Dynamic models of economic development and international capital movements

There has been a growing awareness that the traditional theory of international capital movements is static and must be reformulated by including dynamic elements that are common in the actual world. This awareness has long since occupied the mind of the present author whose study covers not only the so-called ‘classical’ theory of J.S. Mill, F.W. Taussig, F.G. Graham, et al, and the ‘modern’ theory of B. Ohlin, G. Harberler, R.F. Harrod, et al, in the field of international economics, but also the postwar development of the theory of economic growth initiated by R.F. Harrod and E.D. Domar. The lack of dynamic factors in the traditional theory of capital movements is due to the fact that capital movements have almost always been considered as a short-run problem that could and should be solved within the established balance-of-payments mechanism. The static and short-run nature of the established theory needs now to be supplemented by consideration of the dynamic and long-run aspects of international capital movements observed in the real world. The role of capital as a real factor of production ought to be introduced explicitly. Only fragments of that type of capital movement theory which is concerned with real capital as a productive factor exist today, as has been pointed out by R. Nurkse. In short, it is of academic as well as practical importance to theorize the dynamic and long-run aspect of international capital movements. When it comes to the theory of economic growth, thus far there have been no substantial attempts made in this direction with the exception of a few such as H.G. Johnson’s, H. Brems’, P.K. Bardhan’s and D.C. Smith\u27s. Among the two major currents of growth theory, the Harrod-Domar-type fixed-coefficient model still retains usefulness in comparison with the neo-classical variable-coefficient model. For the actual world is composed of capital-deficient economies, on the one hand, and economies with labor unions and pressure groups, on the other. This work has three analytical purposes: The first is to reveal possible effects of capital imports on the rapid growth of an underdeveloped economy, the second is to indicate possible effects of capital exports on the stable growth of an advanced economy, and the third is to bring out the interacting effects of international capital movements on the respective growth patterns of the two economies in the mixed advanced-underdeveloped world. For the purposes of analysis, the original Harrod-Domar growth model for a closed economy shall be extended and transformed into an explicitly dynamic model for an open economy. The mathematical model built therefore will constitute the core of the present attempt to analyze the international capital movements in the context of a growing world economy

Habermas and Feminism : Considerations on the significance of the dialogue between critical theory and feminist thought

In this article, I tried to clarify the significance of the theoretical dialogue between critical social theory and feminism. In the first section, I described both the similarities and differences between Habermasian critical theory and contemporary feminist thought in regard to their assesments of modernity. Through considerations on their stance toward \u27modem civil society\u27, I pointed out the potential and significance of their theoretical dialogue. Because both Habermas and contemporary feminists try to immanently criticize the problems of modernity, it seems possible for them to be conversational partners to each other. However, at the same time, their respective scope and focus in criticising modernity are different. So it is expected that their dialogue concerning modernity will be fruitful. In the second and third sections, I picked up the controversial questions which were raised by feminist scholars in the academic fields of moral-political theory. In tracing and reassesing their basic contention that traditional viewpoints of moral-political theory are \u27masculinist\u27 and not reflective about the power-ridden gender relationships that were formed in the wake of modem civil society, I clarified that feminists questions of modernity and modem theoretical discourses are so radical that dialogue with feminists seems to compel critical theory to transform itself at the deepest level. Though Habermasian communicative action theory is open to such a potential self-transformation, and has a great deal of theoretical advantage of absorbing the feminist critique in comparision with previous critical theories, radical theoretical changes have not been completed by Habermas himself for now. In the final section, I appraised the theoretical-practical implications caused through the discusion between critical theory and feminism. Considering the contemporary socio-cultural phenomena in which we can see the increasing demands for \u27identity\u27 and \u27difference\u27 in various way, it seems that Habermasian theory which stresses the importance of consensus-making process of communication is not critical enough to criticize the conditions of social communications of our days. I think that contemporary critical theory has to transform itself to grasp not only the significance of \u27communication for consensus\u27, but also that of \u27communication for difference\u27. To accomplish such a theoretical task, I think, conversation with feminist thought is dispensable and its result will be frutiful for critical social theory today