’ve hauled it off my bookshelf and will have to re-read it, to find out why and whether it still has the same effect.
The review of the Block and Somers book, alluding to Albert Hirschman’s [amazon_link id=”067476868X” target=”_blank” ]The Rhetoric of Reaction[/amazon_link], makes it sound as though they are in effect arguing that there is a performative aspect to ‘free markets’: “Block and Somers’s unique contribution is to argue that these public narratives about the economy are key drivers of regulatory policy…. markets are not only embedded socially and politically; markets are also embedded in ideas.” Again, something I would agree with. One of the quotations I jotted down in my brief notes from [amazon_link id=”080705643X” target=”_blank” ]The Great Transformation[/amazon_link] is: “The introduction of free markets, far from doing away with the need for control, regulation and intervention, enormously increased their range.”
[amazon_image id=”080705643X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time[/amazon_image] [amazon_image id=”067476868X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy[/amazon_image]
Pingback: Monday morning market fundamentalism | Homines Economici
I have often wondered why the voters did not elect leaders who would install more laws confiscating more of the corporate profits and redistribute that money to the populace. After all, the majority of the voters are not in the wealthy elite. The ideational embeddedness may be an explanation.
I have suspected that the voters imagined that one day they can join the elite and would not want to have laws that worked against them at the time.
I look forward to reading these books.
Thanks.
I’m no expert, but here’s two thoughts:
1) The entity who receives the tax bill is not necessarily the entity that pays the tax.
A corporation may pass the cost of higher taxes onto their consumers or workers (I believe there is some empirical evidence that it is this last group who bears the brunt).
2) A tax on profits may well discourage real investment by firms, which would be harmful for the whole economy.
Pingback: On reading Polanyi (sigh) | The Enlightened Economist
Pingback: On reading Polanyi (sigh) | Homines Economici