Issue 271 November 09, 2020 web pdf Heterodox Economics Directory
In confined days like these, opportunities for good academic discussions are rare. Against this backdrop, I was happy to join a discussion at the Virtual Plenary of INET's Young Scholars Initiative dedicated to assessing the state of the sub-field of "Philosophy & Economics". As some of you might know (or might have guessed), I consider myself to be an occasional contributor to said field and it was quite refreshing to engage with a series of young and talented scholars debating possible future outlooks for the field. In preparation, I had been asked by the organizers what, in my view, the field should be (more) concerned with in the future.
In a nutshell, my answer to that question was to focus on four core issues:
(1) critical discussions of economic models on the level of textbooks as well as current research. The core aim should be to carefully evaluate important issues such as consistency (both within and across models), how models deal with the differentiation of ‚law-like‘ and ‚auxiliary‘ assumptions (which also pertains to the question to which cases a given model actually does apply) or the role of normativity in basic assumptions as well as with regard to main outcomes (examples for doing so can be found here, here or here).
(2) connecting findings of economic sociology with philosophy of science, for example by asking how economists practice inclusion and exclusion or by assessing how influential groups in economics shape the discipline by inventing new strands of modeling, new empirical approaches or new ways of justifying how things are done (useful starting points could be here, here or here).
(3) contribute more strongly to the solution of the problem of socio-historical specificity – what mechanisms and theories do hold under exactly what conditions and how is this related to the role of auxiliary hypotheses in specific models? Can pluralism contribute anything here?
(4) the critical reflection of new trends and findings in econometrics. The field should be concerned with issues like p-value hacking, publication bias, preference falsification and replication crisis. It should critically examine recent trends in „econometrics without the con“, e.g. by asking for the validity of identifying assumptions, exclusions restrictions and the like (laudable examples can be found here, here or here).
While I hope you share some of my views on this issue, I also wanted to point out that given current calamities related to Corona, the climate et al., the issue of normativity in economic thought probably is most pressing. I am always surprised to see how many standard economists out there still think that economics is a largely 'value-free' endeavor, where normative judgements matter only when deciding on research questions, while in reality the typical economists' use of the concept of efficiency is highly value-loaden.
Let me be clear on that last one: while it is theoretically possible to have a purely instrumental understanding of efficiency as the simplest ways to achieve a given, clearly defined end, it is also possible that 'efficiency' becomes an end in itself or that it affects related concepts or measurements in a normative way.* An example for the first case – efficiency becoming an end in itself – is given by the advocacy of a majority of economists for free trade on the grounds that is welfare-enhancing, i.e. 'more efficient'. While it is sometimes acknowledged that economic openness might have adverse distributional effects (in most cases by referencing this theorem), this insight never turns the table since the preference for efficiency imposes that a greater pie is always to be preferred to a more equally distributed one.
Similarly, efficiency has an imprint on other concepts used that are supposedly 'value-free': it can affect the way we conceptualize (e.g. GDP resembles a quantitative 'more is better' approach to welfare) or employ (e.g. interpreting the wage share as the 'relative contribution of labor') economic measures and it shapes our understanding of related theoretical variables. In both contexts, normative aspects can play a key role. Key examples related to current crises are how to economically represent human lives to conceptualize ill-suited 'trade-offs' between saving lives and saving employment (Corona) or how to adequately discount future states in economic modeling (climate). Regarding the latter, for instance, economists have declared that human impatience is a relevant normative foundation to be factored in to finally arrive at an estimate for an 'optimal', i.e. efficient, degree of global warming. Such modeling decisions are obviously highly value-loaden and contestable – and they are closely related to a specific understanding of efficiency that prevails in standard economics. In this framework any assumption about preferences can be potentially normative – and discounting is just an example for one that is heavily so.
Hope to not have bored you with my current philosophical concerns. In any case, I hope you enjoy this issue of the Newsletter!
* On a more general level the notion of 'efficiency becoming an end itself' is a basic topos of many dystopian storylines, from classics like "Brave New World" or "We" up to these nice guys, who, like economists, always strive for "peak efficiency";-)
© public domain
12-25 April 2021 | online
"Reality: The Value of Institutional Empiricism"
The 42 st Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Thought is scheduled to take place April 12-25 2021, online in conjunction with the 63rd Annual Western Social Science Association Conference. The conference will be virtual, but we intend to work hard to create space to interact with one another.
The Association for Institutional Thought (AFIT) invites you to submit papers and/or propose full sessions that examine the ways in which experience and observation informs our understanding of the economy and policy recommendations. The kernels of this year’s theme were planted at the AFEE meetings before everything changed. It is inspired by James Swaney who, along with Paulette Olson, introduced me to institutional thought. Jim used to point out in department meetings that institutionalism is based on inductive reasoning and that this is vastly superior to neoclassical economics, which is based on deductive reasoning built on false assumptions. It is also inspired by the observation that mainstream economists do not believe econometrics results when it contradicts their pre-conceived notions (consider the research on minimum wage increases).
Nevertheless, over the course of the year, the importance of thinking grounded in reality has taken on new significance as more things that used to be matters of science have become
politicized. Economics has always been politicized. Economic data has always been subject to political manipulation. So, I think we have something useful to say about 2020 when reality and the efforts to distort it have become an overarching motif. Possible expressions of this theme:
Naturally, we welcome papers that do not fall into these areas as well.
AFIT values pluralism and interdisciplinarity, and papers/sessions from non-economists as well as those connecting institutional economics to other heterodox traditions are encouraged. We also encourage sessions reviewing and discussing recently published books, especially those written by AFIT members. As an organization with a student-development and pedagogical emphasis we encourage papers and panels in the area of economics pedagogy. Likewise, students, both graduate and undergraduate, are welcome to submit paper and panel proposals; and AFIT (along with the Association for Evolutionary Economics) will be sponsoring a prize for outstanding student papers.
Submission of Abstracts
Submission must be made via the online portal.
Check back to that link for further information about registration. The cost will be something between $210 - $230, but we hope there will be discounted rates available to students and retirees. Think of this less as the price of entry and more as a donation to the preservation of the institution that is the WSSA through difficult times. Proposals for complete panels and roundtables to be held through Zoom or similar platform are strongly encouraged. Send me an e-mail if you have a webinar proposal or if you have submitted only a paper, but want to be part of a panel. I will consider whether individual paper proposals can be organized into panel webinars according to theme or whether individual papers presentations make more sense.
We also encourage panels and webinars with a solid theme that could be recorded and used as a teaching resource.
Submitters of Single papers (upload of .doc, .docx, and .pdf files) or Recorded presentations or Recorded roundtables or workshops (upload of .mp4, .ppt, or .pptx) will need to provide the
following to WSSA:
The deadline to upload recorded sessions and document-only papers will be March 22, 2021. Submitters for Zoom presentations or roundtables should submit the panel on WSSA’s site as above AND send the following e-mail to Barbara.Hopkins@wright.edu:
Current membership in AFIT is required for presenting a paper. For more information about AFIT, to renew membership, and so on, visit the offical website. For general queries regarding the conference, contact the conference organizer and Vice President of AFIT, Barbara.email@example.com
Submission Deadline: 29 January 2021
23-25 September 2021 | Linz, Austria
Few topics are as politically charged as “international migration”. The 56th ITH Conference seeks to discuss the issue from a global and historical perspective. Changing employment opportunities and income inequalities within and between countries and regions will be its starting point. The agency of migrants and the relationship of the political left to labour mobility will be situated and discussed within this large frame. We are interested in analysing the connections between the mobility of capital and the mobility of labour and the diverse responses of workers and worker organizations and employers to these processes from the early modern period to the present day. We use a broad definition of migration, including free and unfree labour, temporary and permanent migrants, as well as the full variety of status classifications, ranging from sans papiers and asylum seekers/refugees to classical migrant workers.
Over the last two centuries international wage differentials have grown enormously, and labour markets are divided into more or less impermeable segments, with migrants often predominating in the low-wage sectors and a few other specific segments (e.g. health care). In the immigration countries and regions, workers in the higher-placed segments and some sectors of the political left tend to see the low-wage sectors as a threat. They can respond to the challenge posed by badly paid competitors in three different, but frequently connected, ways: 1) exclusion, i.e. the attempt to block immigration; 2) institutionalization, i.e. the confinement of low-wage workers to certain occupations and economic activities; or 3) solidarity, i.e. the attempt to raise lower wages to higher levels; this includes demands for global redistribution (at the expense of capital/propertied classes and/or at the expense of the labouring classes) in order to improve conditions in the emigration countries. In the emigration regions, the emigration of people with low qualifications has often been promoted, while the migration of skilled personal trained in these regions is considered more problematic. Overall, it cannot be presupposed that an increase in labour supply automatically results in more difficult conditions for the labour movement, while labour shortages would lead to wage increases and improved working conditions. The first set of questions is: Under which conditions do higher-paid workers prefer which response? Which strategies did the labour movement pursue in the emigration and the immigration regions and how did it justify these strategies? How do migrant workers relate and respond to these varieties?
From the perspective of migrant workers there is a second set of choices. They can aim to pursue different plans and strategies when migrating: 1) permanent immigration of the worker him/herself and, if possible, with his/her family; 2) commuting in a wide range of temporal rhythms, depending on the distance between workplace and home and on job requirements. These options, of course, overlap and the migrants ́ plans and strategies may change due to changing conditions, personal expectations and preferences, or experiences. (Potential) migrants also develop strategies to negotiate, sidestep or alter migration regulations; for instance, they may migrate as refugees, or engage in cross-border marriages, when facing restrictive policies. Alternatively, potential migrant workers can choose to focus on the improvement of their conditions at home. They can use a variety of strategies: 1) collective struggle against the destruction of their livelihoods and for the improvement of working conditions and higher wages; 2) individual strategies of upward mobility; 3) demands for global redistribution (at the expense of capital/propertied classes and/or workers in privileged countries). The second set of questions is: Under which conditions do migrant workers aim to pursue which strategies? How are their choices affected by the preferences and actions of their autochthonous competitors on the labour market? How has the political left, including organizations involving migrants, related to the agency of migrants?
Third, there are strategies pursued by employers. Wage increases in general and rising wages in the low-wage sectors in particular may induce businesses to develop at least six different strategies to maintain profitability: 1) the geographical relocation of production or certain components of production (commodity chains) to regions with cheaper workers and less regulated work; in doing so, capital may develop strategies to ensure more advantageous regulations concerning capital movement and labour law; 2) the reduction of the number of labourers through the transformation of labour processes; 3) a shift to new economic branches and product lines; 4) the shift of capital from production and trade to the finance sector (”financialization”); 5) the shift to other labour relations, e.g. self-employment; 6) influence on migration policies and regulations in order to secure additional influx of cheap labour. The third set of questions is: Under which conditions does capital opt for geographical relocation or geographical re-composition? Under which conditions does it opt for one of the other strategies? How has the political left responded to these various strategies?
The relocation of capital and the mobility of the workforce have been closely interrelated. Population growth and the freedom to move have often served as important pre-conditions for the renewed accumulation of capital. At the same time, the relocation of capital has social consequences both for the old and the new locations, and both for autochthonous and migrant workers. At the old locations unemployment will probably increase. Families of unemployed workers may use several methods to cope with the job loss, including e.g. increased subsistence activities; migrant workers may return to their (former) homes – perhaps attracted by the relocation of capital to their home regions. Both groups may also aim to move to more promising locations, elsewhere in the country or abroad – thus leading to new forms of migration. The new production site will often not only attract workers from nearby, but also from further afield. So, in various ways capital moves may lead to workers’ moves. The fourth set of questions is: Under which conditions does the movement of capital lead to out-migration and/or in-migration? How have migration policies shaped these processes? In which way have processes of migration triggered the relocation of capital? The aim of the conference is to discuss these questions at an empirical and a conceptual level and invites papers which duly situate their empirical case or conceptual inquiry within the larger frame of the discussion of capital and labour on the move as summarized in this Call for Papers. How have labour movements and/or other social movements in both the emigration and the immigration regions discussed and conceptualized the question of the special mobility of capital and labour? How have these movements contributed to shaping of the interaction between the mobility of labour and capital? What has been the role of state-operated and other migration policies in shaping these interactions? How did the strategies of mobile workers impact on these interactions? How can empirical case studies refine our understanding of the interaction between the mobility of capital and of labour? Which migration and labour market theories shed light on the – however unequal – interrelationship between (non-)moving capital and (non-)moving workers? Contributions with transnational, (world-)regional or global perspectives or topics are equally welcome.
Proposed papers should include:
The abstract of the suggested paper should contain a separate paragraph explaining how and (if applicable) to which element(s) or question(s) of the Call for Papers the submitted paper refers. The short CV should give information on the applicant’s contributions to the field of labour history, broadly defined, and specify (if applicable) relevant publications. For the purpose of information, applicants are invited to attach a copy of one of these publications to their application.
Proposals to be sent to Charlotte Rönchen: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note on planning for the 56th ITH Conference 2021
The 56th ITH Conference will be held on site at the AK-Bildungshaus Jägermayrhof in Linz. Participants who will not be able to attend in person, will have the opportunity to participate online. If circumstances so require, we are committed to hold the conference (more) fully online.
Submission Deadline: 10 January 2021
edited by John Shovlin, Philip Stern and Carl Wennerlind | 2021, Routledge
This series seeks manuscripts exploring the many dimensions of early modern political economy, and especially the ways in which this period established both foundations for and alternatives to modern capitalist thought and practice. We welcome submissions that examine this history from a variety of perspectives—political, intellectual, cultural, economic, scientific, social, spatial, or others—and in contexts ranging from the local to the global. Potential themes include efforts to understand how natural philosophy and political economy were intertwined and how they shaped prevailing worldviews of both individual actors and states; the uneasy coexistence of liberty and coercion in labor, commodity, and financial markets; the tension between commercial activities, social virtues, and political stability; the interplay between commercial, military, and political power at home and overseas; the incongruity between ideal categories, such as free trade, and real world practices. While we will consider traditional monographs, our primary focus is on the publication of shorter interpretive and conceptual books (50-70,000 words). We believe that this format is ideal for the development of broad arguments and perspectives, providing authors with the opportunity to develop their ideas in a flexible and accessible format. We are also open to proposals for other forms of scholarship, both innovative and traditional, such as collaborative works, edited collections, and critical textual editions.
Authors interested in submitting a proposal, please feel free to contact any of the series editors: John Shovlin (New York University), Philip Stern (Duke University), Carl Wennerlind (Barnard College).
For more information visit the official website.
The Hellenic Association of Political Scientists (HAPSc) is inviting all researchers and experts to submit Policy Briefs based on recent research conducted in the following topic: “State, Democracy, Society and Economy in the 21st century: challenges and prospects”. Our journal considers pluralism of outmost importance. Heterodox approaches are welcome.
I. Introduction: Policy Briefs are tools that can transfer academic findings to a concise policy note that could be accessible by policy makers and general public. The choice of the topic is left open to researchers.
II. Eligibility: The Call is open to both members and non-members of the Hellenic Association of Political Scientists and the brief could be a submitted by up to six authors. Authors can be academics, technocrats and business executives.
III: Language: Accepted language is English. Additionally, applicants could also submit papers in French, Spanish and Greek. We encourage interdisciplinary and interlinguistic dialogue.
IV: Topics: Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
V: Submission and Evaluation process: Please submit your Policy Brief to email@example.com with e-mail Subject: “Submission at HAPSc Policy Briefs Series”
The policy brief should:
Also, your submission should include two word document:
Your policy brief should be named as “nameofauthor_hapscpolicybriefs2020.docx” and should be written in Times New Roman 12, line spacing 1.5. Also, you should follow the Harvard reference style.
The evaluation will be based on the following criteria:
Please find the full call here.
Submission Deadline: 30 November 2020
The Review of Capital as Power is pleased to announce our 2021 essay competition. We are seeking essays that engage with the idea of capital as power. Winning essays will be published in the Review of Capital as Power, and will receive $1000 CAD. Please find further information here.
Submission Deadline: 31. January 2021
The Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics invites submissions for a forthcoming special issue devoted to the challenges posed by global pandemics, in general, and by the Covid–19 pandemic, in particular.
We are especially interested in short, focused contributions (2,000–4,000 words) that take an interdisciplinary approach at the intersection of philosophy and economics, and we welcome texts by authors from across the disciplinary spectrum.
We invite submissions from the following broad categories of possible (but non-exhaustive) questions:
While naturally our—like everyone’s—immediate attention is focused on the Covid–19 pandemic, we very much welcome texts that draw lessons from past pandemics for the challenges we currently face.
Texts should be in the range of 2,000–4,000 words.
Submissions will go through a standard peer-review process. Please make a submission through the journal’s standard submission system. The special issue is scheduled for publication in the spring/summer of 2021.
If you have questions, contact the editors at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Application Deadline: 10 January 2021
18-20 January 2021 | online
The Ergodicity Economics 2021 conference (EE2021) will be held virtually from 18th to 20th January 2021, organised by the London Mathematical Laboratory. The conference aims to promote research in Ergodicity Economics and related fields such as neuroscience, psychology, marketing, and medical research. It will be a dialogue between academics, practitioners, and the public. The organisers welcome submissions of theoretical, empirical, and experimental research, and encourage contributions that are critical of Ergodicity Economics. Research will be presented in short recorded talks. These will be circulated in advance and broadcast with live discussion during the conference.
To speak at EE2021, you must submit a title and an abstract (max 150 words) by Sunday 1st November 2020. To attend EE2021 as an audience member, join the conference mailing list. We will notify you when registration opens. The conference fee will be £20 for students and £50 for non-students, payable on registration by speakers and non-speakers.
Questions about the conference should be addressed to EE2021@lml.org.uk. Announcements will be made on Twitter at @EE_2021 (https://twitter.com/EE_2021). Please find all information at the official website.
Submission Deadline: 1 November 2020
29 June - 02 July | Toulouse
The Association Française dEconomie Politique (AFEP), France’s heterodox economics association, has announced its 2021 conference from June 29th to July 2nd in Toulouse.
Please find further information here (in French).
Submission Deadline: 15 January 2021
Objects, Conditions, and Possibilities of Ideology Critique in and of Economics
A peculiarity of the relationship between ideology and ideology critique is that ideology does not exist as a discrete discipline, and no ideologues serve as representatives of this discipline to determine the object of study. Although the philosopher of enlightenment and liberal economist Destutt de Tracy (1754–1836) once wanted to establish ideology as the “science of ideas” (science des idées), this ambitious project failed because of political resistance from restorative forces in postrevolutionary France (Kennedy 1979). No subsequent scholars have taken up this task; consequently, ideology analysis and critique are not considered a unique subject and have no fixed point of reference: socioeconomic conditions, consciousness, scientific and everyday knowledge, culture, practice, patterns of interpretation and discourse were and continue to be considered the subject matter of ideology analysis and critique, which is devoted to the attempt to carve out and criticize the specific ideological dimensionsembodied by the respective entities or phenomena. Ideology critique within and of economics includes, but is not limited to, the critique of theories and their assumptions and contents as well as the practical consequences associated with certain approaches. Taking the critical theory perspective (cf. Geuss 1981), one might wonder whether the genesis of economics in general, or of certain subfields within the discipline in particular, can be regarded as “tainted” and whether ideologies can “fall out of time” or “fall into the wrong hands”. Furthermore, do ideologies affect the (de)stabilization of practices, institutions and social orders and, if so, to what extent? For example, do market relations undermine morality (see Kuch 2017)?This zfwuspecial issue aims to shed light on the role of disciplinary approaches or discipline-specific perspectives in formulating ideology critique—including the critical views on economics that other disciplines take. Accordingly, it can be understood as eitherinternal critique (i.e., self-critique) or external critique (e.g., integrative economic ethics; Ulrich 2008). Referring to Kant’s ethical theory (i.e., the view that human beings, based on reason, do not have to accept the prevailing circumstances of their life), Ulrich (2008: 4) characterizes integrative economic ethics as “unconditional and comprehensive critique of ideology”, unlimited by actual or perceived economic constraints. Drawing from Kantian ethics, Ulrich (2008: 3) reflects on the (often implicit) normative preconditions or foundations of economic theory and practices. Here, ideology critique starts with its object (the market), while the criticizing theory determines what is critical about it. The critique of another discipline, as well as the theories and the practices associated with it, determines the type of critique. In line with this approach, the ideology critique of states of affairs in the social lifeworld is initiated from outside, that is, is external to it.Another camp in contemporary critical theorydoes not seek to gain information about the contents and the criteria of (immanent) critique from theory;rather, proponents gain this information from practice, which theyconceive of as inherently contradictory (cf. Jaeggi2006). According to Geuss (1981), a negative or false ideology is indicative of distorted reason. People are not completely mistaken about their consciousness, interests or needs—a prerequisite for immanent critique.Rather, critical theory can gain something, if not everything, from the analysis of people and social constructs themselves—for example,from their ideas and concepts of truth,rationality, freedom or the good life (Geuss 1981: 88)
Economics has endured an extraordinary amount of ideology critique. One reason for this extensive critique is that “economics was born out of philosophy” (Nussbaum 2016: 229),and economics scholars have changedsome philosophical ideas and concepts as they integrated them into their field. The narrow concept of rationality (Löhr and Burkatzki 2015; Ulrich 2008), the dichotomization of the positive and the normative (Friedman 1953; Van de Laar and Peil 2009) and economic value theory (Riese 1973; Srinivasan 2016) exemplify this development. Furthermore, contemporary (mainstream) economics, deploying a narrow, one-dimensional approach to rationality, has been criticized for having formulated the claim about its ability to explain phenomena that do not originate from economics(cf. Becker 1976); thus, the field of economics has been exposed to the accusation of imperialism (see Becker 1993; Pies and Leschke 1998).This special issue aims to explore how acritique of economic practice and theorycan and should unfold,be it as a critical discipline ora theory of economics (what role does theory play?), a method in which analysis and critique coincide in a particular way (cf. Jaeggi 2009), a critical understanding in line with Ricoeur (cf. Figal 2009), a recourse to virtuous practice and mode of questioning associated with it (cf. Foucault 1992) or a critique that, reflectingon itself, recognizes itself as insufficient (cf. Geuss 2009) and should therefore change or renew itself. Further questions arise with regard to the interfacesbetween performativity, economics and social order: What are the foundations for the validity of theories and models? What consequences have emerged from the acceptance of economic theories for assessments of the potential worth of social orders(Müller-Doohm 2017)? Which broader perspectives on what we associate with the economicrealmcan claim of themselves that they are critical and capable of renewing theories/practices/ideologies? What about a critical theory of economics(cf. Hermann-Pillath 2018)? Is it also a critique of ideology, a status integrative economicethics can claim for itself?
Although economics is the main focus of this special issue, as comparative analyses of disciplines can generate new insights, we welcome contributions that address other disciplines as well, such as philosophyand the social,natural and life sciences, which link the nature of living with the social(e.g.,ecology).Guest editors of this special issue are Ingrid Becker (University of St. Gallenand Friedrich-Alexander UniversityErlangen-Nürnberg) and Michaela Haase (Freie Universität Berlin) and Marc C. Hübscher (Deloitte).Contact: Niklas Dummer
Please read the author's instructions on our website before submitting manuscripts. In addition to the necessary formalities, you will find a print format template that will make your work easier from a technical point of view. You can submit your manuscript via e-mail to email@example.com. For further questions,please contact the editorial team.
Submission Deadline: 1 June 2021
The Max Planck Online Workshop in Comparative Political Economy (MAX CPE) is a new online seminar series in Comparative Political Economy, hosted by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies and coordinated by Arianna Tassinari, Björn Bremer, and Lucio Baccaro. Inspired by the success of online seminars in neighboring fields, this new online seminar series aims to foster exchanges, connections, and conversations in the global community of scholars of Comparative Political Economy (CPE) and beyond.
MAX CPE will provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of new research in CPE, taking advantage of the online format to transcend the usual territorial boundaries even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. We invite proposals for paper presentations from scholars working on all aspects of Comparative Political Economy, broadly understood as the comparative study of advanced and emerging capitalist political economies, underpinned by a common concern with embedding the analysis of economic phenomena within the social and political realms.
The seminar series is open to comparative political economy scholarship focusing on all geographical and historical contexts. We welcome proposals for papers on diverse themes such as comparative capitalism, financialization, inequality, industrial relations, growth models, welfare states and social policy, as well as topics at the intersection between comparative and international political economy. We are committed to the principles of methodological and theoretical pluralism, and we especially encourage contributions from early career scholars, women, people of color, and other under-represented groups in the discipline.
The seminar series will be launched in January 2021. Seminars will be scheduled monthly and last 90 minutes. After a presentation lasting around 30 minutes, a discussant will provide initial comments, followed by time for questions and further comments. Papers will be circulated in advance to registered participants, and we aim to build a network of regular participants.
If you would like to present a paper, please send a proposed title, an abstract of 300 words, and (if available) a working paper by 30 November 2020 to firstname.lastname@example.org
Submission Deadline: 30 November 2020
The world looks very different from how it was a year ago. Even more so from the perspective of the Global South. Much has been said about the corrosive effects of COVID-19 on the economies and political economies of the Global South, although we know much less about the implications for sustainability in these nations, anecdotal evidence suggests that the pandemic has delayed and perhas even reversed progress on sustainability. Particular concern has arisen regarding the broadening of inequality gaps within and between countries and questions have been revisited asking just how just is our current approach to sustainable development.
Traditionally, sustainability is seen three dimensionally: environment, economy, and society, but just sustainabilitymust be seen as interconnected and global. Current concepts of sustainability increasingly emphasise the need for change, usually stressing sustainability transitions, sustainability transformations, and systemic changes. However, it remains unclear what the ramifications of these multiple changes would be for countries in the Global South , perhaps signalling a need to alter our theories, theorising and methods of study.
We are at a crucial juncture in our efforts to realise a sustainable and just world within one interconnected earth. There is a unique opportunity to build back better following the pandemic, but we must do so in inclusive ways. In spite of much talk about ‘collaboration’, scientific relationships in sustainability science research are too uneven and unequal. Without decolonising sustainability, the Global South and its peoples, often those making the least contribution to the socio-ecological crises of today and yet those hardest hit by the effects of environmental degradation, will be left behind.
With the goal of limiting (and indeed reducing) inequalities in mind, we launch this call for papers for consideration for publication in a focus issue of One Earth. We seek research papers on a wide range of topics. We encourage diversity, pluralism, and citizenship, whether in disciplines, fields, paradigms or any other identity. Our theme, however, is a compass and includes the following:
We invite interested authors to submit an advanced abstract that indicates how their papers align with these objectives and significantly advance our understanding. The editors and co-ordinators of the focus issue strongly encourage scientists based in, or coming from, the Global South to submit, where needed, collaborations which reverse historical uneven relations between geographies, races, (dis)abilities, and genders are preferable. All submissions will need to meet the criteria for One Earth and offer a significant advance in understanding over the existing literature https://www.cell.com/one-earth/aims
Submission of abstracts for pre-approval by the focus issue coordinators should be submitted via eform (link https://elomake.helsinki.fi/lomakkeet/107987/lomake.html)
* 150 words, including the following
All possible questions and other matters, authors need to contact the focus issue co-ordinators Franklin Obeng-Odoom (Franklin.Obeng-Odoom@helsinki.fi) and Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki (email@example.com), Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), University of Helsinki, Finland.
Application Deadline: 15 December 2020
edited by Kean Birch
Big Tech is in the spotlight. Usually defined as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google/Alphabet, and Facebook, “Big Tech” has become a watchword for corporate surveillance, monopoly, and market power. Arguably, they are the defining institutions of our day, dominating our political economies, societies, and polities as Big Oil or Big Banks did in their time. Criticism of Big Tech is increasingly evident as well, cutting across popular books, academic work, film, and journalism. Big Tech has been the subject of critical political investigations, like the recent US Congressional Hearings on Online Platforms and Market Power, or the International Grand Committee on Big Data, Privacy and Democracy.
Although Big Tech is facing the glare of negative publicity, there is a notable absence of discussion about it in science and technology studies (STS), with some exceptions. Cognate fields – like information science, communication studies, law, algorithm or data studies, and so forth – have engaged with particular aspects of Big Tech or its antecedents. For example, in analyses of how digital platforms and technologies reinforce social discrimination or disrupt political process. But STS as a field has not engaged analytical or empirically with ‘Big Tech’ as a specific and perhaps still emergent configuration of contemporary, technoscientific capitalism underpinned by monopoly and market power. Such configurations entail the techno-economic measurement and management of social relations and action, performatively driven by a particular techno-economic logic. For example, research on digital data illustrates the configuring of organizational practices by an “imperative to collect as much data as possible” (Fourcade and Healy, 2017). These data are necessarily scored and ranked in particular ways (e.g. individually), thereby re-configuring organizations in the process (ibid.). Similar techno-economic assumptions have been analysed for innovation more generally.
Here, STS scholars are ideally placed to unpack and explore the techno-economic assumptions and knowledge claims, measurement tools and standards, organizational practices and expertise, innovation and business strategies, and policy debates underpinning the ascendance of Big Tech. All such aspects are normative as much as they are constitutive, reflecting key public debates right now about Big Tech’s monopoly or market power derived from digital network effects, threats to privacy in its collection of personal data as an asset, and role in generating new political-economic inequalities through automation, algorithms, and platforms. This SaC Forum seeks to engage scholars in an STS analysis of Big Tech, especially their role in science, technology, innovation, and expertise more generally. Submissions should address questions like the following:
Instructions for Submission
Submission: send submissions to both Les Levidow and Kean Birch; forum articles will be reviewed by both Les and Kean, but will not be sent out for peer review. Full-scale papers (10k words maximum) are also welcome. But these would need to follow the SaC editorial guidelines and undergo the normal referee procedure through the online system. If not ready in time for the Forum, they will be published in a later issue. See guidlines here.
Submission Deadline: 28 February 2021
25 - 28 February 2021 | Sheraton Hotel New York, New York (with online option)
URPE members are invited to submit entire organized sessions or individual papers to URPE for our participation in this year’s 47 Eastern Economics Association Annual Conference. Please see the Eastern Economic Association conference website https://www.ramapo.edu/eea/ for more information about the conference itself. In its fifteenth year, URPE @ EEA continues to provide a forum for URPE members and economists across the heterodox spectrum to meet and engage each other and continue to develop the frontiers of radical economic theory. Organized sessions (including discussants if desired, but not required) are welcome and encouraged.
We target building sessions of 3 papers given the short sessions (1 hour 20 minutes), but can accept proposals with up to 4 papers. As one would guess, the procedure will be slightly different this year, due to COVID-19. The Easterns have adopted the hybrid conference format, part live and part virtual. Submissions of your proposals to URPE to present a paper or a panel (and as always we prefer proposals for panels when possible, it facilitates an excellent focus among the papers) will be just as in previous years, EXCEPT there will be one additional question to indicate if you intend for the presentation to be live at the hotel or virtual.
Click here to submit an individual paper proposal or Click here to submit a complete session proposal
Please make all inquiries about submissions to Al Campbell at firstname.lastname@example.org or Armagan Gezici at email@example.com.
Rules and Notes for submissions to URPE @ EEA:
1. All presenters must be dues-paying URPE members by the time of the deadline (November 15, 2019). Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you have questions about membership.
2. URPE membership is not a requirement for discussants but is strongly encouraged because of our good working relation with the EEA.
3. For a proposal to be considered for acceptance it must clearly indicate the full names, email addresses, and institutional affiliations of the participants (including the discussants). The titles of the papers, detailed abstracts, and — if available — working drafts and/or completed papers, as well as suggested names for the sessions (in the case of complete panel proposals) must also be submitted. All this is indicated on the Electronic Proposal Form that you will use.
Submit your proposal for participation in the URPE at EEA panels for a paper or panel to the location on the URPE Web site indicated above. Do not submit a proposal for a paper to the EEA. If you do that then the paper will get double listed, on the URPE@EEA panels and on another panel designated by the EEA.
After you have been notified by URPE that your proposal is accepted, you will need to register for attendance at the conference at the EEA Web site. This is the second step listed on their site for submitting a paper proposal (again, do not submit a paper proposal directly to the EEA, the first step listed there), and one can go directly to this second step without submitting a paper proposal to the EEA. The direct address for registering for the conference (or getting EEA membership) (to be inserted later).
Note membership in the EEA is not necessary, but like many groups, they give a lower conference registration rate to members to motivate conference presenters to join the EEA. It cost $60 more to register if not a member, and $65 for the standard membership with journal delivered on-line and $70 for print journal delivery (and less for graduate students or retired people). URPE encourages participants to join the EEA. There has always in the past been a slightly reduced registration rate for URPE members offered as one of the registration options. Note in regards to saving money that while the registration rate is only marginally lower, by submitting your proposal to URPE for the URPE panels one saves the fee the EEA charges for submitting a paper, which is a separate charge from the conference registration fee (they waive the paper proposal fee for us because we in URPE organize all our papers into panels and submit panels, saving them a lot of work). Of course the reason to submit to an URPE panel is not for the monetary savings, but rather to hopefully end up with the other papers on the panel being more similar in their approach to economics, and hence making for better interaction and feedback, but there is a slight monetary savings.
Note the conference registration fee is lower if you register with the EEA for the conference by the “early bird” conference registration deadline of October 15, but one can register (again, at a higher rate) any time up to and including on arrival at the conference (onsite registration). Again, registering to attend (done to the EEA on their site) and submitting a proposal for a paper (done to URPE on the URPE Web site) are two separate actions.
For further information please visit the officical website. Please make all inquiries about submissions to Al Campbell at email@example.com or Armagan Gezici at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Submission Deadline: 15 November 2020
15-16 April 2021 | online and offline (for local participants in Hong Kong only)
organized by Linda Yin-nor Tjia (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong) and Jewellord Nem Singh (Leiden University, the Netherlands)
Ever since China announced the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, many academic research, policy reports, and journalistic commentaries have been very sceptical about the intentions and outcomes of such a massive infrastructure plan. On the one hand, China’s slowing economic growth, the unprecedented problem of overcapacity and inevitable development bottlenecks have contributed to drive speculation and interest into the study of the hidden agenda of extractive neo-colonialism, military expansionism and authoritarian statism. On the other hand, there is now recognition of the great intellectual significance to probe on how the engaging/recipient countries leverage President Xi’s ambitious Chinese dream and the abundance Chinese capital. To this extent, recent works have emphasized the ‘highly contingent, extremely loose, and indeterminate nature’ of Chinese grand strategy, driven by both the competing interests within the Chinese state and the divergent domestic dynamics of power in host states.
As a starting point, the multi-faceted nature of China-BRI relations is further complicated by patterns of domestic economic governance. In particular, the rise of China has provided a model of growth for political elites in the Global South to move away from neoliberalism and Washington Consensus as a template for development. Some recent works have outlined the trajectory of Chinese capitalism as a co-evolution between state capacity and dynamic economic markets. From resource nationalism to re-engaging with industrial policy, states have begun to articulate some form of state capitalism as a means of asserting sovereignty and reclaiming policy spaces in a world order rapidly in flux. With the decline of neoliberalism comes not only heterodox approaches to economic development but also a search for alternative driving forces for structural transformation in their national economies. To be clear, China’s impact on developing countries is highly debated and its end result remaining tentative. For some countries Chinese finance and investments have served as an effective alternative to international financial institutions and created opportunities for articulating new development strategies. For others, growing Chinese presence has been perceived as a threat to the capacity of domestic firms (especially in traditional export manufacturing countries like Turkey, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico) to compete against an emerging global manufacturing powerhouse. In the context of BRI projects, host states have considered demanding more from China by diversifying investments towards non-resource and non-connectivity related sectors. Kazakhstan, for instance, has sought for Chinese support towards renewable energy, manufacturing and food processing – all of which are rooted on local demands for green energy and industrial development in the face of growing Chinese presence in the national economy.
In this context, this international workshop seeks to examine the changing China-BRI state relations as ‘global China’ deepens its engagement with the Global South. Our project has four key objectives in mind:
With these objectives, our approach is to contextualize China’s BRI in the broader theoretical debate of industrial policy and to examine how some states succeeded or failed to tap into the development opportunities brought forth by the growing presence of China in the world. Specifically, we will explore the domestic and transnational factors as well as the structural and idiosyncratic explanations for the varying capacity of BRI recipient states to negotiate for a set of desirable development trajectories. The novelty of our approach is that we intend to make explicit comparisons across Central Asia, Africa and Southeast Asia in both Silk and Maritime Roads. We recognize the tensions between centralized approaches towards the BRI from China and the messy and complex dynamics due to domestic politics from engaging countries. Drawing from established tradition in recent BRI scholarship, we will adopt the two-step framework to investigate the state-level and sub-national mechanisms. First, according to the asymmetry theory, we hypothesize that China’s deterministic efforts in its BRI has tipped the state-to-state power dynamics with the engaging countries, and unintentionally, may have offered the engaging countries greater leverage to punch above its weight. In the course of state-to-state negotiation, these countries also assume more risks to engage in a wider range of activities with China. Second, social conflict theory assumes that sub-national activities have profoundly shaped the state-led development agendas. The consequences of such local manoeuvres depend on the constituents of the related institutional regime, the development legacy of different industrial sectors, the ideational value, and the capacity of the agents. As a result, while some BRI projects have opened up new opportunities for industrial development in the host countries, others exacerbated regional animosities and enhance disparities. Specifically, we intend to seek patterns across the range of cases as the vaguely defined BRI continues to adapt to the changing realities, and then, to explain the asymmetric state power dynamics between China and the engaging countries, as well as the sub-national manoeuvres among industrial policymakers and stakeholders.
To put cogently, we wish to examine how foreign policies around BRI that signal geopolitical and geo-economic asymmetries of power between China and engaging states are mutually co-evolving with the pull and push factors influencing the political economy of industrial development. By considering the international-domestic nexus and the geostrategic-political economy connections of the BRI, the proposed project promises to map and explain the immediate—and possible long-term—outcomes of Chinese grand strategy coalescing around the BRI. This workshop calls for research papers about the engaging mechanisms and outcomes across the whole set of countries and sectors drawn into the BRI project. We specifically encourage the following papers:
Based on the workshop presentation and discussion, we plan to put together a special issue proposal for inter-disciplinary journals, such as Development and Change, Economy and Society, Journal of Development Studies, and Review of International Political Economy. The workshop will also serve as an initial step to establish an international network focussed on strengthening collaboration among European, African, and Asian scholars working on the BRI. We anticipate that the meeting will offer a platform for further research activities, seminars, and collaborative grant applications.
Instructions for Submission
We anticipate that the workshop will take place both online and offline (for local participants in Hong Kong only) as a public health measure in lieu of corona virus. We will revisit the possibility of moving this into a two-day workshop depending on the appropriate travel advisory advice.
If you are interested in participating in the workshop and the special issue, please write a 400 word abstract and submit to email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org. The following deadlines will be observed: November 30, 2020 for abstract submission and March 30, 2021 for a 6,000-word draft of the paper. We will provide guidance and individual advice as regards the fit of the paper and we will notify accepted abstracts by December 15, 2020.
For more Information please visit the organizer's website.
Submission Deadline: 30 November 2020
17-18 June 2021 | Sciences Po, Paris, France
There is a consensus that economics is more than just a neutral and objective set of categories and variables to describe the economy and adjunct phenomena. Various literatures on the performativity of economic concepts have already traced how models inscribe themselves into the very fabric of modern economic practices. Historians of economic thought have equally outlined how Chicago economics have served as a yardstick to the conservative ‘revolutions’ of the 1970s in Latin America and the Big Bang of the 1980s in Europe. It is often pointed out, more generally, that economics as a profession allows economic experts to identify problems or demand reforms and streamline political debates. In this workshop, we want to build on these insights and pursue the idea of economics as political theory. Political theory is traditionally understood as the discourse anchoring claims to sovereignty. Today unquestionably, it is economics which has come to represent the political theory par excellence. Reading economics as a new form of political theory however faces difficulties, the most important of which is the fact that this discourse is explicitly constructed as a logical discourse that is meant to abstract from politics. Its ability to couch itself in logical or scientific terms has in fact made it a particularly effective form of political theory in its ability to present specific positions as universal.
This framing has made it difficult to think through the politics of economics. Confronted with highly technical or mathematically advanced discourses, scholars interested in politics often default to discuss broad axioms shared within economics. As a result, there is too often a divide between generic critiques of economics found in the works of those interested in politics and the more specific analysis of economic historians who tend to underspecify the contextual (or socio-political) significance of economic ideas. With economics as political theory we seek to challenge this binary and reflect on ways to politicise the formal writings of economics. Thinking through the politics of economics, how the sovereign and the political is implicitly constructed in these models (e.g. of development or public choice), involves not only a reflection on the social context that frames the work of economists, but also a sociology of the economic field that refracts these political concerns in distinct ways. While addressing the politics of economics has traditionally meant identifying the interest behind the theory (Cox 1982), translating economics as political theory implies a broader ambition to reflect on the ways in which the question of politics is framed by an intersubjective field, the discipline itself, and thus requires us to decipher it more generally. Addressing both, we contend, is crucial to avoid reifying economics to treat it as a distinct discursive field, through which a variety of approaches have been articulated. In particular, we look for approaches that deal with:
This workshop is intended as the first step in a broader project to survey the evolution of economics in political terms. It is preliminary planned to take place on the 17 th and 18 th of
June 2021 at Sciences Po in Paris. Among confirmed participants to this workshop are Béatrice Cherrier, Dieter Phlewe and Matthew Watson. After this more conceptual workshop we intend to put together a series of workshops that would broadly cover three different eras of the discipline of economics:
Building on these workshops, we intend to put together a special issue or an edited book on the politics of economics. Those interested in participating in the workshop and presenting a paper should submit a title and a proposal of no more than 500 words to Oliver Kessler (email@example.com), Samuel Knafo (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Matthias Thiemann
Submission Deadline: 4 December 2020
3-5 January 2021 | online
The Allied Social Sciences Associations (ASSA) Meeting 2021 takes place from 3th to 5th January 2021 online.
URPE Sessions @ ASSA: "Radical Visions for the Green New Deal"
Every January URPE sponsors a series of panels at the Allied Social Sciences Associations meetings to provide a venue for the presentation and discussion of current research in heterodox economics. Due to the continued uncertainties related to the spread of COVID-19, the 2021 ASSA Annual Meeting will be held as a virtual event. The meeting will take place on January 3-5, 2021, which is Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. Please click here to register. For questions about URPE events at the meetings, please contact the URPE at ASSA coordinators Mona Ali (email@example.com) and Jared Ragusett (firstname.lastname@example.org). See the American Economic Association website for general information about the conference.
To download a PDF copy of the URPE @ ASSA program please click here: 2021 URPE at ASSA Full Program.
ASE Sessions @ ASSA
Due to the current pandemic environment, the ASSA 2021 Annual Meeting will be held as a virtual event from January 3-5, 2021 and registrations are now being accepted via the AEA website. The ASE is (co-)sponsoring eight paper sessions and an opening plenary session and Q&A session. Detailed instructions and session links will be generated closer to the start of the virtual meeting. Please see below and the AEA website for the preliminary program. In the AEA website, search for ASE sessions by choosing “Association for Social Economics” from the drop-down menu.
Please note that under the current circumstances, the Presidential Breakfast is cancelled and the General Membership and Business Meeting will be held as a virtual event on Friday, January 22, 2021 from 3-5pm eastern time (“New York Time”). ASE awards typically presented at the Presidential Breakfast will instead be awarded at the General Membership and Business Meeting. Additional details concerning the virtual format of this meeting will be announced to ASE members in late December 2020 or early January 2021.
Please join us at the plenary session and ASE sessions! For more information, please contact ASE Executive Secretary Chris Jeffords at email@example.com.
19-20 November 2020, online
We are pleased to invite you to the international conference entitled "From Cooperativism to Commoning. Historical and Contemporary Forms of the Institutions of the Common" which will take place online on November 19 and 20, 2020. The conference will be held on the Zoom platform. The conference is organized by the Institute of Applied Social Sciences, University of Warsaw and Institute of Rural and Agricultural Development, Polish Academy of Sciences.
We invite you to register on common.isns.uw.edu.pl. After registering, you will receive a link to reach the event.
A virtual Festschrift featuring 6 internationally acclaimed academics recognising and celebrating the work of Distinguished Professor Bob Jessop will be held virtually on Thursday 29th October. Distinguished Professor Bob Jessop is as much a Lancaster University institution as the spires of the Chaplaincy. Since arriving as a Professor in Sociology in 1990, he has contributed immeasurably to the intellectual, organisational, and cultural life of the University. The virtual event on 29 October goes some way towards recognising the contributions he has made across his career on the occasion of his retirement.
Intellectually, Bob is a recognised academic authority in social sciences and social theory. He has made significant contributions to no less than three separate fields. First, in state theory and forms of capitalism shaped by Marxist debates. Second, with Dr Ngai-Ling Sum, now an Honorary Researcher in the Sociology Department, in defining and developing critiques of the cultural political economy inflected with the ideas of Gramsci and Foucault. Third, on governance and political economy in post-war Britain. As a result of these endeavours, he has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, more than ten books and presented papers at conferences across the globe. Bob has H-index score of 304 on Google Scholar, where anything over 60 is considered 'truly exceptional'.
Organisationally, Bob has shaped the Sociology Department to be the force which it is today. Serving as Head of Department from 1992 to 1996, between deregulation in higher education and the university's financial crisis, he oversaw a period of considerable expansion. This was captured in the 5* rating awarded in sociology for the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise; one of two to obtain the rating. Later he was the Founding Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies from 2003-09 which developed a global reputation as pushing the frontiers of inter- trans- and multi-disciplinary research. He then became the Founding Director of the Cultural Political Economy Research Centre which he oversaw with Dr Ngai-Ling Sum for ten years.
Culturally, Bob continues to teach and research creatively with individuals across the University and is at the heart of the strong and flexible research culture which he forged with the late Professor John Urry. He has worked collaboratively with both Emeritus Professor of Linguistics Norman Fairclough and Emeritus Professor of Social Theory Andrew Sayer at Lancaster University, as well as engaging critically in the scholarship of others. This reputation for stimulating and robust debate has earned him widespread recognition. However, his role as a supportive mentor and colleague has also led to him oversee scores of undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctoral students throughout his 30 years at Lancaster University.
The Festschrift for Distinguished Professor Bob Jessop is organised and chaired by Distinguished Professor Beverley Skeggs and will be held online from 1pm to 5pm on Thursday 29th October. It will feature three panels, each comprising two speakers and a reply from Bob, and conclude with Bob's own reflections and summary of his scholarly legacies. Tickets are free and available via Eventbrite.
If you wish to share your own reflections about the personal or intellectual contribution of Distinguished Professor Bob Jessop, or for other enquiries relating to the event, pleased contact Dr Michael Lambert.
12 November 2020 9-11AM (EST, New York time), online
After a very successful series of 6 sessions over the year of the JHET Online Writing Workshops, we come to invite you all to participate of its last, closing session. The workshop is conducted by Paul Dudenhefer, who had been for many years the managing editor of History of Political Economy (HOPE) and has a vast experience with helping economics students improve their academic writing.
Although difficulties with writing is not exclusive to non-native English speakers, the fact that the history of economics is a very international community make language barriers a significant factor behind the heterogeneous representation of the works by historians written in English.
In order to help both non-native and native English speakers improve their writing, JHET offered these workshops free of charge to anyone interested, with the support of the History of Economics Society's New Initiatives Fund. We will give priority to early-career scholars (graduate students or those who graduated in the last 5 years), but aim to have a diverse group of participants. The meeting takes place through Zoom.
If you are interested, please fill in the online form.
Application Deadline: 9 November 2020
Every Friday November 2020, 9am-11am GMT, online
WINIR is pleased to sponsor a mini-series of online workshops aiming to bring together researchers from different disciplines to improve our theoretical, empirical and methodological understanding of different aspects of corruption, rent-seeking behaviours and informal practices within different institutional contexts. After a very successful workshop last Friday on “The Political Economy of Corruption”, the second workshop on “Informal Practices, Corruption and Institutional Change” will take place this coming Friday.To sign up for this workshop and the remaining two sessions, please use the links below. Please find further information here.
Friday 2: Informal Practices, Corruption and Institutional Change | 13 November 2020, 9am-11am GMT
Please sign up here. You will receive a Zoom link a few days before the event.
Friday 3: Consequences of Corruption | 20 November 2020, 1pm-3pm GMT
Please sign up here. You will receive a Zoom link a few days before the event.
Friday 4: Bribery, Anti-Social Behaviour and Local Governance | 27 November 2020, 1pm-3pm GMT
There is no fee for attending the workshop.
Structure of presentations
Every session will last for two hours. There will be 3 paper presentations of 20 minutes each followed by 5-minute comments from the discussant. The remainder will be open discussion and Q&A.
Workshop convenors: Luca Andriani (firstname.lastname@example.org), Randolph L. Bruno (Randolph.email@example.com), Elodie Douarin (firstname.lastname@example.org), Gerhard Schnyder (G.Schnyder@lboro.ac.uk).
October 2020 | Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), Bielefeld, Germany
From niche to norm: Quo vadis Economic Pluralism? by Hannah Heller
What is the common sense which defines economics? Is it still right to criticize the Mainstream as orthodox science with just one methodology? What did the economic student movement, which started after the financial crisis, change within the economic discipline? What is the role of the former economic students which were active in the movement and are doing now their PhD or are working as Post-Docs in different fields of economic discipline? 7 years after the foundation of the Network for Pluralism in Economics (NPE) e.V. to emphasize the demand for more diversity in economic research and teaching, PhD students as well as postdocs met again to take stock of the development towards pluralism in economics. The network has more than 500 members, and is mostly driven by active student groups. Many of the members who have accompanied the founding period as students meanwhile pursue their research interests within the framework of PhD programs and post-doctoral research projects and are often only loosely associated with the network. Under the title: „From Niche to Norm - 1. Scientific Workshop of the German Network for Pluralism in Economics“ 25 doctoral candidates and post-docs met in October at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) in Bielefeld to discuss their research interests as well as the formerly mentioned questions considering the development of pluralism in economics.
The mini-conference was supposed to offer PhD students and young postdocs the opportunity to present and reflect on their own research. Writing a PhD thesis is usually pursued in an individual study model. Students are part of a research group at the university or at a research organisation and are supervised by a university professor. Structured PhD including a curriculum of courses are not the norm or even more driven by the mainstream PhD curricula. Hence, most PhD candidates are scattered in the research world and tend to lose touch with the ideas and the NPE. This is in particular the case if their research projects are not embedded within the niche of heterodox economics. A recent online survey with 448 PhD students in economics in the German-speaking students reveals an empirical turn among young scholars who trade the studied neoclassical framework for new econometric methods (Roos et al. (2019)). This might indicate that the younger scholars are not as driven by certain ideological schools and show curiosity for new methods and ideas. However, the survey reveals that the students are also unfamiliar with competing theoretical approaches and may therefore be less aware of the theoretical assumptions on which any empirical analysis must be based. A systematic evaluation of all three major surveys among German economists since 2006 also confirm that younger researchers show less understanding for the ideas of pluralism and the Rethinking Economics movement (Fricke (2017)). One explanation might be that the pressure of conformity is greater among younger economists who still have to fight for permanent positions in science. Rommel and Urban (2020) show in their paper “German Economics - Its Current Form and Content”, which was presented as the conference opener, how the social reproduction cycle of economists hinders the institutionalization of pluralism in economics. Barriers and hurdles were discussed that hinder new ideas in economic thought, Among others the focus on the top five journals is increasingly criticised not just from the niche but from some of the most prestigious economists, such as Heckmann (2020) and Akerloff (2020). Florian Rommel presented data, that document an increase of pluralism also in the mainstream literature, associated with an empirical and a normative turn. However, others argue that the paradigmatic dominance of neoclassical economics is still lasting (Beckenbach 2019).In another presentation, Rouven Reinke pointed towards paradigmatic constraints on the level of broader methodology in economics. He suggested that the pluralist movement is not ambitious enough by claiming a variety of economic theories and methods. It is rather necessary, Reinke concludes, that the network as well as its alumni organization aims at a multi-paradigmatic pluralism which reflects the normative or narrative foundation of each school of thought in order to promote a discourse between paradigms and to find solutions to real-world problems.This new way of a multi-paradigmatic scientific exchange was exercised by the 25 participants of the conference as the presented topics reached from ergodicity economics aiming at the consideration of historical time in the decision making under uncertainty (Mark
Kirstein), the role of (green) employment in the economy (Katharina Bohnenberger, Birte Strunk) to research on new metanarratives that emerge due to the need for a social-ecological transformation of the economy (Hannah Heller). Even research on the current Covid-19 crisis was present in a presentation about the Care Penalty by Franziska Dorn. Communication and networking helped to overcome misunderstandings, to learn from each other as well as to enrich each other´s thinking by taking different perspectives. The intention of the workshop was thus to strengthen both bonds of intellectual commitment to pluralist economics and networking within the community of heterodox and orthodox young scholars. This intention was fulfilled even though the conference was a hybrid format between online and offline presentations and discussions due to the Covid-19-pandemic. Our idea was to address especially young scholars that have been active in the "Rethinking Economics" movement (in Germany or abroad) as students and are now preoccupied and confronted with the scientific mainstream in economics. The conference ended with a discussion on how the “grown-ups” of the student movement should position themselves to strengthen the pluralist idea in the field of research as well as teaching. Samuel Decker, one of the founders of the “Exploring Economics” Platform (currently 25.000 clicks per month) of the network, presented the new plans of expanding the E-learning platform to a teaching platform which can be used by lecturers to support a pluralist teaching. Also, the political positioning of the junior researchers was discussed at the conference. Is the fight for a sustainable economy within planetary boundaries a too political statement or is it rather the responsibility of future economists to be conscious about the performativity of their own work and make transparent how the economic research wants to improve our economic organization in a just and sustainable manner? Those questions cannot be answered solely by the 25 attendees of the first scientific conference of the German Network for Pluralism in Economics but should be discussed in society as well as other scientific disciplines to come to a new agreement of what is the role and responsibility of economics in society. The student network at least takes a clear position by claiming a more democratic way of practicing economics. (see here). One impression lingers. That young critical spirits today are not just criticising others but become pioneers and work hard to co-create something new.
Please find below various Call for Applications for the ASTRA project: "Applying Sustainability Transition Research in Social Work tackling Major Societal Challenge of Social Inclusion." The description of each ESR position is presented here. See details on how to apply from the Call for Applications.
University of Jyväskylä, JYU, Finland
Bielefeld University, UNIBi, Germany
The Free University of Bozen – Bolzano, UNIBZ, Italy
University of Durham, DUR, UK
Catholic University of Leuven, KU, Belgium
ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal
University of Ljubljana, UL, Slovenia
CIRIEC Section Belge, Belgium
Natural resources Institute LUKE, Finland
Job title: A number of Assistant professors in Economics
At The Faculty of Social Sciences, Aalborg University Business School, a number of full time positions as assistant professor in Economics are open for appointment from 1. September 2021 or soon thereafter for maximum 4 years. Aalborg University Business School is a newly established business school at Aalborg University, a science and technology focused university with world-class research in a number of disciplines. Aalborg University is a founding institution in Problem-Based Learning and with this as a guiding principle, the Business School plays a major role in bridging the gap between business and science that helps commercialize inventions and generate growth in businesses. The prerequisite for this is relevant research of the highest quality. We have a strategy of publishing our research in leading journals in our fields. We take current trends and issues into account in all the knowledge we produce. Only then can we contribute with business-critical insights that make a difference for society.
The applicants are expected to have a strong research potential within orthodox and/or heterodox macroeconomics and are expected to take an active part in existing MaMTEP research projects. Applicants must cover one or more of the following research fields:
The applicants must be capable of teaching both mainstream and heterodox economic theory as well as having strong methodological skills. The Faculty of Social Sciences wishes to ensure that assistant professorships provide career opportunities both within and outside of the university. For that reason, assistant professorships are formed in a manner ensuring that the competencies achieved in the position qualify for a career within research as well as a career in the private and/or public sector. No later than one year before the termination of the position, you are offered an interview in order to clarify your further career.
Applicants for the post of assistant professor must hold a PhD degree or academic qualifications at PhD level. In the selection of candidates, emphasis will be placed on research potential and pedagogical qualifications as well as experience with supervision and lectures.
The application must contain the following:
The complete application with enclosures is to be submitted online by using the "apply online" button below. AAU wishes to reflect the diversity of society and welcomes applications from all qualified candidates regardless of personal background or belief.
An expert assessment committee will assess all candidates. Shortlisting will be applied. This means that subsequent to the deadline for applications the head of department supported by the chair of the assessment committee will select candidates for assessment. All applicants will be informed whether they will be assessed or not. The selected applicants will be informed of the composition of the assessment committee, and each applicant will have the opportunity to comment on the part of the assessment that applies to the applicant in question. When the employment process has been terminated, a final rejection will be sent to the applicants who are not considered for the position.
You may obtain further information about the academic contents of the position from Head of Business School, professor Christian Nielsen, phone +45 9940 2702, e-mail email@example.com. Information about the Department can be found on the official website. Any enquiries relating to the application procedure should be addressed to Human Resources on email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Application Deadline: 1 December 2020
Job title: Researcher or Senior Researcher with a focus on International Political Economy
Do you have in-depth knowledge of International Political Economy? And do you want to work with research projects focusing on international affairs using your economic tools and insights? Then you might be our new Researcher or Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS).
About DIIS and the position
One of DIIS’ absolute hallmarks is our long-standing tradition of contributing to the development of academic research and providing research-based input to policymakers and public debate. You will become part of an inspiring, vivid knowledge environment at an institution which aims to be at the forefront of multidisciplinary research, policy analysis and dissemination on global affairs. It is essential that you are ready to engage in cross-disciplinary cooperation and value input to and from colleagues with different approaches, as mixing different disciplinary backgrounds and theoretical approaches is a large part of DIIS’ DNA.
As a Researcher or Senior Researcher, we expect you to contribute to the thematic and theoretical development of both the unit’s research and of DIIS’ research in general. You will have plenty of time to focus on your research, as you do not have teaching obligations. In return, you are expected to both publish academically and communicate your research on relevant media-platforms, at public seminars and webinars or through lectures, thereby giving DIIS a strong and competent voice within the field of International Political Economy. Securing external funding is a joint task for the whole institute, and you are therefore also expected to spend time on income-generating assignments.
Your research areas could include some of the following topics:
We expect you to:
Contract and renumeration
The position is expected to commence on 1 May 2021 or shortly thereafter. You are to expect travel activity in the position. If you apply as a Senior Researcher, the position will be a permanent, fulltime position, while the position as Researcher will be a temporary 3-year position – over the course of the contract, DIIS and the Researcher may agree to prolong the period of the contract or to convert the position into a permanent Senior Researcher position.
Renumeration and other job conditions follow the general agreement between the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (AC) and the Danish Ministry of Finance as well as local collective agreements at DIIS. As such, the starting salary for a researcher is 459,766 DKK excl. pensions, while for a Senior Researcher the starting salary is 481,751.33 DKK excl. pensions. In addition, the local salary agreement has a possibility for a personal supplement amounting up to 60,000 DKK depending on the researcher’s relevant qualifications. Conditional on the specific tasks and projects, function supplements may also be relevant. A pension contribution of 17.1 % is added to the above-mentioned salary.
Candidates living abroad may under certain conditions be eligible for a special researcher tax scheme. The scheme offers a gross tax rate at 27 % plus labour market contributions, totalling 32.84 %, for a period of seven years. Read more about the tax scheme at https://skat.dk/skat.aspx?oid=2244911
Do you want to know more?
Visit www.diis.dk/jobs to learn more about DIIS as a workplace. Questions regarding employment and renumeration can be sent to email@example.com. If you have inquiries regarding the professional focus of the position, you can contact Director Kristian Fischer at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please note that we only accept applications through DIIS’ electronic recruitment system (HR Manager). Your application must include all the following documents:
Applications go through a shortlisting process before being sent for external assessment. The assessment process may take up to several months depending on the number of applications.
For further information and application visit the website.
Application Deadline: 30 November 2020
Job title: Full Professor of International Economics
As a Full Professor of International Economics you will be initiating and supervising research in the field of International Economics within the 'Institutions and Individuals' research theme. You will be actively forging and sustaining research collaborations with other research groups within the department of Economics, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University and other research institutes in the Netherlands and abroad. You will be expected to realise funding opportunities, write grant proposals and generate the funding needed to further develop the Chair Group of International Economics.
You will play a prominent and exemplary role in the educational field of International Economics and its subfields such as macroeconomics, international financial markets, and so on. You will supervise the development of attractive and high-quality education in the field of International Economics, and coordinate subjects in the Bachelor's and Master's programmes.
You will as act as the Chair of International Economics within the department, and will represent the chair group and the field of study in inter-university consultations and national and international networks. You will supervise members of the chair group in the education and research they carry out. You will fulfil managerial tasks within the department and within the Nijmegen School of Management. Furthermore, you will play an active role in the continuous improvement, internationalisation and positioning of the faculty.
Click here for a detailed job profile.
We Ask for:
For more information about this vacancy, please contact: Prof. dr. Joris Knoben, Chair department of Economics
For further information and application please visit the website.
Application Deadline: 22 November 2020
Job title: Doctoral Student
The Aleksanteri Institute and the Faculty of Arts invite applications for the position of Doctoral Student for a fixed term of 3 years, starting preferably in March 2021. The appointment starts with a probationary period of six months. The deadline for applications is 30 November 2020.
The position is part of the project MSCA-ETN: MARKETS. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 861034.
The MARKETS projects explores factors, which impact diplomatic and economic relations between the EU and a number of post-USSR republics. Efforts to diversify domestic economies and to attract foreign investments have multiplied in the past years in the region, through initiates that include visa liberalization and economic and fiscal reforms aimed at reducing barriers to entry for foreign business seeking access to domestic markets. The response from the international business community to these efforts have been modest to date. While a number of corporate entities have tried to enter new markets, the attractiveness of such newly opened republics remain limited, in large part due to informal barriers to foreign investment. Such informal obstacles and hindrances remain largely under-reported and under-studied, contributing to a more general lack of understanding of local business environments that is exacerbated by a dearth of regional specialists who can understand and navigate the micro and macro socio-political economies of post-USSR markets.
MARKETS responds to novel opportunities emerging in post-Soviet spaces by conducting a study on the influence of both formal and informal factors impacting on access to markets in eight countries in the post-USSR, including two countries per sub-region (Baltics, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia) to 1) construct a map of business environments in the region based; 2) create, develop and improve the sustainability of training programmes for future analysts to equip them with deep practical understandings of the region, embedded in the newest theoretical and methodological approaches.
The overall goal of the project is to compare countries that had fully opened to foreign investors by the early 2000s – Estonia, Latvia (now EU members), Georgia (considered by many as an example of best practice in reforms), and Kyrgyzstan (where markets are stable but no major economic leap is expected in the next immediate future) – with what have been identified as significant prospective post-USSR markets for the next ten years - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan (all of which have shown a more concrete desire for economic dialogue in the past three years), Russia (its eastern region and, in particular, Siberia, which has remained largely unexplored by EU companies), and Azerbaijan, a country that has finally started interacting in more concrete terms with the EU.
The doctoral student will work in the project MARKETS part ESR5: ‘Evolution and coherence of informal and formal rules and practices in the development of post-Soviet institutions’. The doctoral candidate is expected to examine and compare processes and mechanisms of informality in government institutions of the post-Soviet regions through an exploration of the relationship between formal and informal norms and practices. The doctoral student will be working with Dr. Anna-Liisa Heusala within this project. Applicants should familiarize themselves with the objectives of the project and address these in their application letter.
The ideal applicant is a highly motivated student with a background in political science, sociology, law, or a closely related field, and a completed MA-degree (or equivalent) by the start of the position. Preference will be given to candidates wishing to work on dimensions of institutional change in the Eurasian space. An interest in multidisciplinary research and knowledge of Russian and/or other relevant language of the region is also an asset.
Applicants must hold a degree enabling them to enroll into doctoral studies by December 2020 (usually a MA or MSc). They cannot have more than 4 years full time research experience (or hold a doctorate already, even if they worked less than 4 years to complete it) at the time of recruitment. The doctoral student will be conducting full-time research and work towards the completion of a PhD-thesis within the field of the project.
The appointee must either have the right to pursue a doctoral degree at the University of Helsinki by the start of the appointment, or apply for the right and obtain it within the six months probationary period. If the appointee for the position does not already have the right to pursue a doctoral degree at the University of Helsinki, it must be applied for separately in spring 2021. Instructions on how to apply for the right here: www.helsinki.fi/en/research/doctoral-education/the-application-process-i.... For more information on the PhD programmes, see: https://www.helsinki.fi/en/research/doctoral-education/doctoral-schools-...
Applicants can be of any nationality but cannot have been resident (or have had their main activity i.e. work or study) in Finland for more than 12 of the 36 months prior to recruitment. This means that if you spent less than 12 months in Finland (including if you have never been to Finland) you are eligible.
NB: This a very intensive programme. Each selected candidate will be enrolled into a PhD programme, and will be seconded to the target region for data collection and will subsequently be seconded to a non-academic partner to gain a hands-on work experience on how research skills can be used beyond academia for the benefit of the governmental, private or international development sector. There will also be workshops of 4 to 5 days duration approximately every 6 months at which attendance is essential. Therefore, a willingness and ability to undertake these international mobilities is a core requirement.
SALARY AND BENEFITS
Financial conditions (including salary levels) and background documents are available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/op...
Your salary will be calculated according to MSCA rules and your personal and family situation. More information can be found at the financial section of the MSCA ITN guide for applicants that you can find in section 5 (Financial Aspects) of the document. If selected, you will be expected to familiarise yourself with these rules also to be aware of your formal rights and obligations towards the donor.
HOW TO APPLY
Applicants are requested to enclose with their applications the following English-language documents as one pdf file:
Please name the pdf file with your last name and the initials of your first name. Please submit your application, together with the required attachments, through the University of Helsinki Recruitment System via the link 'Apply for the position'. Applicants who are currently employees of the University of Helsinki are requested to leave their application via the SAP HR portal.
Any queries regarding the project should be directed at Dr Anna-Liisa Heusala, anna-liisa.heusala(at)helsinki.fi.
Application Deadline: 30 November 2020
Job title: Assistant Professor in the area of Environmental Planning
The Department of Geography & Planning in the Faculty of Arts & Science at the University of Toronto invites applications for a tenure stream position at the rank of Assistant Professor in the area of Environmental Planning with an expected start date of July 1, 2021.
Applicants must have a PhD degree in Environmental Planning or a related field by the time of appointment or shortly thereafter, with a demonstrated record of excellence in research and teaching. Candidates must provide evidence of research excellence as demonstrated by a record that includes some combination of: high quality scholarly publications; engagement in international scholarly networks; presentations at significant, discipline‐relevant conferences; awards and accolades; external funding; as well as strong endorsements from referees of high standing. Evidence of excellence in teaching can be provided by the teaching dossier that includes: teaching accomplishments, a statement of teaching philosophy, sample course syllabi related to the teaching of Environmental Planning, and teaching evaluations or other evidence of superior performance in teaching‐related activities; as well as strong letters of reference. Other teaching‐related activities can refer to previous experience as a teaching assistant or course instructor, leading workshops or seminars, student mentorship, or awards for oral presentations and posters at conferences. The successful candidate will be expected to teach Masters (MScPl) and PhD students in the Planning Program and to teach other courses in the undergraduate and graduate programs of the Department of Geography & Planning. Attention to the issues of environmental justice, climate justice, and/or environmental racism is imperative in all environmental planning/policy courses. Similarly, all core courses in the graduate MScPl program must make links between the profession of planning and commitments to anti‐oppression, anti Black‐ and BIPOC‐racism, as well as the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion.
The successful candidate will offer courses central to the Environmental Planning concentration in the professional Masters program. The candidate will be expected to teach a graduate survey course that provides a broad overview of the concentration, with appropriate attention to the Canadian context. The candidate should also be able to teach a core graduate planning course required of all MScPl students. Elective courses, at both the undergraduate and graduate program levels, might cover topics such as: sustainability and resilience planning, climate change planning, environmental impact assessment, food systems planning, and the relationship between public health, climate change and the environment, although other specialized courses will be considered. Expertise in emerging/growth areas in qualitative or quantitative planning methods, such as participatory action research, digital planning and media tools, and data science, is also desirable. Membership in the Ontario Professional Planner’s Institute (OPPI), the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), or any other comparable national/regional planning body, will be considered an asset, and may be acquired subsequent to the hire. Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience.
The University of Toronto is a tri‐campus, research‐intensive institution. This appointment is at the St. George campus, which is located in the heart of Toronto and offers the opportunity to conduct research, teach and live in one of the most diverse cities in the world. The University also offers opportunities to work in a wide range of collaborative programs and centres of research. For more information about the Department of Geography & Planning, please visit our home page. All qualified candidates are invited to apply online by clicking on the link.
How to Apply
Applicants must submit a cover letter, a complete current curriculum vitae, a statement outlining current and future research interests, up to three examples of publications ,and a complete teaching dossier (including a statement of teaching philosophy, sample course syllabi related to the teaching of Environmental Planning, a statement regarding career goals, and teaching evaluations or evidence of superior performance in other teaching‐related activities, as listed above). All application materials must be submitted online. Applicants must provide the name and contact information of three references. The University of Toronto’s recruiting tool will automatically solicit and collect letters of reference from each once an application is submitted. Applicants, however, remain responsible for ensuring that references submit letters (on letterhead, dated and signed) by the closing date. Submission guidelines can be found at http://uoft.me/how‐to‐apply. We encourage applicants to combine PDF or MS Word documents into one or two files. Inquiries should be directed to Professor Richard DiFrancesco, Chair of the Search Committee, at email@example.com.
Application Deadline: 24 November 2020
The ESHET Council is inviting nominations for the Awards that will be announced at the next annual Conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, 27-29 May 2021.
The Best Monograph award is for the best book (not necessarily written in English) in the history of economic thought published during 2019 or 2020. The author can be from any part of the world. The winner will be invited to attend the Society Conference that follows the announcement of the prize to deliver the Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui Lecture. Note that, in supplement, the Council can also give a Best Scholarly Edition Award.
The ESHET Young Researcher Award. This prize recognizes scholarly achievements of historians of economic thought at an early stage of their career. The prize is awarded to scholars below the age of 40 at the time of the annual conference in recognition of outstanding publications in the history of economic thought. In recognition of the exertions of parenthood, the age limit is extended by one year for each child. The Prize consists of 1,000 euro and a waiving of the conference fee when the prize is awarded.
The Gilles Dostaler Award is an award created in the memory of Gilles Dostaler, thanks to the generosity of his widow Marielle Cauchy. This prize recognizes scholarly achievements of young research fellows working on one of Gilles Dostaler’s many fields of interest — e.g., Marx and Classical political economy, Keynes, Hayek, critical approaches to free markets theories, relationships between economics, politics, philosophy and ethics, etc. It is awarded to scholars below the age of 35 at the time of the annual conference for an outstanding article not necessarily already published or published within the two previous years. In recognition of the exertions of parenthood, the age limit is extended by one year for each child. The prize consists of 500 euro and a waiving of the conference fee when the prize is awarded.
The History of Economic Analysis Award is for the best article (not necessarily written in English) in the history of economic thought, published in a scientific journal during 2019 or 2020 (printed before 1 December 2020). Candidates can be from any part of the world. The winner will be invited to attend the Society Conference that follows the announcement of the prize, and will receive 500 euro.
Nominations should be sent as soon as possible, but not later than 15 December 2020 to the Chair of the relevant panel:
Please note also the following points
The final decision on each of the prizes will be made by the Council of ESHET in Sofia.
Rules for Awards
Nomination Deadline: 15 December 2020
The History of Economics Society welcomes nominations for the Joseph J. Sprenger Book Prize.
Books and scholarly monographs in the history of economics published in calendar years 2018 through 2020 are eligible. We especially encourage nominations from HES members and self-nominations by authors. Information nominations are happy accepted by email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please send the title, the author, and that you liked the book by the deadline.
Members of the committee include Verena Halsmayer, José Luís Cardoso, and Michele Alacevich.
Details of the prize and nomination process can be found here.
Submissions should be sent to the HES Secretary, Marianne Johnson (email@example.com).
Nomination Deadline: 31 December 2020
The History of Economics Society welcomes nominations for The Craufurd Goodwin Best Article in the History of Economics Prize. In addition to the honor, the winner will receive a $500 award plus travel expenses of up to $1000 to attend the Society's annual conference (June 18-21, 2021 in Utrecht, the Netherlands).
Craufurd Goodwin, who passed away in 2017, was a founding member, past President and distinguished fellow of the History of Economics Society. His long and outstanding editorship of History of Political Economy helped shape the professional community of historians of economics. Any article in the history of economics published in English during 2020 is eligible for the award. It is recognized however, that despite official publication dates, many publications are shipped after the end of the year. In such cases, relevant articles that are in 'proof' form, with accompanying evidence of the journal and year of publication, may be accepted at the discretion of the Chair of the committee. Besides the nominated articles, the Committee will consider all articles published in the Society's journal, Journal for the History of Economic Thought.
Nomination of an article by its author is welcome. The members of the Selection Committee this year are Amanar Akhabbar (ESSCA School of Management, France), Hsiang-Ke Chao (National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan), and Rebeca Gomez Betancourt (Université Lumière Lyon 2, France). Nominations (brief reasons), including a complete citation of the article and/or a pdf of the article, should be sent to the chair of the committee, Hsiang-Ke Chao (Email: firstname.lastname@example.org).
Submission Deadline: 31 January 2021
Please find hereafter the 2020 ESHET Awards announced at the 2020 ESHET General Assembly, 25 September 2020:
New Honorary Member: Emma Rothschild
Jeremy and Jane Knowles Professor of History, Director, Center for History and Economics, Harvard University.
Gilles Dostaler Award: Pierre Hernan-Rojas (Institut Catholique de Paris)
“The Structural Asymmetry of the International Gold Standard in Hawtrey’s Works”, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26:3 (June 2019), 587-621.
Best Article Award: Herrade Igersheim (Université Strasbourg, BETA CNRS)
“The Death of Welfare Economics: History of a Controversy”, History of Political Economy, 51:5 (October 2019), 827-865.
Best Book Award: Pierre Dockès (University Lyon 2, Triangle CNRS)
Le Capitalisme et ses rythmes, volume 2, Classiques Garnier, 2019
Young Researcher Award: Maxime Desmarais-Tremblay (Lecturer in economics)
Institute of Management Studies, Goldsmiths, University of London
Fernando Rugitsky: The decline of neoliberalism: a play in three acts
Luiz Carlos Bresser-Pereira: Financiamento da Covid-19, inflação e restrição fiscal
Cintya Lanchimba, Andrea Bonilla-Bolaños and Juan Pablo Díaz-Sánchez: The COVID-19 pandemic: theoretical cenarios of its socioeconomic impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean
Lauro Mattei and Vicente Loeblein Heinen: Impactos da crise da Covid-19 no mercado de trabalho brasileiro
Diego Garcia Angelico and Giuliano Contento de Oliveira: Capital account liberalization and its effects on economic growth and financial instability: the exante orthodox models were wrong
Roberta Rodrigues Marques da Silva and Rafael Shoenmann de Moura: Redesign or demise of old Developmental States? East Asia in the post-financial crisis of 2008
Sheila C. Dow and Carlos J. Rodríguez-Fuentes: The role of credit in regional divergence: Spanish regions and Eurozone countries
Eduardo Alberto Crespo and Tiago Nasser Appel: How competition drove social complexity: the role of war in the emergence of States, both ancient and modern
Tainari Taioka, Felipe Almeida and Ramón García Fernández: Thorstein Veblen’s Institutional Economics and Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s Behavioral Economics: an analysis of convergent points
Rosa Maria Marques e Patrick Rodrigues Andrade: Marx e o capitalismo do século XXI
Ricardo Zortéa Vieira: Rivalidade Geopolítica e Políticas de Desenvolvimento na Era Vargas (1930-1950)
Thierry Bréchet, Pierre-André Jouvet: Reply to no-regret pollution abatement options: A correction of Bréchet and Jouvet
Harold Levrel, Vincent Martinet: Ecological Economists: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly?
Clive L. Spash: A Reply to Levrel and Martinet
Aires Afonso Mbanze, Carina Vieira da Silva, Natasha Sofia Ribeiro, José Lima Santos: Participation in illegal harvesting of natural resources and the perceived costs and benefits of living within a protected area
Marcus Kieslich, Jean-Michel Salles: Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services
Elke Pirgmaier: The value of value theory for ecological economics
Armelle Mazé, Aida Calabuig Domenech, Isabelle Goldringer: Restoring cultivated agrobiodiversity: The political ecology of knowledge networks between local peasant seed groups in France
Sien Kok, Alexander Bisaro, Mark de Bel, Jochen Hinkel, Laurens M. Bouwer: The potential of nature-based flood defences to leverage public investment in coastal adaptation: Cases from the Netherlands, Indonesia and Georgia
Vijesh V. Krishna, Christoph Kubitza: Impact of oil palm expansion on the provision of private and community goods in rural Indonesia
Christian Dorninger, Alf Hornborg, David J. Abson, Henrik von Wehrden, Anke Schaffartzik, Stefan Giljum, John-Oliver Engler, Robert L. Feller, Klaus Hubacek, Hanspeter Wieland: Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century
André Cieplinski, Simone D'Alessandro, Pietro Guarnieri: Environmental impacts of productivity-led working time reduction
Sina Bierkamp, Trung Thanh Nguyen, Ulrike Grote: Environmental income and remittances: Evidence from rural central highlands of Vietnam
Stephen Hynes, Wenting Chen, Kofi Vondolia, Claire Armstrong, Eamonn O'Connor: Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway
Jonathan Peillex, Imane El Ouadghiri, Mathieu Gomes, Jamil Jaballah: Extreme heat and stock market activity
Mary Nthambi, Nonka Markova-Nenova, Frank Wätzold: Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya
Lukas Hardt, John Barrett, Peter G. Taylor, Timothy J. Foxon: What structural change is needed for a post-growth economy: A framework of analysis and empirical evidence
Francisco M.P. Mugizi, Tomoya Matsumoto: A curse or a blessing? Population pressure and soil quality in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from rural Uganda
Valentino Dardanoni, Carla Guerriero: Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection
Ariel Bergmann, Bruce Burton, Matthias Klaes: European perceptions on crowdfunding for renewables: Positivity and pragmatism
Annie Claude Bélisle, Alice Wapachee, Hugo Asselin: From landscape practices to ecosystem services: Landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts
Ksenija Hanaček, Johannes Langemeyer, Tatyana Bileva, Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos: Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services - the case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria
Heinz Welsch, Martin Binder, Ann-Kathrin Blankenberg: Green behavior, green self-image, and subjective well-being: Separating affective and cognitive relationships
Su Xiu Xu: Overexploitation Risk in “Green Mountains and Clear Water”
Hossein Ayouqi, Duncan Knowler, Gregor Reid, Sean Cox: Marginal damage cost functions for particulate organic carbon loading from open-net pen salmon farms in British Columbia, Canada
Frank Figge, Andrea Stevenson Thorpe, Jason Good: Us before me: A group level approach to the circular economy
Riccardo Mastini, Giorgos Kallis, Jason Hickel:A Green New Deal without growth?
John Duffield, Chris Neher, David Patterson:Estimating compensation ratios for tribal resources within a habitat equivalency framework
Jean-Martin Lessard, Guillaume Habert, Arezki Tagnit-Hamou, Ben Amor: A time-series material-product chain model extended to a multiregional industrial symbiosis: The case of material circularity in the cement sector
Benjamin Dube: Why cross and mix disciplines and methodologies?: Multiple meanings of Interdisciplinarity and pluralism in ecological economics
Marianne Zandersen, Jakob Stoktoft Oddershede, Anders Branth Pedersen, Helle Ørsted Nielsen, Mette Termansen:Nature Based Solutions for Climate Adaptation - Paying Farmers for Flood Control
Panagiotis Sotiris: Thinking Beyond the Lockdown: On the Possibility of a Democratic Biopolitics
Lars T. Lih: Why Did Marx Declare the Revolution Permanent? The Tactical Principles of the Manifesto
Paul Ingram: Adorno's Philistine: the Dialectic of Art and its Other
James Muldoon: Luise Kautsky: The 'Forgotten Soul' of the Socialist Movement
Marcel Bois: 'March Separately, But Strike Together!' The Communist Party's United-Front Policy in the Weimar Republic
Darko Suvin: Orwell and Nineteen Eighty-Four Today: Genius and Tunnel Vision
Darren Roso: Introduction to 'Strategy and Politics'
Daniel Bensaïd: Strategy and Politics: From Marx to the Third International
Mark McAdam, Stefan Kolev, and Erwin Dekker: Methods for Understanding Economic Change: Socio-Economics and German Political Economy, 1896–1938
Georg Simmel: On the Methodology of Social Science (1896)
Gustav Schmoller: Changing Theories and Fixed Truths in the Field of State and Social Sciences and Contemporary German Political Economy (1897)
Alexander Leist: Savigny and Adam Smith (1917)
Karl Diehl: Remarks on the Concept and Essence of Capitalism (1920)
Joseph Schumpeter: Gustav von Schmoller and the Problems of Today (1926)
Ferdinand Tönnies: Communal Economy and Community (1934)
Leopold von Wiese: Economic Theory and Economic Sociology (1936)
Walter Eucken: Overcoming Historicism (1938)
Keun Lee, Andreas Pyka: Introduction to the special issue from the 2018 ISS conference
Keun Lee, Jongho Lee: National innovation systems, economic complexity, and economic growth: country panel analysis using the US patent data
John A. Mathews: Schumpeterian economic dynamics of greening: propagation of green eco-platforms
Darío Vázquez: Variety patterns in defense and health technological systems: evidence from international trade data
Yoshinori Shiozawa: A new framework for analyzing technological change
Fang Wang, Xiaoyong Dai:Regulation and product innovation: the intermediate role of resource reallocation
Marlene O’Sullivan: Industrial life cycle: relevance of national markets in the development of new industries for energy technologies – the case of wind energy
Meihan He, Jongsu Lee: Social culture and innovation diffusion: a theoretically founded agent-based model
Aaron M. Lane: The destruction phase of public sector innovation: regulations governing school closure in Australia
Cristiano Antonelli, Christophe Feder: Total factor productivity, catch-up and technological congruence in Italy, 1861–2010
Florencia Médici: Financial instability in peripheral economies: an approach from the balance-of-payments constraint
Juan Barredo-Zuriarrain, Faruk Ülgen & Ognjen Radonjić: Fallacies of market-friendly financial regulation conducted by the Federal Reserve in the 1990s and 2000s
Thomas Herndon & Mark Paul: A public banking option as a mode of regulation for household financial services in the US
Anil Bolukoglu: Capital flows, real exchange rate appreciation, and income distribution in an open economy post Keynesian model of distribution and growth
Ante Farm: Labor demand and product demand
Hongkil Kim: A missing element in the empirical post Keynesian theory of inflation—total credits to households: A first-differenced VAR approach to U.S. inflation
Teófilo de Paula, Fábio Gama & Marco Crocco: Regional growth under a monetary perspective: a theoretical model with empirical application to the Brazilian case
Gerardo Fujii-Gambero, Juan Ca: In memoriam: Julio López Gallardo (22 September 1941 – 3 May 2020)
Daniela Prates: Beyond Modern Money Theory: a Post-Keynesian approach to the currency hierarchy, monetary sovereignty, and policy space
Ryan Woodgate: Can tax competition boost demand? Causes and consequences of the global race to the bottom in corporate tax rates
Paulo R. Mota, Abel L.C. Fernandes and Paulo B. Vasconcelos: Employment hysteresis: an argument for avoiding front-loaded fiscal consolidations in the eurozone
Luis Cárdenas, Paloma Villanueva, Ignacio Álvarez and Jorge Uxó: Peripheral Europe beyond the Troika: assessing the ‘success’ of structural reforms in driving the Spanish recovery
Gilberto Tadeu Lima and Jaylson Jair da Silveira: Macroeconomic performance under evolutionary dynamics of employee profit-sharing
Robert Rowthorn rlos Moreno-Brid, Carlo Panico and Martín Puchet Anyul: Fiscal policy in a depressed economy: a note
Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven: Nobel Rebels in Disguise — Assessing the Rise and Rule of the Randomistas
Steve Keen: Emergent Macroeconomics: Deriving Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis Directly from Macroeconomic Definitions
Adrien Faudot: The European Payments Union (1950–58): the Post-War Episode of Keynes’ Clearing Union
Giancarlo Bertocco & Andrea Kalajzić: A Keynes + Schumpeter Model to Explain the Relationship Between Money, Development and Crises
Corrado Andini: Marx Meets Keynes in the Classroom: Teaching a Simple Model of Modern Capitalism
Sébastien Charles & Jonathan Marie: A Note on the Competing Causes of High Inflation in Bulgaria during the 1990s: Money Supply or Exchange Rate?
Ajit Sinha: A Response to ‘On Sinha’s View of Sraffa’s Revolution in Economic Theory’
Enrico Sergio Levrero: On Sraffa’s Prices: A Rejoinder to Sinha
Marc Lavoie & Gennaro Zezza: A Simple Stock-Flow Consistent Model with Short-Term and Long-Term Debt: A Comment on Claudio Sardoni
Claudio Sardoni: Saving and Investment Financing: Different Approaches
Claudia R. Williamson: Are we Austrian economists?
J. Barkley Rosser: Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies
Stefan Kolev, Nils Goldschmidt, Jan-Otmar Hesse: Debating liberalism: Walter Eucken, F. A. Hayek and the early history of the Mont Pèlerin Society
Steve Davies: Think-tanks, policy formation, and the ‘revival’ of classical liberal economics
Fernando Antonio Monteiro Christoph D’Andrea: Strategic marketing & Austrian economics: The foundations of resource-advantage theory
Edward W. Fuller: Alchian on Keynes
Giovanni Patriarca: On the Scottish distinctiveness from late scholasticism to the Scottish enlightenment a preliminary perspective
Stefan Kolev: Besieged by the left and the right: The order of liberal globalism
Richard M. Ebeling: The Geneva connection, a liberal world order, and the Austrian economists
by Duncan K. Foley, Thomas R. Michl and Daniele Tavini | 2019, Harvard University Press
A major revision of an established textbook on the theory, measurement, and history of economic growth, with new material on climate change, corporate capitalism, and innovation.
Authors Duncan Foley, Thomas Michl, and Daniele Tavani present Classical and Keynesian approaches to growth theory, in parallel with Neoclassical ones, and introduce students to advanced tools of intertemporal economic analysis through carefully developed treatments of land- and resource-limited growth. They cover corporate finance, the impact of government debt and social security systems, theories of endogenous technical change, and the implications of climate change. Without excessive formal complication, the models emphasize rigorous reasoning from basic economic principles and insights, and respond to students’ interest in the history and policy dilemmas of real-world economies.
In addition to carefully worked out examples showing how to use the analytical techniques presented, Growth and Distribution presents many problems suitable for inclusion in problem sets and examinations. Detailed answers to these problems are available. This second edition includes fresh data throughout and new chapters on climate change, corporate capitalism, models of wealth inequality, and technical change.
Please find a link to the book here.
Edited by J.P. Sapinski, Holly Jean Buck and Andreas Malm | 2020, Rutgers University Press
Geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system in an attempt to mitigate the adverse effects of global warming. Now that climate emergency is upon us, claims that geoengineering is inevitable are rapidly proliferating. How did we get into this situation where the most extreme path now seems a plausible development? Is it an accurate representation of where we are at? Who is this “we” who is talking? What options make it onto the table? Which are left out? Whom does geoengineering serve? Why is the ensemble of projects that goes by that name so salient, even though the community of researchers and advocates is remarkably small? These are some of the questions that the thinkers contributing to this volume are exploring from perspectives ranging from sociology and geography to ethics and Indigenous studies. The editors set out this diverse collection of voices not as a monolithic, unified take on geoengineering, but as a place where creative thinkers, students, and interested environmental and social justice advocates can explore nuanced ideas in more than 240 characters.
Please find a link to the book here.
by Sergio Cesaratto I 2020, Springer Nature
This book discloses the economic foundations of European fiscal and monetary policies by introducing readers to an array of alternative approaches in economics. It presents various heterodox theories put forward by classical economists, Marx, Sraffa and Keynes, as a coherent challenge to neo-classical theory. The book underscores and critically assesses the analytical inconsistencies of European economic policy and the conservative nature of the current European governance. In this light, it examines the political obstacles to proposals to reform the European monetary union, as well as those originating in the neo-mercantilist German model. Given its scope and format, the book offers a valuable asset for researchers and members of the general public alike.
Please find a link to the book here.
by John Marangos | 2021, Routledge
In this book, John Marangos offers an insightful analytical and theoretical review of the Washington Consensus and its successors among the mainstream. Following an intuitive structure, it explores international development and the Washington Consensus, as a critique through the lenses of Neoclassical economics, Post Keynesian economics, Institutional economics, and Marxist economics. Ultimately, it provides a compelling alternative perspective to the dominant development paradigm, and enables readers to identify the interconnections, interrelationships, and intercontradictions between different frameworks and policies.
It will be a valuable supplementary reading for students, researchers, and policymakers in international development, development economics, heterodox economics, and the history of economic thought.
Please find a link to the book here.
by Ursula Huws | 2020, Pluto Press
The British welfare state is over 70 years old. It was created to provide economic redistribution, universality of entitlement and collectively provided public services for all. In this book, leading analyst Ursula Huws argues that it is no longer fit for purpose, and in order to succeed in the 21st century, must be redesigned.
Huws focuses on some of the key issues of our time – the gig economy, Universal Credit, and gendered and domestic labour, to criticise the current state of welfare in this country. Drawing on a lifetime of research on these topics, she clearly explains why we need to radically rethink how it could change. With positivity and rigour, she proposes new and original policy ideas, including critical discussions of Universal Basic Income and new legislation for universal workers' rights.
She also outlines a 'digital welfare state' for the 21st century. This would involve a repurposing of online platform technologies under public control to modernise and expand public services, and improve accessibility.
Please find a link to the book here.
edited by Luca Fiorito, Scott Scheall and Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak | 2020, Emerald Publishing
Volume 38C of Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology features a symposium guest-edited by Rebeca Gomez Betancourt on the economic thought of Sir James Steuart, author of perhaps the first English-language treatise on political economy. The symposium includes contributions from Maurício Coutinho and Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak, Yutaka Furuya, Pierre de Saint-Phalle, José Menudo, and Ghislain Deleplace. In addition to the Steuart symposium, Andrew Farrant, Massimo Di Matteo, and Carlo Zappia contribute new general-research essays on, respectively, Milton Friedman’s 1975 visit to Chile, Keynes and Pigou on employment and equilibrium, and a brief correspondence between Karl Popper and Leonard Savage.
Please find a link to the book here.
by Dan Hicks | 2020, Pluto Press
Walk into any European museum today and you will see the curated spoils of Empire. They sit behind plate glass: dignified, tastefully lit. Accompanying pieces of card offer a name, date and place of origin. They do not mention that the objects are all stolen. Few artefacts embody this history of rapacious and extractive colonialism better than the Benin Bronzes - a collection of thousands of brass plaques and carved ivory tusks depicting the history of the Royal Court of the Obas of Benin City, Nigeria. Pillaged during a British naval attack in 1897, the loot was passed on to Queen Victoria, the British Museum and countless private collections. The story of the Benin Bronzes sits at the heart of a heated debate about cultural restitution, repatriation and the decolonisation of museums. In The Brutish Museums, Dan Hicks makes a powerful case for the urgent return of such objects, as part of a wider project of addressing the outstanding debt of colonialism.
Please find a link to the book here.
edited by Artemy Magun | 2020, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
The state has been a dominant political form, and the preferred model of political unity , for at least the last two centuries. However, many today speak of its crisis, which stems from two main factors: the state’s changing role in the globalizing international system and the state’s complex relation to democracy, a key normative concept of contemporary politics. Authoritarian leaders use the state to successfully reaffirm sovereignty, despite international integration; democratic movements abound but often serve only to reinforce the regimes they contest. Is there an alternative? Do we need to reconceive the phenomenon of state, with a view to the future?
These are the questions that an international group of scholars explores and answers in this groundbreaking book, drawing on the history of political thought, continental philosophy, and contemporary political examples. They engage the dialectical tradition broadly understood, including phenomenological transcendentalism, the political philosophy of French public law, and German twentieth-century political philosophy beyond Weber. The result brings the state into a critical political philosophy, providing a realistic model of what a good democratic state could and should be like.
Please find a link to the book here.
edited by Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan | 2020, World Economics Association Books
“These authors boldly stride where other economists toddle. Providing the underlying conditions for a good life for all, present and future, is the central challenge for humanity.” Richard B. Norgaard, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
“An insightful and well-reasoned collection articles on the much-avoided subject of inequality – articles that are too revealing and too accessible to be accepted for publication by the complacent journals of the neoclassical cartel. Thanks to editors Fullbrook & Morgan for their continuing role as intellectual trust-busters!” Herman Daly
“This is a magnificent collection of essays. It can and should be read by both undergraduate students and research economists. Inequality is the issue of our time. Excavating the data spotlights what is wrong with our economy. Excavating the causes shows how textbook economics twists understandings, thereby surreptitiously tilting our politics.” Thomas Palley, Economist, Washington, DC
Please find a link to the book here.
The Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University is now accepting Fellowship Applications for the 2021-22 academic year. We plan to run the program as we normally have, though any offers made will be contingent on our ability to bring Fellows to campus to participate in our programs.
For a complete description of the Fellowship Program and how to apply, please visit the Center website at: http://hope.econ.duke.edu/
Application Deadline: 10 January 2021
The History of Economics Society was formally constituted in 1974 to promote interest in the history of economics and related disciplines; to facilitate communication and discourse among scholars working in the field of the history of economics; and to disseminate knowledge about the history of economics. Created in 2013, the New Initiatives Fund is one of the most recent instruments devised by the society to fulfill its institutional goals. The program supports projects that promise to benefit the larger community of historians of economics. These might involve creating opportunities to further interaction, disseminating knowledge and access to resources, engaging younger scholars, reaching out to broader audiences both within and outside of academia, and other endeavors that promote a public good for our community.
The title New Initiatives Fund signals our openness to creative, out-of-the-box proposals. Our purpose is to rely on the knowledge, experience and insight of our members to devise ways to promote and improve the field. Initiatives funded in the past have ranged from summer schools, through digital resources to a podcast series (see full list below).
Competition for funding is open to HES members only. The Society allocates a total of $35,000 per year in support of New Initiatives. Proposals may request any amount up to the annual budget. The submissions received will be vetted by a New Initiatives Committee appointed by the HES President; recommendations of this committee are then voted on by the full Executive Committee. Applicants are encouraged to discuss the ways in which the project could have a lasting impact in the field and support the mission of HES, as specified above.
Multi-year initiatives will be viewed more favorably if they include plausible plans for developing independent sources of ongoing funding. Funding from the Society is not an ongoing commitment but may be renewed at the committee’s discretion.
Guidelines and Proposal Format
Proposals should not exceed 1,500 words and must include the following:
Each grant recipient must submit a report to the HES President following the completion of the project specifying how the funds were utilized, summarizing the activities, and reporting on evaluation results.
How to Apply
Proposals should be submitted electronically as PDF files to the History of Economics Society Manager at email@example.com. They will be received and evaluated following two annual deadlines: December 1 (with decisions announced late in January) and May 15 (with decisions announced early in July).
Successful proposals can be found at: https://historyofeconomics.org/about-the-society/new-initiatives/
Submission Deadline: 1 December 2020
This year, 2020, will be one remembered in the history books. The racial reckoning in the U.S. combined with the global pandemic and resulting economic dislocation has weighed heavily on our hearts. It is gratifying to me that ASE has embraced the opportunity to engage with and address the challenges of equity and inclusion in response to this moment in history. I look forward to the coming year, working for ASE and with all of you to do the important work of ensuring an organizational presence and voice for social economists at a time when such a perspective is deeply needed. This year’s conference theme—stratification economics—is directly linked to the problem of persistent intergroup inequality. It elicited a large number of paper submissions, and has resulted in an intellectually rich ASE conference program. Because the conference will be online, I hope that many who would have otherwise been unable to be physically present at the conference will now be able to attend virtually. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Salewa Olawoye for her editorial work on this newsletter and encourage you to contact her with any ideas for the newsletter here. Finally, if you would like to sign up or renew your ASE membership, please do so here.
IN THIS ISSUE:
Please find a link to the full Newsletter here.
The November issue 2020 of the European Electronic Newsletter in Economic Sociology has been published. Please retrieve it from http://econsoc.mpifg.de/newsletter/newsletter_current.asp
Table of Contents:
The African Review of Economics and Finance (AREF) AREF is seeking to appoint up to three Associate Editors. Applications from female applicants are especially encouraged.
AREF is the leading peer-reviewed journal of African economies, economics and finance. The journal acknowledges that the word 'economics' is plural and all economies are positioned, situated, and embedded in particular societies. Therefore, how the economy is studied must necessarily be plural. From this perspective, the journal welcomes high-quality articles in theoretical and empirical economics, be they orthodox, heterodox, or economics as an interdisciplinary social science, with special emphasis on African economies and/or how they relate to other economies in Africa or the rest of the world. Recent special issues have centred on Subjective Well-being in Africa, China’s Impact on Africa’s Development, COVID-19, Inequality, and Social Stratification in Africa, and The Creative Economy in Africa and the Diaspora - but there is no limit on the topics of interest. The journal does not charge any fees for publication.
All editorial positions are purely on voluntary basis with no honorarium to editors, editorial board members, or reviewers.
The Associate Editors will independently solicit and select articles that advance AREF’s agenda, promote published papers, and work with the other editors/associate editors/editor-in-chief to run the Annual AREF Conference, select the A.K. Fosu Prize, and choose suitable candidates for AREF biographical essays.
Desirable but not Required Qualifications include
Application Deadline: 31 January 2021
As you know IIPPE (International Initiative for Promoting Political Economy) took the decision, back in March, to cancel the IIPPE conference that would have taken place in September 2020. This turned out to have been the right call: it would have been impossible to hold a regular conference, and it would have been logistically very difficult to run an online conference given our own lack of experience and proper platforms, equipment, etc. We are, however, determined to resume regular IIPPE activities as rapidly as possible, and we are committed to the next IIPPE conference: the dates will be 8-10 September 2021 (with the training programme scheduled for 7 September, and the social programme on 11 September). If at all possible, this will be a regular conference to be held in Ferrara, Italy, as had been planned originally for 2020. If this is impossible because of the pandemic or for any other reason, we will hold an online conference instead.
Please make a note of the dates, to make sure you will be able to join us. I very much hope to see you in Ferrara - it's a beautiful university, a fantastic city, and don't even ask me about the food and the ice-cream! Our colleagues there, led by Prof Marco di Tommaso, have already done a lot of work in preparation, and I am sure this will be another one of our excellent conferences. For Updates and more Information please visit the official website.