You are looking at 1 - 10 of 14 items

  • Author or Editor: Lars Magnusson x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Lars Magnusson

In chapter 23 of the General Theory Keynes presented Mercantilism as a brave heretical school which intuitively had reached a clear and consistent understanding of economic realities not only of the past but also of today. Why Keynes defended Mercantilism must be understood in terms of his own aspiration to formulate a general theory which could master the old laissez-faire orthodoxy. Too little demand in the economy created a downward spiral of recession and depression. The mercantilists’ plea for a favourable balance of trade show that they understood the positive role of plenty of money in circulation, Keynes argued. Moreover, there existed no automatic self-adjusting mechanisms to keep up employment on a “full” level. Hence statesmen’s interventions to achieve a favourable balance of made sense at this time – as other interventions might be useful in more modern times.

This content is available to you

Edited by Lars Magnusson and Jan Ottosson

This content is available to you

Edited by Lars Magnusson and Jan Ottosson

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Lars Magnusson and Jan Ottosson

The notion and interpretation of path dependence have been discussed and utilized in various social sciences during the last two decades. This innovative book provides significant new insights onto how the different applications of path dependence have developed and evolved. The authors suggest that there has been a definite evolution from applications of path dependence in the history of technology towards other fields of social science. They also discuss the various definitions of path dependence (strong or weak) and explore the potential applications of path dependence in new areas such as political economy and economic geography.
You do not have access to this content

Lars Magnusson and Sofia Murhem

This chapter reviews how the Social Dialogue between unions and employers has evolved at the EU level, and asks whether it has a role to play in bridging the growing prosperity gap between the member states. The analysis shows that the Social Dialogue has diminished in importance over the past twenty years. The authors see several reasons to put a stop to this trend. Over the long run, they contend, a strong Social Dialogue can increase citizen support for the Union and strengthen its legitimacy. Through central agreements between the social partners, the European industry and labour market can develop in a way that benefits both sides. Thus the authors conclude that policy-makers ought to promote the Social Dialogue, as an important tool for reducing the prosperity gap between the member states, enhancing the legitimacy of the EU as a whole, encouraging labour mobility, and combatting xenophobia.

This content is available to you

Lars Magnusson and Bo Stråth

This content is available to you

Lars Magnusson and Bo Stråth

Karl Marx was the one who named the emergent economic system in the mid-nineteenth century Europe: capitalism. Adam Smith had emphasised the importance of free trade and global distribution of labour for the world he saw ahead. This imagery of future of Smith was the present of Marx but it looked different from how Smith had imagined. Karl Marx discerned a different key factor than Smith for the development of the industrial “system” after the industrial “revolution”: capital. He saw that investments of capital of a new kind produced not only fortunes but also social problems, and new forms of poverty. He theorised the social question, he recognised the global nature of capitalism, and he discerned the crisis-heavy nature of the new system and tried to explain it. Karl Marx deeply shaped the three most important responses to the tensions of capitalism: the revolutionary approach, the left reformist approach, and the top-down social conservative reform approach through concessions (Bismarck), in response to Marx, embraced as a way to avoid something worse.
You do not have access to this content

Lars Magnusson and Bo Stråth

John Maynard Keynes thematised the problem of uncertainty in the economy and how to cope with the human condition. He shared with Marx the vision of social harmony, with the difference that Keynes looked for harmony through pragmatic copying with the imperfect functioning of the world as it is rather than through a big bang revolution that would change everything. Keynes’s intellectual goal was the unification of the seemingly irreconcilable: uncertainty and social harmony. His economics of harmony was both national and international, which, however, in the latter respect had little in common with the later harmony of the globalisation narrative after 1990. Full employment at home through investment and income redistribution in order to take the pressure off foreign trade, slow down the pace of globalisation, and ease the social tensions in its wake, were some of his prescriptions for social harmony. Keynes was a cosmopolitan European, who looked forward to an era of small political and cultural units combined into larger and more or less closely knit economic units. Keynes was more than an economist. He was a radical and unconventional visionary thinker in a time full of conventions but with few visions. He explored the world, the economy in the world, and the economy in its historical, social, cultural, and political context. It is important to separate Keynes from the Keynesianism after World War II where the technocratic application of his theories made him a mechanic provider of a toolkit for the maintenance of economic growth where growth was a goal for its own sake. Indeed, Keynes had envisaged something beyond the economy as the arena of an endless rat race.
You do not have access to this content

Lars Magnusson and Bo Stråth