Explaining inequality in today’s capitalism.

Inequality within advanced countries has returned to levels typical of a century ago. At the global level it remains extremely high despite the rapid growth of major developing countries such as China, India and Brazil. This makes inequality a major economic issue, social problem and political challenge in today’s capitalism. However, economic inequality is the object of limited research efforts and attracts modest attention in the political arena.This is the result of several factors. Mainstream approaches view inequality as a necessary condition – or, at best, an unfortunate side effect - for achieving the more general objectives of economic growth and market efficiency. Most studies emphasise that inequality is to a large extent the consequence of international forces laying beyond the reach of policies by nation-states. More importantly, today’s inequality is the result of a variety of processes that have seriously increased its complexity, with major changes in its nature and mechanisms, compared to past decades. To the fundamental divide between capital and labour in the distribution of income between social classes and groups, new mechanisms have been added, that have fuelled income inequalities among individuals, rooted in the rise of top incomes, technological change, international production, labour markets, influence of families of origin and lack of intergenerational mobility. In this paper we propose an overall interpretation of the trajectory of inequality. The functional income distribution that leads to inequalities in factor incomes, with an increasing divide between the growing share of profits and financial rents – free to move across national borders, escape taxation and search for speculative gains – and the dwindling share of wages, nation-bound and unable to escape taxes. The specificity of top incomes – that combine rents, profits and “superstar” labour compensation complicates this picture with the effects of pro-rich policy changes. Inequalities have also strongly increased within wages, resulting from several factors. Education has an obvious influence, but plays a much smaller role than mainstream views would expect. Skill differences are increasingly important, and need to be examined in the context of specific professional groups, rather than with wide generalisations. Industry specificities, technology and international production do play a role, but in complex ways, depending on the nature of innovative strategies, local competences, market power and demand dynamics. Labour market arrangements – unionisation, presence of minimum wages or national contracts, diffusion of temporary or part-time labour contracts, etc. – are increasingly important factors in explaining the low pay of many young and low-skilled workers. Outside labour markets and the opportunities for social mobility promised by education, the family of origin remains a major determinant of individuals’ education and incomes, with an increasingly strong persistence of inequality across generations. The interpretation we provide offers a new explanation of the nature of today’s economic inequalities, of its consequences, and possible remedies.Inequality, Distribution, Welfare.

Research Agenda for Studying Open Source II: View Through the Lens of Referent Discipline Theories

In a companion paper [Niederman et al., 2006] we presented a multi-level research agenda for studying information systems using open source software. This paper examines open source in terms of MIS and referent discipline theories that are the base needed for rigorous study of the research agenda

Land re-use, complexity and actor-networks: a framework for research

This paper will present a conceptual framework for the examination of land redevelopment based on a complex systems/networks approach. As Alvin Toffler insightfully noted, modern scientific enquiry has become exceptionally good at splitting problems into pieces but has forgotten how to put the pieces back together. Twenty-five years after his remarks, governments and corporations faced with the requirements of sustainability are struggling to promote an ‘integrated’ or ‘holistic’ approach to tackling problems. Despite the talk, both practice and research provide few platforms that allow for ‘joined up’ thinking and action. With socio-economic phenomena, such as land redevelopment, promising prospects open up when we assume that their constituents can make up complex systems whose emergent properties are more than the sum of the parts and whose behaviour is inherently difficult to predict. A review of previous research shows that it has mainly focused on idealised, ‘mechanical’ views of property development processes that fail to recognise in full the relationships between actors, the structures created and their emergent qualities. When reality failed to live up to the expectations of these theoretical constructs then somebody had to be blamed for it: planners, developers, politicians. However, from a ‘synthetic’ point of view the agents and networks involved in property development can be seen as constituents of structures that perform complex processes. These structures interact, forming new more complex structures and networks. Redevelopment then can be conceptualised as a process of transformation: a complex system, a ‘dissipative’ structure involving developers, planners, landowners, state agencies etc., unlocks the potential of previously used sites, transforms space towards a higher order of complexity and ‘consumes’ but also ‘creates’ different forms of capital in the process. Analysis of network relations point toward the ‘dualism’ of structure and agency in these processes of system transformation and change. Insights from actor network theory can be conjoined with notions of complexity and chaos to build an understanding of the ways in which actors actively seek to shape these structures and systems, whilst at the same time are recursively shaped by them in their strategies and actions. This approach transcends the blame game and allows for inter-disciplinary inputs to be placed within a broader explanatory framework that does away with many past dichotomies. Better understanding of the interactions between actors and the emergent qualities of the networks they form can improve our comprehension of the complex socio-spatial phenomena that redevelopment comprises. The insights that this framework provides when applied in UK institutional investment into redevelopment are considered to be significant