02 Comparative Economic Systems. Sistemas Econômicos Comparados

COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS . SISTEMAS ECONÔMICOS COMPARADOS. PROF. DR. DARCY CARVALHO. FEA-USP. SÃO PAULO. BRAZIL 2019. STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS. ESTUDOS DE ECONOMIA COMPARATIVA  

By comparing alternative economic systems, we can better understand how each of them works. Understanding the basic nature of each kind of economic systems is essential for guidance and planning. During the twentieth century the United Nations played an important role in the effort to understand the mechanisms of the economic systems and in the wide-spreading of informed economic policies. After the World War Second many agencies with an economic character have been created, such as the IMF, The World Bank, the OECD, the FAO and the Economic Commissions for Latin America and for the Far East. Some of them already lost their impact but left a rich heritage of thoughtful papers that deserve to be read. In these two first decades of the XXI century, we live an epoch of transition, on the wake of the collapse of Socialism, the finantial crisis of the welfare state and the emerging contradiction between liberalism or market lead economics and environment conservation. The profound changes that took place in the World economy since the late eighties, particularly the intensification of globalisation and the transition en masse of former socialist economies to market capitalism, and the many new emerging economies of Asia, have had profound consequences for the study of Economics as a whole. These consequences were dramatic for disciplines that have traditionally dealt with economic systems, they have just disappeared  or have been deeply changed. Traditional Comparative Economics or Comparative Economic Systems is evolving now into a new field, the New Comparative Economics.

Comparando os sistemas econômicos podemos melhor compreender como funciona cada um deles.

SISTEMAS ECONOMICOS COMPARADOS POR CARLOS MARQUES PINHO AND DIVA BENEVIDES PINHO. EDITORA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO. EDITORA SARAIVA, 1984, 292 PAGES: Generalidades da análise sistêmica; sistemas econômicos, seus componentes e estruturas; sistemas econômicos abstratos ou puros: complexos correntes de estruturas; principais sistemas históricos, tentativas de sistemas intermediários, sistema cooperativista rochdaliano e cooperativismo não-rochdaliano de carater empresarial, sistema corporativista; sistemas econômicos concretos ou impuros, falta de coerência estrutural, principais regimes econômicos contemporâneos; capitalismo de mercado, capitalismo regulado, capitalismo igualitário; regimes de economia socialista, planificação centralizada, socialismo de mercado e convergência dos sistemas econômicos; desenvolvimento e subdesenvolvimento, e o terceiro mundo; a complexa problemática dos países emergentes, não-alinhamento e dependência; a controvertida tese da convergência sistêmica; regimes econômicos em função do homem e não em função da técnica; bibliografia.

Comparative Economic Systems by Carlos Marques Pinho and Diva Benevides Pinho (Late Professors of the Departament of Economics of the University of São Paulo)belongs to the traditional field of Comparative Economic Systems. The authors, therefore, compare the theoretical foundations of the major economic systems of the XXth Century:  Capitalism, Socialism and the Mixed Economic Systems, hybrids or intermediate systems, that combine Capitalism and Socialism in different degrees. The authors supply a complete exposition of the economic system concept, as a pure, theoretical entity and as a concrete working economy. The many forms historically assumed by concrete capitalism, on the ground socialism and the possibility of intermediate systems are pointed out and studied. This work contains also an analysis of Rochdalean and non-Rochdalean cooperativism as an intermediate economic system, written by Diva Benevides Pinho.

https://archive.org/details/SISTEMASECONOMICOSCOMPARADOSCARLOSEDIVAPINHO

The profound changes that took place in the World economy since the late eighties, particularly the intensification of globalisation and the transition en masse of former socialist economies to market capitalism, and the many new emerging economies of Asia, have had profound consequences for the study of Economics as a whole. These consequences were dramatic for disciplines that have traditionally dealt with economic systems, they have just disappeared  or have been deeply changed. Traditional Comparative Economics or Comparative Economic Systems is evolving now into a new field, the New Comparative Economics.

A intensificação da globalização, a transição das economias socialistas para o capitalismo de mercado, o socialismo de mercado em pleno desenvolvimento  na China, e o crescimento espetacular das economias mistas  asiáticas emergentes, tais como a Índia e Cingapura, exigem a ampliação e a evolução do campo tradicional dos sistemas econômicos comparados,  para uma novo tipo de estudo comparativo das economias, com maior ênfase em aspectos sociais e institucionais peculiares a cada país. As novas abordagens vem sendo chamadas de Nova Economia Comparativa, New Comparative Economics.


O1 Globalisation and Comparative Economics: Of Efficiency, Efficient Institutions, and Late Development.  Source: School of Oriental and African Studies University of London. Department of Economics Working Papers No.137

'Does globalisation entail a demand for uniformity, or diversity, of the (political) economic
institutions of nation-states? What is the theoretical underpinning of the demand? And what
are the implications of the demand for economic development? The conventional literature
known as comparative economic systems has been unable to answer these question, because
there is an intrinsic tension between its methodology (the neoclassical framework of
individualistic rational choices and their equilibrium) and the subject matter (the multiplicity
of economic institutions and development experiences in the real world). The new
comparative economics has consisted of a variety of attempts to cope with this tension: some
aimed at preserving the neoclassical framework at a more fundamental level, while some
others aimed at transcending the framework to arrive at a new theory of economic systems
and development. This paper argues that attempts that adhere to the neoclassical tradition is
likely to lead to dead ends, while attempts that encompass collective as well as individualistic
rationality represent more promising directions. Fuller developments of the literature,
however, require incorporating objectified institutions and paradigmised technology into its
sphere of inquiry. It is submitted that there are important lessons to learn from classical
political economy and their modern presentations, particularly Marxian theories of the social
forces of production, in this regard.' 
Source
https://www.soas.ac.uk/economics/research/workingpapers/file28842.pdf

02 New Comparative Economics. A  Nber working paper

"Introduction. The  traditional  field  of  comparative  economics  deals  mostly  with  the  comparison  of socialism and capitalism. Under socialism, the principal mechanism of resource allocation is central planning.  Under capitalism, this mechanism is the market.  Comparative economics, which dates  back  at  least  to  the  discussions  of  market  socialism  in  the  1930s,  asks  under what circumstances either the plan or the market delivers greater economic efficiency and equality. By the time socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, this question lost much of  its appeal.   It was clear that socialism produced misery and inefficiency – not to mention mass  murder by the communist dictators who practiced it. Capitalism, in contrast, produced growth and wealth.  With capitalism triumphant, is comparative economics dead? The answer, we argue in this paper, is NO.  Traditional comparative economics has evolved into a  new field.  This field shares with its predecessor the notion that by comparing alternative  economic systems, we can understand better what makes each of them work.  But it sees the key  comparisons as being those of alternative capitalist models that prevail in different countries.  Each capitalist economy has many public and private institutions.  These institutions function to  choose political leaders, to secure property rights, to redistribute wealth, to resolve disputes, to govern firms, to allocate credit, and so on.  Political economy over the last two centuries, as well as recent empirical research, demonstrate that these institutions differ tremendously and systematically among countries,  with  significant  consequences  for  economic  performance. The  analysis  of  these differences is the subject of the new comparative economics."

03 The new Comparative economics by  Djankov, Simeon. Glaeser, Edward. La Porta, Rafael. Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio and Shleifer, Andrei—

In  recent  years,  the  field  of  comparative  economics  refocused  on  the  comparison  of  
capitalist economies. The theme of the new research is that institutions exert a profound influence on economic development.  We  argue  that,  to  understand  capitalist  institutions,  one  needs  to  understand  the basic  trade-off  between  the  costs  of  disorder  and  those  of  dictatorship.  We  apply  this  logic  to study  the  structure  of  efficient  institutions,  the  
consequences  of  colonial  transplantation,  and  the politics of institutional choice. Journal of Comparative Economics

04 Cold War Analysis of the Soviet Union: Economic systems as objects of national security analysis.

"Princeton University's Center of International Studies and CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence have done a great job in organizing this Conference on the Agency's Cold War Analysis of the Soviet Union. It is just the newest example of Princeton's famous motto: "Princeton in the Nation's Service and in the Service of All Nations." I have no doubt that these discussions will make an important contribution to the understanding of intelligence analysis and of the role it played in shaping policy during the defining conflict of the latter half of the 20th century.
Back in 1997, CIA held its 50th anniversary gala. Dick Helms, a legend in the world of espionage well before he ever became Director of Central Intelligence, delivered the keynote address. I had expected Dick to focus on the operational side, but he surprised me by reminding everyone that analysis--putting all the information together, evaluating it, and warning US policymakers of key elements in the international environment--was in fact the CIA's original and central mission.
Of course, each Director of Central Intelligence has his own perspective on analysis. William Colby, a Princeton alumn, believed that, while a DCI must juggle many different things at once, his responsibility for substantive intelligence is his most important charge. A DCI should do his homework, discuss with his analysts the basis of their assessments, then be prepared to brief--and defend--the Agency or Intelligence Community views with precision and conviction before the President--or perhaps even more daunting--the likes of a Henry Kissinger. According to Colby, Kissinger had a voracious appetite for intelligence, but he didn't necessarily believe it. "Bill," Kissinger would tell him, "give me things that make me think."

05 CIA'S ANALYSIS OF THE SOVIET ECONOMY- Watching the Bear: Essays on CIA's Analysis of the Soviet Union. Edited by Gerald K. Haines and Robert E. Leggett. Historical Document.  Posted: mar 16, 2007.  
Source:

'The dimensions of the postwar intelligence problem were mapped out by Sherman Kent briefly in a 1946 Yale Review article 18 and then comprehensively in a 1949 treatise, Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. Kent focused the lens of American intelligence on what he called the strategic stature of a potential enemy. By this he meant a nation's ability to influence an international situation in which the United States had a "grand strategic interest."19 Kent saw a nation's strategic stature as having three components, the most important of which was its war potential--the fully mobilized potential of its society, economy, and military to wage war. In any given situation, a detailed understanding of a nation's strategic stature was important, not only as a measure of what courses of action were possible (e.g., its capabilities--military or otherwise--for action), but as one indicator of its likely courses of action. For example, Soviet deployment of massive ground and tactical air forces capable of deep-strategic (e.g., offensive) operations to Eastern Europe was an indicator, not only of the political and strategic
importance Moscow attached to the region, but of likely Soviet strategy in the event of war. A nation's war potential would only be fully employed in wartime, but Kent warned that in the developing Cold War the gap between a peacetime posture and one fully mobilized for war was narrowing rapidly.20 Kent's voice was the most authoritative to speak on intelligence matters, but it certainly was not the only one. America's strategic culture blossomed intellectually in the postwar period, and questions of strategic intelligence received considerable attention. Kent himself was strongly influenced by what probably was the first postwar book to be published on the subject, George S. Pettee's Future of American Secret
Intelligence. An intelligence veteran of the wartime Foreign Economics Administration, Pettee concentrated almost entirely on the industrial and socioeconomic elements of national power.21 To cope with the complexities and dangers of a world arena shaped by industrialization, Pettee called for a postwar intelligence organization with far more emphasis on research and analysis than ever in the past. His influence on Kent is to be found in the latter's conceptualization of national war potential and even in the basic organizational schema applied to Strategic Intelligence.'

Transformation of the Russian Economic System 


Bibliography.  Литература
Домбровский М. От плановой экономики к рыночной: темпы и стадии преобразований// Вопросы экономики. 1992. №11.
Душанич Т.Н., Душанич Й.Б. Экономика переходного периода. М., 1996.
От плана к рынку: будущее посткоммунистических республик/ Под ред. Б.С.Пинскера. Институт Катона. М., 1993.
Ясин Е.Г. Российская экономика. Истоки и панорама рыночных реформ. ГУ-ВШЭ. М., 2003.
Сорокин Д. Воспроизводственный вектор российской экономики: 1999-2007 гг.// Вопросы экономики. 2008. №4.
Всемирная история экономической мысли: В 6 т. Т.5./ В.Н.Черковец (гл. ред.) и др. М., МГУ им. М.В.Ломоносова. 1994.
Саяпова А.Р. Региональные и российские таблицы «затраты-выпуск»// Проблемы прогнозирования. 2008. №6.
Бузгалин А., Колганов А. «Рыночноцентрическая» экономическая теория устарела// Вопросы экономики. 2004. №3.
Иванченко В.М. Планирование как исторический феномен жизнедеятельности человека и общества. М.: Ин-т экономики РАН. 2009.
Тамбовцев В.Л. Формальное и неформальное в управлении экономикой, М., 1990.
Рулев В.М. Государство и общественные технологии принятия решений// Политическая экономия и история экономических учений: Учебник/ Под. ред. Поршнева А.Г., Денисова Б.А., Толкачева С.А. М.: ГУУ. 2008.
Авилов А.В. Рефлексивное управление. Методологические основания: Монография. М., 2003.
Хайек Ф. Индивидуализм и экономический порядок (http://www.libertarium.ru/libertarium/9935).
Рулев В.М. Концептуальные основы стратегии развития отношений собственности в России// Управление социально-экономическим развитием России/ Под ред. А.Г.Поршнева и Д.С.Львова. М., 2002.
Амосов А. Эволюция экономического планирования// Промышленные ведомости: экспертная общероссийская газета. 2002. №14-16 (http://www.promved.ru/oct_02_04.shtml).
Полтерович В.М. Стратегии модернизации, институты и коалиции. Доклад на конференции «2020: ориентиры и препятствия модернизации российской экономики» 10.06.2008. (http://www.gorby.ru/rubrs.asp?rubr_id=669&art_id=26073).
Балацкий Е.В. Технологии предвидения будущего: от сложного к простому (http://www.kapital-rus.ru/articles/article/64/).
Минэконмфантазия// «Трибуна». 2008. №10.
Полтерович В.М. Проблема формирования национальной инновационной системы// Экономика и математические методы. 2009. №2.
Романова Е. Мифы и реальность индикативного планирования (http://www.ebiblioteka.ru/sources/article.jsp?id=7301544).
Саяпова А.Р. Региональные и российские таблицы «затраты-выпуск»// Проблемы прогнозирования. 2008. №6 (http://www.ecfor.ru/pdf.php?id=2008/6/02).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR READING AND DOWNLOADING

Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
26 de out. de 2015 13:37
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
26 de out. de 2015 13:37
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
26 de out. de 2015 13:38
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
20 de nov. de 2015 16:38
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 13:26
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 13:08
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 08:23
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 15:14
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 12:11
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 12:53
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 12:25
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 12:43
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 14:42
Ċ
Darcy Carvalho,
23 de set. de 2019 12:14
Comments