Socialism and entrepreneurship: A rational choice approach to an issue of compatibility.

A theoretical study of the feasibility of socialism. Politically, socialism is characterised by equality, democracy and liberty. Economically, it is assumed (i) that the feasibility of socialism depends upon its ability to generate growth, and (ii) that growth is secured through entrepreneurial activity. Economic theory is used to delineate the concept of entrepreneurship and to explore the nature and limitations of capitalist entrepreneurship and political theory is used to identify possible incompatibilities between socialism and entrepreneurship. Underlying many of these arguments is a claim for the existence of a trade-off between efficiency and equality. The capacity of market socialism to either transcend or minimise this trade-off is considered. Three forms of market socialism are examined. The first is drawn from Joseph Carens' work on moral incentives, the second from theories of the labour-managed firm and the third from new public management. The socialist credentials and capacity of each to generate entrepreneurial activity are appraised. Examples drawn upon include Israeli Kibbutzim, the Spanish Mondragon cooperative, British nationalised industries and the Japanese computer industry. Economic new institutionalism, welfare economics and Austrian economic theory are all on occasions used but the principle methodology is rational choice. Specifically, theory principle agent analysis and William Niskanen's of the budget - using bureaucracy shown capable, illuminating discussion. Given even the assumption of egoism it is argued that through careful institutional and organisational design, tensions between socialism and entrepreneurship can be alleviated

Who Meets Whom: Access and Lobbying During the Coalition Years

In 2010, the incoming Coalition government announced that it would publish details of meetings between ministers and outside interests. We have collated and coded these data and, in this article, describe patterns of access between 2010 and 2015. In some respects, access is notably fragmented. No single organisation attends more than 2.5% of the 6292 meetings held by ministers. On the contrary, business, collectively, attends fully 45% of all meetings: more than twice the share of any other category of organisation. We also find evidence of distinctive policy communities characterised by high levels of access between particular interests and ministers within specific departments

Are the major global banks now safer? Structural continuities and change in banking and finance since the 2008 crisis

Are the largest banks now safer since the Global Financial Crisis? Focusing on a ‘before’ (2005) and ‘after’ (2015) balance sheet analysis of twenty-one of the largest American, British and European banks, we assess post-crisis banking stability. Much of the literature focuses on post-crisis regulation, but we argue instead the main driver of change since the crisis has been structural conditions in banking and financial markets, particularly high levels of competition, bleak profit and share price conditions, and the largely unsolved too big to fail problem. Older as well as new forms of systemic risk thus prevail and many of the global banks still face major vulnerabilities

Structural Power and the Politics of Bank Capital Regulation in the UK

This paper describes and explains a significant tightening in bank capital regulation in the UK since the 2008 financial crisis. The banks fiercely resisted the new capital regulations but in a novel theoretical contribution we argue that the structural power of business was reduced due to the changing ideas of state leaders, by changing institutional arrangements within the state and by wider open politicisation of banking reform

What's left now?: the history and future of social democracy

Our sense of history shapes how we think about ourselves. One of the distinguishing features of the left in Britain is that it holds to a remorselessly bleak and miserabilist view of our recent political history ― one in which Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979 marked the start of a still-continuing fall from political grace made evident by the triumph of a free market get-what-you-can neoliberal ideology, dizzying levels of inequality, social decay, rampant individualism, state authoritarianism, and political corruption. The left does not like what has happened to us and it does not like what we have become. Andrew Hindmoor argues that this history is wrong and self-harming. It is wrong because Britain has in many respects become a more politically attractive and progressive country over the last few decades. It is self-harming because this bleak history undermines faith in politics. Post-Brexit, post-Grenfell, and post the 2010, 2015, and 2017 general elections, things may not, right now, look that great. But looked at over the longer haul, Britain is a long way from being a posterchild for neoliberalism. Left-wing ideas and arguments have shaped and continue to shape our politics

Review article: 'Major combat operations have ended'? Arguing about rational choice

Arguing about rational choice theory remains a popular pastime. Following the publication of Green and Shapiros Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, a backlash against the use of rational choice theory within political science gained momentum. This article shows how, since 1994, sceptics have refined and extended the critique of rational choice and how practitioners have defended their approach, and a more general argument has emerged. In the 1990s, attitudes towards rational choice theory constituted a fundamental fault-line within the discipline, but changes to the way in which rational choice is practised and defended, together with some broader changes in the social sciences, have created more areas of common ground and taken some of the urgency out of this debate