Abstract: The profundity and timing of the collapse of the socialist economies took the economists on both sides of the Iron Curtain by surprise. There were no theories that could explain or analyze the nature of such systemic social events and processes. The soviet- style Marxist political economy, neoclassical theory, and Keynesian interpretations were unable to anticipate, explain, or offer solutions to the real problems. 　 This paper, explores the intellectual reactions of the Bulgarian economic community to the collapse of the planned economy and to the practical and theoretical challenges of the post-communist period. The following are the three primary objectives of this study: First is a methodological objective, i.e., for explaining the dissemination of economic knowledge, determining its channels, as well as explaining the basic transmission mechanisms of economic theory in Bulgaria after the disintegration of the socialist bloc. Second is a purely informational objective, i.e., to present the major topics and issues studied during the period 1989-2009 and the findings of the economists working on them. Finally, the third objective and parallel task is to theoretically interpret the development, characteristics, and specificities of the Bulgarian economic thought during that period. 　 The main conclusion of this study is that although a few interesting studies regarding the Bulgarian economic science have been published, they fail to offer independent and original ideas. The Bulgarian economic perspectives closely follow the trends of western economic science, which itself is currently at crossroads and is encountering numerous challenges. JEL classifications numbers: B 20, B 41, P 50. ＊

View full abstract

Abstract: This paper compares Léon Walras’s and Marx’s thoughts on labour exchange, thereby illuminating the latter’s perspective that can lead to a forceful counterargument to the neoclassical principle of labour exchange, for which the former affords a foundation. Both Walras and Marx distinguish between labour ability as a factor of production and labour as its service, but exhibit a striking contrast in their explanations of the distinction. 　 Walras’s distinction between ‘personal faculties’ and labour never attempts to reveal the peculiarities of the relationship they share. Walras essentially equates the relationship between the two with that between non-human factors and their respective services by stripping the former of human elements. This not only allows labour exchange to be incorporated into Walras’s general equilibrium system but also provides the groundwork for its neoclassical principle, which, on the basis of marginal theory, assumes work conditions to be determinable through the stylised market adjustment of the demand and supply of labour on each entrepreneur’s and worker’s maximisation behaviour. 　 In contrast, especially in his pre-Capital writings, Marx underlines the worker’s subjectivity in deciding her labour performance. This implies that the type and intensity of time-unit labour varies depending on the worker’s will and the constraints upon it. Accentuating the particular characteristics of the relationship between labour power and labour in this way, Marx’s arguments lead to the invalidation of the neoclassical principle of labour exchange and rationalise the intervention of socio-political factors represented by the labour-capital class struggle in the determination of work conditions. Thus, this study focuses on the potential of Marx’s labour power-labour distinction independent of his exploitation theory-the basis of a weighty refutation of the neoclassical system. JEL classification numbers: B 13, B 14.

View full abstract

The “welfare” of a nation and the “welfare state” should be considered separately. Various economic and social ideas were born during the interwar period and the war. One of these was the welfare state theory against the Nazis state. W. Beveridge, a Keynesian economist, discussed the “welfare state” from the premises of an effective, state-controlled economy. In Germany, the liberalist group of the anti-Nazis prepared for the theoretical core of social economics（ social market economy） for the after-war period, which was not only opposed to the Keynesian state and economy but also criticized the Hayekian fundamentalism of the market economy. One of the leading theoreticians, W. Röpke, found preconditions for the more human and affluent economic society in the competing market economy and the decentralization（ subsidiarity）. In rising productivity, the diligent and saving workers and the “conform state interventions” are capable of creating a humane economic society. 　 Röpke’s way of thinking harmonized with Catholic doctrines. On Reconstruction of the Social Order（ Pius XI, 1931） was an extremely important document for him. Politically, it justifies the decentralization by stating that the greater association should be assigned to subordinate organizations. In terms of the worker-employer relationship, the worker shares ownership or management in that the worker contract can be modified by a partnership contract. Here, the welfare of workers will rise, though the state does not take care of individual workers like Beveridge Plan. This is also the Röpke’s goal of “welfare.” JEL classification numbers: B 25, I 31, P 46.

View full abstract

Defoe definitely agrees that luxury is a vice, though he also recognizes that luxury as a consumptive action entails economic benefits for the political society. Furthermore, he realizes that the conspicuousness of riches in consumptive actions can have morally restraining effects on the common people. 　 The central theme of this article is to distinguish Defoe’s implications for the consumption theory from his discourses on luxury. For this purpose, it is expedient to focus on Defoe’s considerable regards for the English gentry, because it can clarify his luxury discourse in the social context wherein luxury is to be clearly comprehended as a consumptive action. When logically integrated with the gentry discourse, the luxury discourse represents the consumption theory in eighteenth-century England. Moreover, it is notable that morality is included in economic activities in Defoe’s luxury discourse. 　 Defoe struggles to find a cohesive logic in his social theory closely relevant with the structural change of his time. In this contemporary dynamics, it is the gentry comprising virtuous individuals with riches and intelligence that he expects to find as the leading entity governing the new hierarchical order to be settled with the quality and quantity of their consumptive actions. Thus, it is safe to say that Defoe’s theory of consumption correctly grasps the social order newly established in eighteenth-century England. JEL classification numbers: B 31, Z 19.

View full abstract

This paper aims to analyze John Stuart Mill’s theory of joint-stock companies on the basis of Mill’s theory of an ideal civil society. 　 Mill recognized that the Industrial Revolution sparked social and economic problems. Unskilled labourers lapsed into moral decadence, which lowered productivity and decreased profit rates; thus this would then result in a dismal stationary state without any reform in the distribution of wealth. However, Mill asserted that social reforms would realize the ideal condition of a civil society even in the stationary state. To resolve these problems, Mill’s theory of joint-stock companies is significant from two perspectives. 　 First, from the perspective of productivity, large-scale production is greatly promoted by the accumulation of large capital through the formation of joint-stock companies. Furthermore, co-operation among various people and combination of the labour force would lead to superior productivity. 　 Second, from the perspective of property, Mill insisted on fair and just distribution of wealth and the necessity of managerial reforms. Reforms aimed at solving the unequal distribution of wealth could raise the living standards and the moral and intellectual standards of labourers. 　 The moral qualities of this new kind of labourers, which could increase the rate of productivity, are as important to the overall efficiency of their labour, as their intellectual qualities. On the basis of the law of the inverse relationship between cost of labour and profits, Mill asserted that superior productivity would reduce the total cost of labour and increase the real wages of labourers and profits of capital. It was for this reason that Mill emphasized the importance of human development in terms of both labour and capital and the significance of joint-stock companies wherein labourers acquire skills and develop their abilities and individual specialties. JEL classification numbers: B 31.

View full abstract