Great academic opportunities: 16 calls for papers, 4 postdocs, 3 jobs, 3 PhD fellowships, a summer school, a research project

Dear ES/PE community member, I very much hope this post finds you well during this turbulent period of the global health and socio-economic crisis. As we’re trying to pull ourselves together and get along, see below a list of great academic call for papersopportunities: 16 calls for papers for online and off-line conferences (some are partially funded) and special issues, 4 post-doc positions, 3 job openings, 3 PhD fellowships, a research project and a summer school — in various areas of economic sociology, political economy, and related fields, with April 30 — May 18  deadlines. Share this post with your colleagues and students. Stay safe and be solidary. Good luck!

Calls for Papers:

> CfP: “Categories, Transformations and Exchanges“, the ESA RN09 Economic Sociology Midterm Conference, University of Warsaw (Poland), September 7-9, 2020. Keynoter: Nina Bandelj. A few travel grants for PhD students and early stage postdocs will be offered. DL: April 30

> CfP: “The Evolution of Capitalist Structures: Uncertainty, Inequality, and Climate Crisis“. the 32nd European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy Conference, ONLINE event, 2-4 September, 2020.  Keynoters: Genevieve leBaron, Robert Skidelsky. There are several special and topical sessions. DL: April 30

> CfP: “Politics and Ideologies of Work“, the 5th Social Boundaries of Work conference, University of Warsaw (Poland), October 28-29, 2020. Keynoters: Ursula Huws, Ruth Milkman, David Ost. DL: April 30

> CfP: “It’s the (bio)economy, stupid! The future of growth and the promise of the bioeconomy” workshop,  Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena (Germany), 7th – 8th October 2020. DL: April 30

> CfP: “Understanding Gender in Wealth Inequality“, ECSR Network Workshop, Humboldt-Universität Berlin (Germany), 1-2 October, 2020. Keynoters:  Sofie Waltl, Céline Bessière. DL: April 30

> CfP: The 6th Annual Conference of the International Corporate Governance Society,  the Strome College of Business at Old Dominion University (Norfolk, VA, USA),  November 13-15, 2020. Keynoter: Nell Minow. DL: May 1

> CfP “Returning Realism to Economics“, Association for Evolutionary Economics conference at ASSA 2021 Annual Meeting (Chicago, USA), 3-5 January, 2021. DL: May 4

> CfP: “Stratification and Intergroup Inequality” Association for Social Economics conference at ASSA 2021 Annual Meeting (Chicago, USA), 3-5 January, 2021. DL: May 6

> CfP: “Postcolonial Perspectives on Protest and Reform in the Global Political Economy” workshop, Kassel (Germany), September 15 – 17, 2020. DL: May 8

> CfP: “Exploring Blockchain and the Cultural Sector” conference, University of Manchester (UK), 16 October 2020. Keynoter: Marcus O’Dair; no fee; meals will be provided. Bursaries for coverage of travel costs will be hopefully granted. DL: May 8

> CfP: “Cracking Financialisation: Housing, Crisis, Struggles and Rights“, a Special Issue of Housing Studies edited by Ozlem Celik. DL: May 11

> CfP: “Responding to Crisis“, an online Economic History Workshop, July 27-31, 2020. DL: May 15

> CfP: ““While There Is A Soul In Prison, I Am Not Free”: The History of Solidarity in Social and Economic Justice”, Indiana State University (Indiana, USA), November 13-14, 2020. DL: May 15

> CfP: “The World Transformed: The Contributions of Heterodox Economics Globally”, the 22nd Conference of the Association for Heterodox Economics, ONLINE event,  3-5 July, 2020. Keynoters: Dora Barrancos, Chantal Naidoo, Julia Steinberger, Ndongo Samba Sylla. DL: May 15

CfP: “Empirical Approaches in Platform Governance Research“, an online workshop by Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society, June 17, 2020. DL: May 15 

> CfP: “Developmentalism and the Developmental State“, a special issue of Istanbul University Journal of Sociology edited by Bai Gao & Emrah Yıldız. DL: September 30

Postdoctoral Positions: 

> Postdoctoral researcher for “Polarization and its discontents: does rising economic inequality undermine the foundations of liberal societies?” project, The School of Social Sciences at the Goethe University Frankfurt. DL: April 30

> Postdoctoral Researcher in Sociology or Economics, Department of Management, ETH Zurich.  The aim of the project is to find out under what conditions Technical Vocational Education and Training in low- and middle-income countries can contribute to improving the youth labour market situation. DL: May 6

> Two postdocs on “Coronavirus Bond, an Ethnographic Inquiry” project, as a part of “The Hau of Finance: Impact Investing and the Globalization of Social and Environmental Sustainability” research, University of Bologna (Italy). DL: May 7

> A postdoctoral research fellow to work on a project  “Management insights for tackling grand challenges: the case of climate-related financial risks in the financial investment industry” within the Organisation and HRM group at Warwick Business School (UK). DL: May 15 

PhD Fellowships:

> Five  funded PhD positions to be part of “Polycentric Carbon Pricing Governance: Cooperation, Contestation and Connectivity” research project, University of Leuven (Belgium). DL: April 30

> Two funded PhD candidates for the research project “The Making of Havana’s Property Market: Homeownership, Tourism Property & Transnational Investment“, the Division of Geography & Tourism, KU Leuven (Belgium). DL: May 4

> PhD Position “Social Inequalities, Child Development and Longitudinal Research“, Department of Sociology,  Trinity College Dublin (Ireland). DL: May 15.

Summer School:

> CfA: “Economics & Sociology“, PhD workshop, University of Lille (France), October 12-13, 2020. Work languages: French and English. DL: May 18

Research Project:

> Comparative Study of Legal-Economic Responses to COVID-19, an international research project by Association for Promotion of Political Economy and Law, Institute for New Economic Thinking Young Scholar Initiative, and International University College of Turin. DL: April 30 

Job openings:

> Teaching Fellow in International Business, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford (UK). Researchers interested in comparative political economy are invited to apply. DL: May 14

> Lecturer in Political Economy of Development, Department of Development Studies, SOAS, London (UK). DL: May 17

> Research Analyst & Project Coordinator, The Brookings Institution (Washington, DC, USA). The applicant will assist a project designed to develop policies and practices to contribute to a neighborhood’s culture of health and economic mobility.

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram

Posted in Academic announcements | Leave a comment

“Herd Immunity” is Epidemiological Neoliberalism

by Isabel Frey*

While most European countries are imposing lockdowns to stop the spread of the coronavirus, a few countries are opting for a different strategy: herd immunity. Instead of testing as many people as possible and implementing measures to increase social distancing, they want to purposefully let the virus spread among people who are at low risk, so that a large part of the population becomes immune. This approach was first proposed by UK’s prime minister Boris Johnson, who refused to implement social distancing measures until a few days ago. While the UK and then the Netherlands has officially distanced itself from this strategy, Sweden continues to hold on to this approach, despite harsh criticism by the WHO. However, the point of this article is to unravel the underlying paradigm of this strategy, not to make an argument about its effectiveness.
These countries argue that building herd immunity is the only long-term strategy for dealing with the virus, since the epidemic can no longer be contained and could always resurge again. Instead of putting the entire country under lockdown, only at-risk populations should be put into quarantine while the epidemic keeps spreading. However, countless epidemiologists and virologists have criticized the strategy for being risky, unscientific and likely to result in a high death toll. A recently published report by the Imperial College London, which led to the change in UK government policy, estimated the strategy to result in 250,000 deaths in the UK. Since it is not possible to effectively isolate at-risk populations, especially when the virus keeps spreading, the health care system is likely to become overwhelmed and at risk of completely collapsing.

Epidemiological Neoliberalism

Why would a country like the UK even consider such a risky strategy, and why are other countries still following this approach? The reason is neoliberalism. Since the 1980s, we have been governed by the political paradigm of neoliberalism, which has replaced state-led social policy with privatization and deregulation of the market. Its belief in the inherent justice of the market has led to a political rationale, which literally puts profit before people. And it has colonized peoples’ minds by making them believe it is their fault if they are poor, precarious or unemployed.
The irony of neoliberalism is that it creates the illusion of social mobility, while reinforcing and even deepening social inequality. It assumes that if anyone can “make it” in a free market, it must be peoples’ own fault if they are poor. But this belief is not only wrong, it is also violent. Neoliberalism has resulted in the rich getting richer, and the poor suffering more from disenfranchisement, precariousness and dependency. What might seem like laissez-faire policy, is a refined and complex system of automated structural violence against the weak, which also shatters any possibilities of resistance.
Herd immunity is epidemiological neoliberalism. Much like the unconditional belief in the free market, herd immunity relies on the assumption that an epidemic is best overcome by leaving it unregulated. But just like neoliberalism, it results in violence against the weak and the poor: elderly and disabled people, homeless people, refugees and people with severe health conditions – many of whom are likely to also have a lower socio-economic status because of the correlation between poverty and illness. These are the people, who are at the highest risk of dying from COVID-19 – especially if the healthcare system is overwhelmed and doctors have to perform triage.

Crumbling Welfare States

It is no coincidence that it was the UK and the Netherlands, two of the most neoliberal countries in Europe, which advocated for this approach. These countries have spent the past decades implementing policies that privilege economic over social interests, and systematically defunded healthcare, education and housing. Opting against economically-harmful lockdown measures fits perfectly into their political rationale. Sweden, however, is a more puzzling case: it is a country which is internationally Numbers of critical care beds per 100,000 inhabitantsacclaimed for its good social policy and generous welfare state. But even an archetypical social democracy like Sweden has not been immune to neoliberal policy. Like most European countries, its welfare state has systematically been dismantled in the past decades.
The biggest challenge of the corona-epidemic is “flattening the curve”, so that the capacities for critical and intensive care are not overwhelmed. But these three countries already have such low capacities for critical care, that they wouldn’t suffice even with strict lockdown measures. The UK and the Netherlands only have about half the capacity of Italy of critical care beds per capita. And Sweden, the supposedly best welfare state in Europe, has even less than half.
If these countries wanted to prevent their capacities from being overwhelmed, they would have had to act a long time ago. But that ship has already sailed. Enforcing strict lockdown measures would not only put the economy under strain, but would also expose the crumbling health system from decades of neoliberal policy. Opting for herd immunity allows governments to blame the failure of the health system on the virus, rather than on bad governance. Just like individual poor people can be blamed for not trying hard enough, individual sick people can be blamed for not following quarantine measures. It doesn’t matter whether its nature, fate, or one’s own fault – as long as it’s not the government which is held accountable for peoples’ deaths.
Herd immunity is not just bad science or bad policy. It is biological warfare. Many people will die because of it, and governments won’t take responsibility for it. But this strategy did not appear from nowhere. It is a logical continuation of the political rationale that has governed the world for the past decades, taken to an extreme as a laissez-faire Social Darwinism. Because people who trust in an unregulated market will also trust in an unregulated epidemic – even if it kills.
* Isabel Frey is a Vienna-based artist and social justice activist, with a background in medical anthropology and sociology. She specialize in Yiddish revolutionary songs, reviving the tradition of left-wing Jewish activism by connecting it to contemporary political issues. This article was originally published on her blog The Quarantimes on March 19, 2020. The emphases added by the editor.

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram


Posted in Community members posts | Tagged , , , | 10 Comments

The Probable Implications of the Coronavirus Crisis — Mariana Mazzucato, Eva Illouz, Alain Badiou

> Mariana Mazzucato: “Capitalism is facing at least three major crises. A pandemic-induced health crisis has rapidly ignited an economic crisis with yet unknown consequences for financial stability, and all of this is playing out against the backdrop of a climate crisis that cannot be addressed by “business as usual.”… We desperately need entrepreneurial states that will invest more in innovation – from artificial intelligence to public health to renewables. But as this crisis reminds us, we also need states that know how to negotiate, so that the benefits of public investment return to the public. A killer virus has exposed major weaknesses within Western capitalist economies. Now that governments are on a war footing, we have an opportunity to fix the system. If we don’t, we will stand no chance against the third major crisis – an increasingly uninhabitable planet – and all the smaller crises that will come with it in the years and decades ahead.” // Recommended read: The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (Mazzucato 2018)

> Eva Illouz: “The bluff of neo-liberalism must be called out. The era in which each economic actor need worry only about filling his or her pockets with gold must end… The public interest must return to the center of public policy. And corporations must contribute to this public good, if they want the market to even remain a frame for human activities… They will have to contribute to research, to emergency preparedness, and to massive hiring drives, once the crisis passes… Capitalists have taken for granted resources provided by the state – education, health, physical infrastructure – without acknowledging that the resources they were squandering from the state could, in a situation like this, ultimately be responsible for withholding them from the world which makes the economy possible. This must stop. For the economy to have meaning, it needs a world.” // Recommended read: Manufacturing Happy Citizens: How the Science and Industry of Happiness Control our Lives (Cabanas and Illouz 2019) 

> Alain Badiou: “Despite the existence of some trans-national authorities, it is clear that it is local bourgeois states that are on the frontline. We touch here on a major contradiction of the contemporary world. The economy, including the process of mass production of manufactured objects, comes under the aegis of the world market – we know that the simple assembly of a mobile phone mobilises work and resources, including mineral ones, in at least seven different states. And yet political powers remain essentially national in kind. And the rivalry between imperialisms, old (Europe and US) and new (China, Japan…) excludes any process leading to a capitalist world state. The epidemic is also a moment when the contradiction between economics and politics becomes flagrant.” // Recommended read: The  Rebirth  of  History:  Times  of  Riots  and  Uprisings (Badiou 2012)


Photo by William Daniels, National Geographic

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Whatsapp / Telegram / Tumblr / Reddit

Posted in BITS & BRIEFS | Tagged | Leave a comment

Isaac Asimov on the thrill of learning and the peril of ignorance

While the Coronavirus pandemic and its probable consequences have caused many to recall the great Isaac Asimov‘s science fiction stories, his two beautiful and shrewd quotes which are no less relevant to our times sprang to my mind: 

[What’s exciting is] the actual process of broadening yourself, of knowing there’s now a little extra facet of the universe you know about and can think about and can understand. It seems to me that when it’s time to die, there would be a certain pleasure in thinking that you had utilized your life well, learned as much as you could, gathered in as much as possible of the universe, and enjoyed it. There’s only this one universe and only this one lifetime to try to grasp it… What a tragedy just to pass through and get nothing out of it.” (p. 266)
People think of education as something that they can finish. And what’s more, when they finish, it’s a rite of passage. What’s wrong with it is you have everybody looking forward to no longer learning, and you make them ashamed afterward of going back to learning. There is no reason, if you enjoy learning,  why you should stop at a given age. […] I’d like to think that people who were given the chance at learning facts, at broadening their knowledge of the universe, wouldn’t seek so avidly after mysticism. I wonder how many people go for these mystical, nonsensical things simply because they must go for something.” (Moyers 1989: 269)

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’… Now we have a new slogan on the part of the obstructionists: “Don’t trust the experts!”… We have a new buzzword, too, for anyone who admires competence, knowledge, learning and skill, and who wishes to spread it around. People like that are called “elitists”… What shall we do about it? We might begin by asking ourselves whether ignorance is so wonderful after all, and whether it makes sense to denounce “elitism”… I believe that what we badly need is social approval of learning and social rewards for learning.” (Asimov 1980).

— Moyers, Bill. 1989. A World of Ideas: Conversations with Thoughtful Men and Women about American Life Today and the Ideas Shaping our Future. Doubleday. (This volume transcribes a series of provocative interviews with great thinkers most of which were never seen on television before: Barbara Tuchman, Chinua Achebe, Peter Berger, Martha Nussbaum, Peter Drucker, Noam Chomsky, John Lukacs, and more).
— Asimov, Isaak. 1980. “A Cult of Ignorance.Newsweek, January 21, p. 19.

Isaac Asimov

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Whatsapp / Telegram / Tumblr / Reddit

Posted in Oleg Komlik | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Probable Implications of the Coronavirus Crisis — Costas Lapavitsas, Katharina Pistor, David Runciman

> Costas Lapavitsas: “This Crisis has exposed the absurdities of Neoliberalism. That doesn’t mean it’ll destroy it… The nation-state has always been at the heart of neoliberal capitalism, guaranteeing the class rule of the dominant corporate and financial bloc through selective interventions at critical moments. Moreover, [now] these interventions were accompanied by strongly authoritarian measures… This authoritarianism is fully in line with the dominant neoliberal ideology of the last four decades. State fiat is combined with the fragmentation of society as people are shut in their own homes and huge stress is placed on the “individual responsibility” to maintain social distancing… The colossal power of the state and its ability to intervene in both economy and society could result, for instance, in a more authoritarian form of controlled capitalism in which the interests of the corporate and financial elite would be paramount… The character of its interventions give no reason to think that there will be a transformation at the top of the political and social hierarchy resulting in policies that favor the interests of working people.” // Recommended read: Profiting Without Producing: How Finance Exploits Us All (Lapavitsas 2013)

> Katharina Pistor: “We urgently need debt relief – especially for households at the lower end of the income and wealth spectrum… It’s often said that the public health of the majority is determined by the most vulnerable in society. The same logic applies to a healthy political and economic system: its stability depends on how it treats its weakest members. Hedging our bets on an economic system that has neglected these truths and instead prioritised wealth creation at the top has put us all at risk. There is still a small window to rectify these past wrongs, by urgently granting debt relief to the households worst affected by coronavirus.” // Recommended read: The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Pistor 2019)

> David Runciman: “This is not the suspension of politics. It is the stripping away of one layer of political life to reveal something more raw underneath… National governments really matter, and it really matters which one you happen to find yourself under. Though the pandemic is a global phenomenon, and is being experienced similarly in many different places, the impact of the disease is greatly shaped by decisions taken by local governments… At the end of it all we may get to see who was right and what was wrong. But for now, we are at the mercy of our national leaders. That is something else Hobbes warned about: there is no avoiding the element of arbitrariness at the heart of all politics. It is the arbitrariness of individual political judgment. Under a lockdown, democracies reveal what they have in common with other political regimes: here too politics is ultimately about power and order.” // Recommended read: How Democracy Ends (Runciman 2018)

coronavirus politics neoliberalism

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Whatsapp / Telegram / Tumblr / Reddit

Posted in BITS & BRIEFS | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Coronavirus and the Economy

Existential risk dinosaur

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Whatsapp / Telegram / Tumblr / Reddit

Posted in Books | Tagged | 1 Comment

Bruno Latour on Uncertainty and Knowledge

The world is not a solid continent of facts sprinkled by a few lakes of uncertainties, but a vast ocean of uncertainties speckled by a few islands of calibrated and stabilized forms. Do we really know that little? We know even less. Paradoxically, this ‘astronomical’ ignorance explains a lot of things.” (Latour 2005: 245)

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.

Quote Bruno Latour on Uncertainty and Knowledge

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Whatsapp / Telegram / Tumblr / Reddit

Posted in Books, Oleg Komlik | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Probable Implications of the Coronavirus Crisis — David Harvey, William Davies, Ivan Krastev

> David Harvey: “Forty years of neoliberalism… had left the public totally exposed and ill-prepared to face a public health crisis of this sort… In many parts of the supposed “civilized” world, local governments and state authorities, which invariably form the front line of defense in public health and safety emergencies of this kind, had been starved of funding thanks to a policy of austerity designed to fund tax cuts and subsidies to the corporations and the rich… Much of the cutting-edge model of contemporary capitalist consumerism is inoperable under present conditions… The spiral form of endless capital accumulation is collapsing inward from one part of the world to every other… Workforces in most parts of the world have long been socialized to behave as good neoliberal subjects (which means blaming themselves or God if anything goes wrong but never daring to suggest capitalism might be the problem). But even good neoliberal subjects can see that there is something wrong with the way this pandemic is being responded to.”  // Recommended read: Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism (Harvey 2015)

> William Davies: “The global financial crisis of 2008 failed to provoke a fundamental shift in policy orthodoxy.  In fact, after the initial burst of public spending that rescued the banks, the free-market Thatcherite worldview became even more dominant… It will take years or decades for the significance of 2020 to be fully understood. But we can be sure that, as an authentically global crisis, it is also a global turning point. There is a great deal of emotional, physical and financial pain in the immediate future. But a crisis of this scale will never be truly resolved until many of the fundamentals of our social and economic life have been remade.” // Recommended read: The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold Us Well-Being (Davies 2016)

> Ivan Krastev: The coronavirus crisis will cause a strengthening of the big government, nationalism and anti-globalization, professionalism and expertise, big data authoritarianism, crisis management capacities, and intergenerational conflict. // Recommended read: The Light that Failed: Why the West is Losing the Fight for Democracy (Krastev and Holmes 2020)

deserted coronavirus new york

Deserted Manhattan, New York, March 27, 2020 (by John Eckstein @jfeckstein)

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Whatsapp / Telegram / Tumblr / Reddit

Posted in BITS & BRIEFS | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Probable Implications of the Coronavirus Crisis — Adam Tooze, Judith Butler, Radhika Desai

> Radhika Desai: “The present pandemic is certain to be different not because it is more lethal than previous ones (it is not), nor because it is causing havoc in financial markets (as most crises of neoliberal era have), but because it is exposing the weaknesses, distortions and imbalances of the productive apparatus that neoliberalism has shaped over four decades. Neoliberalism was supposed to reinvigorate capitalism, restore the ‘animal spirits’ allegedly dampened hitherto by the ‘dead hand of the state’. However, it never did that.”  // Recommended read: Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire (Desai 2013)

> Adam Tooze: “It is once [we] have overcome that political, intellectual and existential hurdle… that economics enters back in. And it does so with a vengeance. […] The big idea of the 1990s that “the economy” will serve as a regulating superego of our politics is a busted flush. Given the experience of the past dozen years we should now never tire of asking: which economic constraints are real and which imagined?” // Recommended read: Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World (Tooze 2018)

> Judith Butler: “The virus alone does not discriminate, but we humans surely do, formed and animated as we are by the interlocking  powers of nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and capitalism.  It seems likely that we will come to see in the next year a painful scenario in which some human creatures assert their rights to live at the expense of others, re-inscribing the spurious distinction between grievable and ungrievable lives, that is, those who should be protected against death at all costs and those whose lives are considered not worth safeguarding against illness and death.” // Recommended read: The Force of Nonviolence: The Ethical in the Political (Butler 2020)


A person with a walker crosses a deserted Times Square, New York. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / InstagramWhatsappTelegramTumblr / Reddit


Posted in BITS & BRIEFS | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Keeping Business Alive: The Government as a Payer of Last Resort

by Emmanuel Saez & Gabriel Zucman*

The coronavirus threatens the world’s economic life. The most important message that needs to come from heads of state immediately, even before any new law or complete implementation details are provided, is: “Do not lay off your workers or liquidate your business. Government will pay your idle workers and your necessary maintenance costs while you are shutdown. Government money is coming soon.[1] This is crucial to stanch the flow of mass layoffs and business destruction that is already starting. Why is such a measure necessary, and how to implement it in practice?
Social distancing measures, essential to fight the epidemic, are sharply reducing demand in many sectors such as transportation, restaurants, hotels, and entertainment. This direct output loss is expected to be short, probably a few months. It is possible to roughly estimate this loss by summing up output in sectors that are going to shut down (as of writing, nation-wide lockdowns have already been decided in Italy, Spain, and France, among other countries). In the United States, we estimate that the direct output loss will be around 30%. If this direct loss lasts a quarter, the annual GDP loss will be 7.5%—comparable to a very severe recession.
The government cannot undo this direct output loss, but it can alleviate economic hardship during the epidemic and prevent the direct output loss from causing lasting damage to the economy. In other words, the government can prevent a very sharp but short recession from becoming a long-lasting depression. Absent government actions, the direct output loss will create large losses for businesses and will lead to mass layoffs. Many businesses and workers do not have enough liquidity to weather dramatic shortfalls in demand. The risk is to see many businesses liquidate, severely affecting workers’ families. The death of a business has long-term costs: the links between entrepreneurs, workers, and customers are destroyed and often need to be rebuilt from scratch; laid off workers need to find new jobs.[2] Keeping businesses alive through this crisis and making sure workers continue to receive their paychecks is essential—even for businesses and workers that have to remain idle due to social distancing.[3]
In the context of this pandemic, we need a new form of social insurance, one that directly helps both workers and businesses. The most direct way to provide this insurance is to have the government act as a payer of last resort so that hibernating businesses can keep paying their workers (instead of laying them off) and can keep paying their necessary bills such as rent, utilities, interest, etc. (instead of going bankrupt).
In practice, the key step is to make sure that cash flows to idle workers and businesses immediately. Payments should be set in the simplest form. Idle workers should immediately start receiving special unemployment insurance benefits so that they are no longer a cost to their employers—even though they stay formally employed—and no re-hiring process is needed once they can come back to work. The unemployment insurance system is already up and running. This makes it possible to compute and deliver compensation to idle workers. Self-employed individuals (such as gig workers) could report themselves as idle and be eligible for this special unemployment insurance. In case of partial idling, unemployment insurance benefits would be prorated. Unemployment insurance benefits are progressive, since they replace a higher fraction of earnings for low-paid workers. This is a desirable feature, as low-paid workers are more likely to be affected by the lockdown (i.e., less likely to be able to work from home) and less likely to have savings to replace a temporary loss in earnings.
In the payer-of-last-resort program we envision, businesses on lockdown would report their monthly necessary costs of maintenance and receive payment from the government. Necessary costs are rent, utility payments, interest on debt, health insurance of idle workers, and other costs that are vital for the maintenance of the business even if the business is no longer operating. For partially shutdown sectors, the government would pay a fraction of the maintenance costs. The amounts don’t need to be exact; verification and correction can take place once the lockdown is over. Any excess government payment could be transformed into an interest-free interest loan that the government could recoup over several years.
The key advantage of this policy is that businesses can hibernate without bleeding cash and hence without risking bankruptcy.  The reason why such a policy would work in the case of the coronavirus pandemic is twofold. First, it is clear what is driving the shock: a health crisis that has nothing to do with any business’s decision and will be temporary. Second, different industries are affected differently. That’s in contrast to normal recessions, where the drop in demand is widely spread and has no clear timeline.
Providing liquidity—in the form of interest-free loans, for example—can help businesses and laid off workers weather the storm, but this policy is insufficient. Loans do not compensate businesses and workers for their losses; loans just allow them to smooth costs over a longer time horizon. In the case of the coronavirus crisis, however, it makes sense for the government to compensate businesses and workers for their losses through social insurance so that each business can re-emerge almost intact after the hibernation due to social distancing ends, rather than loaded with a heavy coronavirus debt burden.
How much would such a payer-of-last-resort program cost? Based on national account statistics by industry, we estimate that with a nation-wide lockdown, up to 30% of aggregate demand could evaporate in the US over the next 3 months, leading to a 7.5% drop in annual GDP. Compensating idle workers and necessary business maintenance costs would involve government payments of around half of this total. Unemployment insurance replaces about 50-60% of wages, and essential maintenance costs of businesses are probably less than half of their normal operating costs (for example, non-flying planes do not burn fuel). The total cost for the government would be around 3.75% points of GDP, financed via an increase in public debt. The direct output loss from social distancing measures would in effect be put on the government’s tab, i.e., socialized.
Current proposals to deal with the economic consequences of the pandemic do not go far enough or are not well targeted to the ailing sectors. Business loans help businesses but do not compensate them for their losses. Postponing tax payments helps with liquidity but is not well targeted, since it also benefits individuals and businesses not directly affected by the pandemic. Direct payments to individuals (such as $1,000 checks to each household) help alleviate temporary economic hardship but this policy is poorly targeted as well: it’s too little for those who lose their jobs, and it is not needed for those who don’t. During social distancing, the goal should not be to increase aggregate demand, since people can no longer spend on many goods and services. Unemployment insurance and paid sick leave policies come closest to helping laid off workers and those unable to work, but they do not prevent layoffs and do not help businesses.
A payer-of-last-resort program will work if it is limited in time (e.g., 3 months), so that the cost remains manageable and business decisions are not affected. It would not fully offset the economic cost of the coronavirus. No matter what governments do, there will be real output losses. Even if airlines workers are paid, the plane rides won’t happen. For other sectors, supply-chains distortions will happen no matter what, due, e.g., to quarantine measures. But a payer-of-last-resort program would alleviate the hardship on workers and businesses. It would maintain the cash flow for families and businesses, so that the coronavirus shock has no secondary impacts on demand—such as laid-off workers cutting down on consumption—and a quick rebound can take place once demand comes back. Business activity is on hold today, but with an intravenous cash flow, it can be kept alive until the health crisis is over.

AP Photo John Minchillo

AP Photo / John Minchillo

Endnotes: [1] Indeed, as we were writing this article, several European countries have moved in this direction, most notably Denmark with its temporary wage compensation scheme and France with President Macron’s address on March 16, 2020. [2] This point on direct losses and indirect losses through feedback effects is well explained in Gourinchas, Pierre-Olivier “Flattening the Pandemic and Recession Curves”, March 13, 2020. [3] Standard economic models assume zero transaction costs for hiring workers, finding customers, deploying capital, etc. and hence cannot capture the issue at hand well.
* Emmanuel Saez is Professor of Economics and Gabriel Zucman is Associate Professor of Economics (UC Berkeley). They are co-authors of The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay (2019). This article was originally published on Professor Zucman’s website on March 16, 2020. The emphases added by the editor.

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram

Posted in Community members posts | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Probable Implications of the Coronavirus Crisis — Slavoj Zizek, Branko Milanovic, David Grossman

> Branko Milanovic: “In the current crisis, people who have not become fully specialized enjoy an advantage… Everything that used to be an advantage in a heavily specialized economy now becomes a disadvantage, and the reverse.”[…] “The human toll of the disease will be the most important cost and the one that could lead to societal disintegration… Thus the main (perhaps even the sole) objective of economic policy today should be to prevent social breakdown.” // Recommended read: Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization (Milanovic 2016)

> Slavoj Žižek: “In the last days, we hear again and again that each of us is personally responsible and has to follow the new rules… Such a focus on individual responsibility, necessary as it is, functions as ideology the moment it serves to obfuscate the big question of how to change our entire economic and social system. The struggle against the coronavirus can only be fought together with the struggle against ideological mystifications, plus as part of a general ecological struggle” […] “I fear barbarism with a human face – ruthless survivalist measures enforced with regret and even sympathy but legitimized by expert opinions.” // Recommended read: Like A Thief In Broad Daylight: Power in the Era of Post-Humanity (Zizek 2018)

>  David Grossman: “For many, the plague might become the fateful and formative event in the continuation of their lives… Many will lose their place of work, their livelihood, their dignity. But when the plague ends, there may also be those who will not wish to return to their former lives. There will be those – the ones who are able to, of course – who will leave the job that for years stifled and suppressed them… Possibly a consciousness of life’s brevity and fragility will spur men and women to set a new order of priorities. To insist far more on distinguishing the wheat from the chaff. To understand that time – not money – is their most precious resource.” // Recommended read: To the End of the Land (2010)


World Trade Center station (Yuki Iwamura, AP)

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram

Posted in BITS & BRIEFS | Tagged | 1 Comment

Neoliberalism, Varieties of Capitalism, and Coronavirus

Since Neoliberalism shaped and fortified the notion that ‘the economy’ precedes ‘society’, now that Coronavirus crisis requires to put society first — this is perceived by many as simply illogical and capricious.
Looking at the crisis around the world demonstrates a fascinating  — and disturbing  — story about varieties of Capitalism, differences between countries and cultures regarding the state’s realization of its role and degree of responsibility towards society, the extent of citizens’ trust in the state’s institutions, the tension between individualistic and communal values, the social and civic motives versus business and economic interests, etc. Taking into account especially the varieties of welfare state and healthcare (the US, undoubtedly, is the most negative example in this aspect in the Global North), the most vulnerable in the current situation are low-wage and gig-economy workers, the (mostly women) care workers, the poor elderly, immigrants, and homeless people.
As gloomy clouds of the pandemic are descending, let us bear in mind that “Solidarity is not discovered by reflection but created. It is created by increasing our sensitivity to the particular details of the pain” (Rorty 1989: xvi). Let us hope that this world-shaking, singular event — whose probable implications still cannot be grasped — will also lead to worldviews changes and generate new intellectual beginnings regarding the ways we see, shape and carry out the role of the economy within the society for the sake of humanity and especially those who were abused and left behind by the Neoliberal crusade.

coronavirus first report

The first tweet by World Health Organization on the outbreak of Coronavirus, January 4, 2020

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram

Posted in Oleg Komlik | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Great Transformation — 75 Years Later

karl polanyiKarl Polanyi’s masterpiece The Great Transformation was written during the Second World War and published in 1944, but the relevance and importance of this preeminent book has continued to grow. 75 year later, The Great Transformation — an admirable treatise debunking the false creed of economic determinism and market fundamentalism, and elaborating on their hazardous ramifications — remains fresh and enlightening, and it is indispensable for understanding the current phenomena of our turbulent time. The book was slow in arriving at public and scholarly domains, but has kept on surfacing and then gradually become a canonical text and highly influential research in social science and humanities. Since the 1980s, this Polanyi’s classic work and his other writings have greatly inspired and impelled the rebirth and development of economic sociology, political economy and history of capitalism.
The International Sociological Association magazine Global Dialogue organized with the International Karl Polanyi Society a symposium to celebrate the 75th anniversary of Polanyi’s magnum opus. Authors of path-breaking books about Polanyi’s life and work, such as Fred Block, Gareth Dale, and Margaret R. Somers, and other scholars cover a wide range of topics, from a reflection on the context which was of relevance for The Great Transformation to the analysis of socio-economic and political developments of the last decades through Polanyi’s perspectives. The short articles included in this symposium are:
“75 Years of The Great Transformation” by Brigitte Aulenbacher & Andreas Novy
“Polanyi’s The Great Transformation at Seventy-Five” Fred Block & Margaret Somers
“The Market as Statecraft: a Polanyian Reading” by Antonino Palumbo & Alan Scott
“Polanyi, Accounting, and ‘Beyond GDP’” by Gareth Dale
“Great Transformations: Marketizing East Asia” by Jonathan D. London
“The Fear of Population Replacement” by Attila Melegh
“The Road to Populism” by Chris Hann 
“The Enduring Legacy of Karl Polanyi” by Andreas Novy

(In addition to the English version, all these articles are available in 13 languages)

At the beginning of The Great Transformation Polanyi writes: “Nineteenth-century civilization has collapsed. This book is concerned with the political and economic origins of this event, as well as with the great transformation which it ushered.” As we are witnessing the erosion of the post-WWII 20th century foundations and order, Polanyi’s The Great Transformation is not just a timely read about the past but also a wake-up call regarding the future.

Immanuel Wallerstein noted once that “Karl Polanyi is a Titan among modern social theorists. He is always worth rereading. He forces us to think”. So delve into Polanyi’s books and collections:
— Polanyi, Karl. 2018. Economy and Society: Selected Writings. Polity Press.
— Polanyi, Karl. 2014. For a New West: Essays, 1919-1958. Polity Press.
— Polanyi, Karl. 2001.
The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press.

The following excellent books are essential to understand Polanyi’s mutually embedded intellectual journey, scientific contribution and personal life:
— Block, Fred and Margaret R. Somers. 2014. The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique. Harvard University Press
— Dale, Gareth. 2016. Karl Polanyi: A Life on the Left. Columbia University Press.
— Dale, Gareth. 2016. Reconstructing Karl Polanyi: Excavation and Critique. Pluto Press.

— Dale, Gareth. 2010. Karl Polanyi: The Limits of the Market. Polity Press.
— Polany-Levitt, Karry. 1990. Life And Work Of Karl Polanyi. Black Rose Books.

The Great Transformation polanyi

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram

Posted in Books, Papers | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Great academic opportunities: 10 calls for papers, 6 summer schools, 4 jobs, 3 PhD fellowships, 3 postdocs, an award

Dear ES/PE community member, see below a list of great academic call for papersopportunities: 10 calls for papers for conferences and workshops (some are partially or fully funded), 6 summer schools (some are partially or fully funded), 4 job openings, 3 PhD fellowships, 3 post-doc positions, and an award — in various areas of economic sociology, political economy, and related fields, with February 24 — March 12  deadlines. Share this post with your colleagues and students. Good luck!

Calls for Papers:

> CfP: “Conflict and Development”, the 11th Annual Workshop on “Growth, History and Development”, University of Southern Denmark (Odense), April 14, 2020. Keynoters: Antonio Ciccone, Jeanet Sinding Bentzen, Eoin McLaughlin. No registration fees; Refreshments and meals will be provided. DL: February 24

> CfP: “Financial Crises, Poverty and Environmental Sustainability“, a workshop organized by University of Sussex and several UN units, UN Conference Centre, Bangkok (Thailand), 10-11 June, 2020. Participation is free; Limited funding will be available for presenters from low/middle-income countries. DL: February 27

> CfP: The International Association for the Economics of Participation conference, organized in collaboration with the Beyster Symposium, La Jolla (CA, USA) June 21-24, 2020. A small amount of funding is available for students and participants from developing and transition economies. DL: February 28

> CfP: “Unpacking Capitalism: Structures, Endurance, Reproduction” conference, Durham University (UK), 30 – 31 July, 2020. DL: February 29

> CfP: ‘The Hau of Finance: Ethnographic Inquiries into Impact Investing and the Moral Turn in Finance’ workshop, Bologna University, Ravenna (Italy), 25th March, 2020. Reasonable travel expenses and two nights accommodation will be covered. DL: February 29

> CfP: “Markets and Institutions in Eastern & Central Europe” conference,  Institute for Economic History, Humboldt University Berlin (Germany), 4 – 5 September, 2020. Keynoter: Joachim Voth.  There is no participation fee; there is limited funding available for participants with no budget. DL: March 1

> CfP: “Rentier Capitalism: Contemporary Forms of Rent and its Effects on Capital Accumulation” workshop, Maison des Science de l’Homme, Paris (France), 10-11 June 2020. Keynoters: Brett Chrisptohers, Cédric Durand, Sabine Montagne, Mary O’Sullivan, Ugo Pagano. There is no participation fee; a number of young scholars will receive accommodation and a partial travel stipend. DL: March 1

> CfP: “Conference on Low-Income Housing Supply & Housing Affordability” conference, Tel-Aviv University (Israel), 8-9 June, 2020. 3-day lodging expenses will be payed; a trip to Jerusalem will be held on June 7. DL: March 1

> CfP: “Economic Anthropology and the Sense of Environmental Crisis“, a workshop by the German Anthropological Association’s Economic Anthropology group (in English), University of Konstanz,  15 -16 October, 2020. DL: March 1

> CfP: The first joint International Political Economy conference of the Austrian, German, and Swiss Political Science Associations, Technical University of Munich (Germany), 15-16 June, 2020. Two nights’ free accommodations for the 30 best submissions from pre-tenure scholars will be provided. DL: March 2

Postdoctoral Positions: 

> 2 Postdoc positions in the research program ‘The Business Corporation as a Political Actor’, Utrecht University (The Netherlands). DL: February 25

> 3 Post Doc Researchers to contribute to topics: labor history and relations in a global comparative perspective / economic thinking and reform policies in a socio-historical dimension / social movements and volunteerism / European and global labor migration – at the Research Center for the History of Transformations, University of Vienna (Austria). DL: Marh 2

> Postdoctoral Research Assistant in Social Capital, Queen Mary University of London. DL: March 5

PhD Fellowships:

> 2 PhD positions in the research program ‘The Business Corporation as a Political Actor’, Utrecht University (The Netherlands). DL: February 25

> Doctoral Positions in Economic Sociology and Political Economy, the International Max Planck Research School on the Social and Political Constitution of the Economy,  The Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), University of Cologne and University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany). DL: February 28 

> Funded PhD Studentship “Inquiries into the Future of Work“, Department of People and Organisations,  The Open University (Milton Keynes, UK). DL: March 2

Summer Schools:

> CfA: The Hyman P. Minsky Summer Seminar for graduate students & junior scholars, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College (Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA), June 7–13, 2020.  The fee covers provision of room and board. DL: February 28

> CfA: “Responsible Capitalism: Micro & Macro-institutional Conditions of Transformation“, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy), June 16-19, 2020. DL: February 28

> CfA: “Diversifying and Decolonising the History of Economics“, a workshop for young scholars and PhD students, Utrecht University (Netherlands), June 17, 2020 (before the HES Conference, 18-21 June). A limited amount of travel stipends is available. DL: February 29

> CfA: “Challenges for Business History in a Changing World”, the 10th European Business History Association Doctoral Summer School, University of Barcelona (Spain), July 8-11, 2020. Keynoter: Albert Carreras. Accommodation and food will be provided. DL: February 29

> CfA: The Duke Summer Institute on the History of Economics for graduate students and early-career scholars, Center for the History of Political Economy, Duke University (NC, USA), June 7-11, 2020. There is no registration fee; housing, meals and economy-class round-trip airfare will be covered. DL: March 1

> CfA: “Strategies for the Future of Work”, the 12th Medici Summer School for doctoral students and young researchers, MIT Sloan School of Management (Boston, MA, USA), June 15-19. There is no participation fee; accommodation and board expenses during the week of sessions will be provided. DL: March 6

Job openings:

> Lecturer in political economy / comparative politics and public policy, Department of Politics, University of York (UK). DL: February 23

> Senior Researcher in Economic Sociology, The Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG), Cologne (Germany). DL: February 28

> Two Assistant professors of Sociology (welfare state / labour / urban), Department of Sociology, University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands). DL: March 1

> Senior Lecturer / Lecturer in Political Economy, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh (UK). DL:  March 12


> Egon-Matzner Award for Socio-Economics will be presented to young scientists (up to 35 years of age) for scientific publications in heterodox / evolutionary / institutional economics, public finance, infrastructure policy. DL: February 29

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram

Posted in Academic announcements | Leave a comment

Markets for Collective Concerns, Market Failures, and Policy-making

by Christian Frankel, José Ossandón and Trine Pallesen*

As Foucault (2008) pointed out 40 years ago, the economic thinking of the Ordoliberals in Germany, the Chicago School in the United States, and Austrian economists such as Hayek, represented an important shift in the way social problems are conceived and governed. As these ideas were implemented more widely, the market acquired a new type of function (Dardot & Laval 2013; Mirowski 2013). Markets – or some of the features attributed to markets, such as choice, competition and price – started to be purposely introduced as means to solve pressing collective problems or concerns. Markets became instruments of policy in areas such as health care, public transport, education and environmental pollution. Such markets are the focus of a special issue of Economy & Society we co-edited, titled “Markets for Collective Concerns and their Failures”. We use the term markets for collective concerns to name this particular object of study.
markets for collective concerns and their failuresThe papers in this issue offer careful empirical descriptions of what happens after the implementation of markets for collective concerns. What the research presented in this issue shows is an important transition: from a form of policy-making that assumed that, once implemented, markets work on their own, to situations in which policy-making is understood as continuous market organization. Policy-making becomes the evaluation, diagnosis, design and repair of markets. This new form of governing is the important societal problem this issue helps us to better understand. The ‘organization of markets for collective concerns and their failures’ names the new terrain explored in this issue.
Besides our introductory piece, five contributions comprise this issue. The first four papers are case studies: Ossandón and Ureta study the markets for public transport and health care in Chile; Reverdy and Breslau, the market for wholesale electricity in France; Doganova and Laurent, markets for emissions, sustainable biofuel and clean technologies in Europe; and Neyland, Ehrenstein and Milyaeva, markets for electronic waste and childcare in the United Kingdom. The fifth paper, by Nik-Khah and Mirowski, provides the intellectual context for this important development. They trace the transformation in economics, from a professional consensus that assumed that markets were the opposite of planning, to the current context in which economists claim to be experts in the design of markets.
Despite the differences in terms of their thematic and geographic scope, the inspection of the discourses and practices involved in governing collective concerns with markets show important similarities. First, the different cases of markets for collective concerns have been problematized as failures by the relevant actors in these different fields of inquiry. Even more significantly, the different cases show that failure does not pave the way for the introduction of non-market forms of solving collective problems. Instead, the cases show an important reorientation in the practice of policy-making and the consolidation of new types of policy-making expertise. These experts are not simply market enthusiast; their claim to expertise is that they know how to assess, identify and repair market failures. For the relevant experts in the different cases presented here, the problem of how to make particular markets work well becomes, to use an ANT expression, ‘the obligatory point of passage’. Policymaking becomes market organization.

Dardot, Pierre and Christian Laval. 2013The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso.

Foucault, Michel. 2008The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. BasingstokePalgrave Macmillan.
Mirowski, Philip. 2013Never Let a Serious Crisis go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial MeltdownLondonVerso.
* Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School. A corresponding author, José Ossandón:

Join Economic Sociology and Political Economy community via
Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn / Instagram / Tumblr / Reddit / Telegram

Posted in Community members posts, Papers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment