What are the sources of the well-known differences in the performance of capitalist and socialist economic systems? Peter Murrell argues that the Schumpeterian model has far more power to answer this question than does the neoclassical theory generally used for that purpose. The neoclassical theory focuses on the absence of a price system and the inability of a centralized system to allocate resources efficiently, while the Schumpeterian model emphasizes the rigidity of institutions and policies in socialist economies and their lack of mechanisms either to create new institutions or to identify and to foster the growth of the most efficient organizations (including multinational corporations). In a work that will have profound consequences for the analysis of economic reform in socialist economies, Murrell compares the predictions of these two models against data summarizing foreign trade performance and finds the Schumpeterian model clearly superior. Combining international trade theory and econometric techniques, the author develops new methods of comparative economic analysis. These methods provide new information on the values of eleven resource endowments implicit in trade, the degree to which the socialist countries fit standard models of trade, the effect of multinational corporations on trade, and myriad other features of economic performance. Originally published in 1990. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

What are the sources of the well-known differences in the performance of capitalist and socialist economic systems? Peter Murrell argues that the Schumpeterian model has far more power to answer this question than does the neoclassical theory generally used for that purpose. The neoclassical theory focuses on the absence of a price system and the inability of a centralized system to allocate resources efficiently, while the Schumpeterian model emphasizes the rigidity of institutions and policies in socialist economies and their lack of mechanisms either to create new institutions or to identify and to foster the growth of the most efficient organizations (including multinational corporations). In a work that will have profound consequences for the analysis of economic reform in socialist economies, Murrell compares the predictions of these two models against data summarizing foreign trade performance and finds the Schumpeterian model clearly superior. Combining international trade theory and econometric techniques, the author develops new methods of comparative economic analysis. These methods provide new information on the values of eleven resource endowments implicit in trade, the degree to which the socialist countries fit standard models of trade, the effect of multinational corporations on trade, and myriad other features of economic performance. Originally published in 1990. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

A reconsideration of socialism in the post-Soviet era based on the theoretical achievements of Japanese Marxist political economy. The origins and the various components of the broad current of socialist thought, as well as the implications of Marx's economic theories for socialism, are explored afresh. The Western debate on the rationality of a socialist economy, starting in the 1920s and continuing to the present, is reviewed and reassessed. The book further inquires into the nature, the achievements, and the character of the systemic change in the socialist economies of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China. The existence of a broad range of alternatives for future socialism, which can be chosen flexibly by the people of each society, is the message suggested by the book.

This book provides a comprehensive account of the structure, conduct, and performance of the centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, the USSR, Communist China and the Marxist LDCs, looking at 26 nations in all. The author focuses on reform, perhaps the most important issue facing countries such as the USSR, Poland, Hungary, and China. Bureaucracy, soft budget constraints, markets, and the nature of the socialist state are the central issues that arise in the course of reforming a socialist economy. The first half of the book deals with 'classical socialism' and provides a theoretical summary of the main features of a now closed period of history. The second half deals with the processes of reform and concludes that the reform of classical socialist systems is doomed to failure as they are unable to renew themselves internally.

"Delving into Karl Marx's central works as well as his natural scientific notebooks, published only recently and still being translated, [the author] argues that Karl Marx actually saw the environment crisis embedded in captialism. [The book] shows us that Marx has given us more than we once thought, that we can now come closer to finishing Marx's critique, and to building a sustainable ecosocialist world."--Page [4] of cover.

Over a hundred years after the first socialist revolution broke the global monopoly of capitalism, a new class of socialist-oriented socioeconomic development is coming to the fore. Capitalism is still dominant worldwide, although its hegemony is no longer undisputed, and humankind is now faced with a key existential challenge. This book proposes an alternative path to overcoming the worldwide crisis of globalized capitalism. It offers a novel, balanced and historically rooted interpretation of the successes and failures of socialist economic construction throughout the last century. The authors apply a multidisciplinary, holistic and purpose-based methodology to draw basic lessons from stylized facts, emerging in different areas of knowledge, ranging from political economy to biology, and from key national socioeconomic experiences, with a particular focus on China. The book is divided into three parts. The first is mainly theoretical and general in nature, identifying the major contributions bequeathed by the hard sciences to their social counterparts. Consistent with these findings, the authors offer a stylized interpretation of the contemporary state-of-the-art of the debate on the core concepts of economic science and advance a few elementary theories about what socialism in the 21st century could look like. The second and third parts analyze and discusses the core features of a few select experiences, which have evolved in certain countries since 1917, some of which are still unfolding. The book will find an audience among academics, researchers and students in the fields of economics, political science, history, and geography, as well as, policy makers, particularly in developing countries.

Socialism is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The socialist idea dominates the modem spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Socialism.” As yet, it is true, Socialism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a gradual realization of Socialism.17 In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigour and tenacity. Some nations have sought to achieve Socialism, in its fullest sense, at a single stroke. Before our eyes Russian Bolshevism has already accomplished something which, whatever we believe to be its significance, must by the very magnitude of its design be regarded as one of the most remarkable achievements known to world history. Elsewhere no one has yet achieved so much. But with other peoples only the inner contradictions of Socialism itself and the fact that it cannot be completely realized have frustrated socialist triumph. They also have gone as far as they could under the given circumstances. Opposition in principle to Socialism there is none. Today no influential party would dare openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word “Capitalism” expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil. Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas. In seeking to combat Socialism from the standpoint of their special class interest these opponents—the parties which particularly call themselves “bourgeois” or “peasant”—admit indirectly the validity of all the essentials of socialist thought. For if it is only possible to argue against the socialist programme that it endangers the particular interests of one part of humanity, one has really affirmed Socialism. If one complains that the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not sufficiently consider the interests of the community, that it serves only the purposes of single strata, and that it limits productivity; and if therefore one demands with the supporters of the various “social-political” and “social-reform” movements, state interference in all fields of economic life, then one has fundamentally accepted the principle of the socialist programme. Or again, if one can only argue against socialism that the imperfections of human nature make its realization impossible, or that it is inexpedient under existing economic conditions to proceed at once to socialization, then one merely confesses that one has capitulated to socialist ideas. The nationalist, too, affirms socialism, and objects only to its Internationalism. He wishes to combine Socialism with the ideas of Imperialism and the struggle against foreign nations. He is a national, not an international socialist; but he, also, approves of the essential principles of Socialism.