Equality and Efficiency must conflict.pdf

7/29/2019 Equality and Efficiency must conflict.pdf

1/10

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 25, Number 1, 2009, pp.155163

Must equality and efciency conict? Theeconomics of Andrew Glyn

Stuart White

Abstract This paper aims to provide an introductory overview of Andrew Glyns economics. Throughout

his intellectual career, Glyns central concern was to understand how economic efciency can be madeconsistent with egalitarian objectives. In pursuing this concern, his work engaged critically with developmentsin contemporary capitalism and with different proposals for promoting egalitarian objectives, includingrevolutionary socialism, social democratic corporatism, and basic income capitalism. Glyns legacy is a setof works which provide great insight into the development of capitalism and on the limits and possibilities of egalitarian advance.

Key words : Andrew Glyn, equality, efciency, capitalism, socialism, social democracy, basic income

JEL classication : B10, B16, B31

I. IntroductionOneof the central themesof Andrew Glyns economicsconcerns thealleged trade-off betweenequality and efciency. Glyns work, from the 1970s through to his untimely death in 2007,was at one level a continuing effort to wrestle with the question of how efciency and egalitarian distributive concerns can be brought into line with each other. In the courseof his intellectual journey, Glyn considered a number of models of egalitarian economy:revolutionary socialism; social democratic corporatism; and, in his nal book, basic incomecapitalism. My aim in this article is to trace this journey, and, in so doing, to bring out theimportant continuities in Glyns thought as well as the points on which his thinking developed.

II. Capitalist crisis and revolutionary socialism

In the rst stage of his intellectual career, Glyns position might be summarized as fol-lows. Within contemporary capitalist economies, there is a gradual, pro-egalitarian shift

Jesus College, Oxford, e-mail: [email protected] I would like to thank Andrea Boltho, Chris Brooke, Ken Mayhew, Martin McIvor, Colm OReardon,

David Purdy, Wiemer Salverda, David Soskice, and two anonymous referees for their help and encouragement.This article is substantially revised from an earlier article published in Renewal (White, 2008).doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grp009C The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press.

For permissions please e-mail: [email protected]


2/10

156 Stuart White

in the division of national income from capital to labour. Within the framework of capitalism, this shift can only result in economic stagnation (in other words, to inef-ciency in terms of the aggregate use and increase of available resources). This conict between egalitarian aspirations and efciency can be resolvedand only resolvedby breaking the capitalist framework of economic organization and reconstituting the econ-omy on a revolutionary socialist basis. The synthesis of equality and efciency liesthrough revolutionary socialism. The analysis of capitalist crisis is clearly set out in Glynsearly book, co-authored with Bob Sutcliffe, British Capitalism, Workers and the Prot Squeeze (1972).

The rate of prot, according to Marx, is the motive force of the capitalist system. Itdrives accumulation which, in turn, drives growth. If protability declines too much, thenaccumulation ceases and the economy enters into a crisis. The argument set out in BritishCapitalism was that the prot rate was falling in British capitalism and that this meant therewas an incipient economic crisis which, in turn, had precipitated a growing political crisis.Indeed, in a sense, according to Glyn, the economic crisis was itself at base a political crisis.For if one looked at what was causing the decline in protability one found that it had itsroots in the power of organized labour, buoyed by full employment and tight labour markets.Organized labourwas using its bargaining power to increase wagessteadily and, in theprocess,was causing labours share of output to increase at the expense of capital. Capital could notfully win back what it had lost in wage negotiations by price increases because the increasein trade competition also associated with the post-war boom meant that there was less roomfor price increases. Hence the idea of the prot squeeze. Drawing on the insights of theeconomist Michal Kalecki, Glyn saw the crisis of protability as reecting an unresolved political problem in the post-war social democratic settlement: how to reconcile, over thelong-run, the strengthening of labour through full employment with the maintenance of the prot which capitalism requires (Kalecki, 1990 (1943)). Marx had argued that capitalism

worked by periodically increasing the reserve army of the unemployed in order to disciplineworkers demands. If social democracy aspired to abolish the reserve army, could capitalismitself survive?

It is not difcult to use this theory to explain the phenomenon of stagation, the unex- pected (to many conventional economists of the time) combination of rising unemploymentand high and rising ination, which aficted the British and most other advanced capitalisteconomies in the 1970s, particularly after the rise in oil prices in 1973/4. Rising unemploy-ment and rising ination were both symptoms of the prot squeeze (Rowthorn, 1980). Risingination reected capitals effort to pass rising wage costs on to consumers (ultimately, back to labour) through unanticipated price increases, so far as the pressures of international competition would allow (and the collapse of the xed exchange rate system in the early 1970s

meant that domestic price rises could be compensated by a falling exchange rate, albeit atthe price of importing even more inationary pressure). Rising unemployment reected theincipient crisis related to the decline in protability and the slow-down in accumulation. Themix of high/rising unemployment and high/rising ination reected a political stalemate:capital was not strong enough politically to push through the policiesthat is to say, thelevel of unemploymentwhich would bring discipline back to the negotiating table and rescue protability, and so felt compelled to pass cost increases on in rising prices even asunemployment was rising.

If a concerted prot squeeze was the fundamental source of the economic malaise of the1970s, what was the solution? In Glyns view, at the time, the answer was at once very simpleand immensely challenging: a transition to a planned socialist economy achieved through the


3/10

Must equality and efciency conict? The economics of Andrew Glyn 157

nationalization of a large swathe of manufacturing and nancial companies on the basis of a revolutionary workers government. A member of, and economic advisor to, Militant, theTrotskyist entrist organization within the Labour Party, Glyn set out the case for a Militant-style programme in The British Economic Disaster (Glyn and Harrison, 1980; see also Glyn,1982).

Glyns position is perhaps best explained by considering why he was unconvinced by thealternative economic strategy (AES) which, in various formulations, attracted much of theLeft in Britain at this time. The AES looked to handle the crisis by a combination of Keynesianreation backed by a mixture of price controls, import controls, and (in some versions)incomes policy, combined with measures of industrial democracy, selective nationalization,and planning agreements between the state and private rms. Glyn argued that the AESwould not deal with the fundamental issue of declining protability and so would not restorethe capitalist incentive to invest. At the same time, it would not give the state the necessary power to compel investment in spite of capitalist intentions. So the economy would continueto stagnate. The only way the AES could conceivably work would be if it contained a verystrong incomes policy which held wages down enough to allow protability to recover. Butthis, Glyn argued, would naturally, and quite properly, be resisted by the labour movementitself. To get over the crisis, the control of investment had to be taken out of the hands of capitalists by large-scale nationalizationnationalization without compensation for capital-owners except in cases of genuineneed, which, in turn, would requirea revolutionary workersstate.

However, would the new revolutionary workers state itself be required to attack work-ers living standards? After all, as Glyn acknowledged, if the prot rate remained lowafter nationalization, the rate of accumulation, and hence growth, in the planned socialisteconomy would be very slow. There was a prospect of what he frankly called social-ist stagnation. Glyns main answer to this problem lay in what we may call the plan-

ning dividend. Glyn argued that the transition to a planned economy would allow thelarge amount of currently unemployed resources to be reabsorbed into production. Com- bined with some redistribution, the resulting expansion in output would enable the work-ers government to maintain working-class living standards while at the same time in-creasing the share of investment in national income, laying the foundations for more rapid growth.

Looking back now, almost 30 years on, one is struck by the logical coherence of Glyns position. Nevertheless, logical coherence does not by itself make Glyns position convincing,and it is worth reecting on some of the weaker points in the argument.

First, assume that there is a planning dividend. The kind of revolutionary transitionwhich Glyn envisaged would also in itself cause a major disruption to production. Might not

these transition costs offset the planning dividend? Second, would there really be much of a planning dividend? Central planning is good at rapidly mobilizing available resources, but itis weak at promoting the kind of innovation on which long-term economic growth depends.So even if there was a short-term gain from the transition to planning (putting transition costsaside), in the medium to long term this could well be offset by slower growth. Workers would then nd their living standards growing more slowly than in the capitalist past. To combatthis, the new workers government might further increase the share of investment in nationalincome. But this itself would put downward pressure on workers immediate living standards.In short, the danger of socialist stagnation was a very real one. Moreover, the experienceof socialist stagnation would put considerable political pressure on the new revolutionarystate.


4/10

158 Stuart White

III. Social democratic corporatism

In 1984 Glyn published his magisterial survey of the economic development of the advanced capitalist countries, Capitalism Since World War Two , co-authored with Philip Armstrong and John Harrison (Armstrong et al ., 1984). This provided the denitive statement of the theoryof capitalist boom and bust which Glyn had been developing in his earlier works. By thistime, of course, the crisis which Glyn had so acutely diagnosed was being resolved on theterms of the Right. Mass unemployment combined with concerted anti-union measures bythe Thatcher governments broke the immediate power of the unions. In the changed politicalsituation, Glyns thinking evolved too. As the prospects for revolutionary socialism receded,Glyn became more interested in exploring the potential for egalitarianism within capitalism.This led him into a constructive, albeit still critical, engagement with social democracy.

In a second, updated edition of his survey of post-war capitalism, Capitalism Since 1945(Armstrong et al ., 1991), he and his co-authors reviewed the record of three Left governments:the 19749 Labour government in the UK, the French Socialist government under Mitterrand in the 1980s, and the Swedish Social Democrat governments of the 1970s and 1980s. Theynoted that the Swedish social democratic system had succeeded in maintaining relatively highlevels of employment and generous welfare spending even during a period of slow growth. AsGlyn argued in a later, extendedanalysis, the institutions of corporatist negotiation hadenabled the Swedes to apply the wage discipline necessary to spread employment and consumptionamong the workforce rather than shifting the burdens of slower growth on to a subset of workers through unemployment (Glyn, 1992).

But even if social democracy can spread the pain of reduced growth more equitably thanmore neo-liberal capitalisms, it might still be the case that there is a strong trade-off betweenegalitarian objectives and economic growth within capitalism. In a paper he co-authored withDan Corry, Glyn marshalled evidence in a preliminary way to show that there is, in fact, littleobvious negative correlation between the degree of egalitarianism of a capitalist economy and rates of economic growth (Corry and Glyn, 1994). Indeed, in the book in which this paper appeared, co-edited with David Miliband, Glyn pointed out that inequality is often itself acause, or another product of things that cause, inefciency (Glyn and Miliband, 1994). Thismeans that, to some extent, there is the possibility of a positive sum policy stance whichreduces inequality and raises efciency. A paradigm case would be a policy to improve theeducational outcomes among children of disadvantaged families so that they are able to earnmore as adult workers, an outcome which addresses both equity and efciency concerns.

However, is the ability of social democracy to reconcile equality and efciency objectivesdiminishing in the face of economic globalization? It is frequently arguedon the Right and Leftthat greater international mobility of goods, capital, and labourparticularly, of capital

and high-skilled labourwill result in competition between capitalist states to cut taxes,exerting downward pressure on the welfare systems which mitigate market inequalityarace to the bottom. The implication is that one can have globalization or equality, but not both. Moreover, since growth (allegedly) depends on integration into the global economy,one had better choose globalization.

Glyn carefully examined these theses emerging around globalization and pointed to their limitations. To begin with, Glyn was concerned to clarify the extent of globalization, in itsvarious forms, and to question exaggeratedclaimsabout its novelty (Glyn andSutcliffe, 1999).But Glyns criticism was focused particularly on the claim that globalization leads inevitablyto welfare-state retrenchment. As a matter of brute fact, welfare states are not in generalcollapsing or receding. The key issue, Glyn argued, is whether a Left government can put


5/10


together and sustain a distributional coalition willing to bear the costs of a generous welfarestate and incomeredistribution. If not, then anticipation of the inationary pressuresgenerated by higher taxation and higher public spending will certainly lead rapidly to capital ight and this will force a reversal of policy. But this has always been the case. The sophistication of todays computerized global nancial system might mean that this happens a lot quicker thanin the past: a matter of days or even hours rather than weeks or months. But the constraint isessentially no different than in the past (Glyn, 1997/8, 2006, ch.5). It is, at base, a political constraint, not an economic one.

Accordingly, Glyn was consistently interested in the record of countries with corporatist bargaining systems which have the potential to enable governments to put together and sustain such distributional coalitions. These countries not only include the usual Scandinaviansuspects, the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, but some more surprising cases wherecorporatist arrangements represented something of a new departure, such as Australia for atime in the 1980s and 1990s and, not least, the Republic of Ireland. In one recent paper, Glynfavourably contrasts the corporatist experience of Ireland with the effects of bold neo-liberalexperimentation in New Zealand (Glyn, 2002).

It is important to emphasize, however, that Glyns engagement with social democracyremained critical and realistic. In an edited volume, Social Democracy in Neoliberal Times(2001 a), he made clear his reservations about social democracy.

First, while some governments had used corporatist-style arrangements effectively to rec-oncile egalitarian concerns with economic growth, the record of Left governments in generalfrom 1980 is not in all respects a good one. Specically, Left governments in OECD coun-tries have on average reduced ination at a higher cost in terms of unemployment than in theOECD as a whole.

Second, while social democratic governments can, in principle, achieve reductions ininequality without loss of efciency by means of encompassing distributional coalitions,

Glyn pointed out that the effort to construct such coalitions was something which socialdemocratic parties were now inclined to duck. This was true, in particular, Glyn thought,of New Labour in Britain. This did not mean that New Labour-style governments, that duck the effort to build distributional coalitions, were useless:

The Left can still intervene in valuable ways to stem the tide of rising inequalitymorein-work benets for the low-paid, protection of the most vulnerable when welfare statesare reformed, targeting the extremes of inequality of opportunity which are obviouslyeconomically inefcient. (Glyn, 2001 a, p. 20)

But as he immediately goes on to say: However valuable in themselves, these are strictlylimited objectives and if they really represent the limits to social democracys vision, then as

Perry Anderson put it: what kind of movement will it change into? (Glyn, 2001 a, p. 20).Third, Glyn intimated at possibilities of change which ultimately lie beyond the scope of social democracy as this term is usually (and perhaps too conservatively) understood:

If high employment could be sustained for an extended period then bargaining power would tilt back towards labour and the issue of democratizing ownership and control inthe economy, submerged in the 1980s and 1990s, would surely return to revitalize theLefts agenda. (Glyn, 2001 a, p. 20)

Here we see clearly how Glyns concern with the popular control of investment, the concernwhich had underpinned his Trotskyism in the 1970s and early 1980s in the context of the protsqueeze, had far from disappeared. Social democracy, in the standard sense of the term, was


6/10

160 Stuart White

clearly preferable to the capitalism of the New Right in Glyns view for at least two reasons.One reason, and the focus of much of our discussion thus far, is that it has the capacity todeliver betterthat is to say, more just because more equaldistributional outcomes withincapitalism compared to the capitalism of the New Right. This is not to be sniffed at. However,another reason to prefer social democratic capitalism is that it also has the capacity, in meetingthis rst objective, to create the conditions under which basic questions about the ownershipand control of capital can come on to the table. Social democracy had edged confusedly onto the terrain of asserting democratic control in this area in the 1970s/1980s, but it had since beat a wholesale retreat. Glyns hope (if not, perhaps, his expectation) was that it could retraceits steps and make a better job of moving forward next time around.

Given these reservations about social democracy in general, it is not surprising that Glynalso expresses some reservations about New Labour. In an article co-authored with StewartWood, who went on to work for Gordon Brown, he acknowledged New Labours effortsto improve the position of the worst-off: the introduction of a minimum wage, reformsto the benet system, and higher rates of growth of spending in areas such as health and education (Glyn and Wood, 2001). However, he questioned whether New Labours aversion tocorporatist arrangementsa reaction to the perceived failures of the 1970swould ultimatelyweaken its ability to build the distributional coalitions needed to pursue more egalitarian policies.

Rather than experimenting with new forms of corporatism, New Labour seems committed to a model of a decentralized, deregulated labour market. This is perhaps because New Labour seems largely to have accepted the claim that rapid employment growth requires deregulated labour markets and (greater) wages inequality. New Labours approach has been to acceptthe alleged need for deregulated labour markets and wages inequality but to compensate for this inequality at the lower end of the labour market by means of more generous in-work benets (such as the Working Tax Credit). As part of his ongoing interrogation of alleged

conicts between equality and efciency, Glyn examined the evidence for the widely asserted links between labour-market deregulation, wages inequality, and employment growth, and argued that the evidence for them is in fact much weaker than is generally assumed (Glyn,2001 b; Baker et al ., 2005).

IV. New challenges to creating an efcient and equitableeconomy

In Capitalism Unleashed , published in 2006, Glyn pulled up to date the story he began in

Capitalism Since World War Two and Capitalism Since 1945 . The book examines the resultsof the neo-liberal turn of the 1980s, future challenges, and outlines a possible way forward for the Left.

What have been the results of the neo-liberal turn? Has it generated a new era of rapid growth (and, in this sense, efciency)? While the crisis of capitalism of the 1970s has beenresolved, the capitalist world has not entered a new Golden Age. Output per head has infact grown more slowly in the period 19902004 in the USA, Europe, Japan, and the OECDas a whole than it did in 197990, 19739, or 196073, although the rate of growth is withinthe normal range for the capitalist world since 1870 (Glyn, 2006, p. 131). Growth has also been associated with the emergence of new imbalances. In particular, growth in the USA wasdriven in the 1990s (and resuscitated in the 2000s) by means of huge consumer booms which


7/10


pushed the USA into persistent balance-of-payments and (in the 2000s) budget decit. Atsome point, the US economy would have to adjust in the face of these developments, and thisadjustment could be painful. Glyn pointed out how this prole of consumption-driven growthwas related to nancial deregulation, which had also led to greater exchange-rate volatilityand instability in the nancial system. He clearly saw the dangers inherent in this, and thechapter in his book on Finance and Ownership has subsequently become required readingfor those interested in working out the sources of the nancial crisis which has hit the world economy in the past 12 months.

So the new, neo-liberal capitalism has certainly not made for an era of stable, rapid growth by historical standards. On the other hand, what growth there has been has been accompanied by a worsening, in some countries, of equity and broader quality of life concerns. Thosecountries where neo-liberal policies have been pursued with particular vigour, such as theUK and the USA, have seen a signicant increase in income inequality (Glyn, 2006, p. 169).At the point of production, the intensity of work increased in the 1980s and 1990s and, in theUSA, the trend towards a reduction in working hours, which we saw throughout the advanced capitalist countries for much of the twentieth century, has stalled.

Looking ahead, Glyn argued that the challenges facing afuent capitalist societies looked set to get tougher. One challenge, of course, is environmental. Thus far, environmentalconstraints do not seem to have played a signicant role in constraining growth (Glyn, 2006, pp. 1312), but they could do so to a much greater extent in the future. Another, related challenge is posed by the growing role of newly industrializing countries, in particular China,in the world economy. Somewhat correcting his earlier scepticism about the signicanceof globalization, Glyn argued that the entry of nations like India and China into the world capitalist economy could have major repercussions for the afuent capitalist democracies:

there is the impact of surplus labour in China and elsewhere, signicant segments of which will be highly educated but with much lower wages than in the North. Accessto this cheap labour could encourage a much higher level of direct investment fromthe North, in effect an investment drain away from the rich countries. In effect thecapitallabour ratio would decline on a world scale, by one-third or more accordingto one estimate, as the vast reserves of labour in those countries become inserted into the world economy. The result could be a major fall in the share of wages inthe rich countries as workers nd their bargaining position weakened. The politicalconsequences of such developments are hard to foresee. Growing demands for formsof protection for Northern workers from Southern competition seems very probable.(Glyn, 2006, pp. 1534)

If the share of labour in output is set to fall substantiallya wage squeeze rather than a

prot squeezethen maintaining reasonable equality in income distribution will require aradical change in the distribution of wealth, so as to enable all citizens to share in the higher returns to capital, and/or some generous system of state transfer payments to uphold theincomes of low-paid workers. Glyn proposes a version of the second strategy, arguing thatsocial democracy should take seriously the proposal for a Basic Income, a universal and unconditional income payment to all citizens (Glyn, 2006, pp. 1803).

From one perspective, Glyns advocacy of Basic Incomemight look like a signicant retreatfrom the radicalism of his earlier work. In Marxist terms, it can be seen as an essentiallydefensive proposal, the central plank of a new minimum programme to protect workers fromthe worst distributional consequences of contemporary capitalism. However, it is importantto see the transformative potential of the proposal. A Basic Income could not only help


8/10

162 Stuart White

to maintain the living standards and bargaining power of the most vulnerable workers insocietyitself an important goalbut facilitate a general reorientation of social activityaway from the formal productionconsumption system towards more intrinsically satisfyingand (allegedly) environmentally friendly activities. It would allow for the expansion of arelatively unalienated, communistic sphere of social life within the framework of capitalistsociety, a clear echo of Philippe Van Parijs and Robert van der Veens earlier argument for acapitalist road to communism (Van Parijs and van der Veen, 1986). As Glyn put it:

Provided Basic Income could be set at a reasonable level it would give workers, espe-cially the low-paid, greater bargaining power in relation to their employers as they would have a nancial cushion against the consequences of the sack or of quitting voluntarilyin order to nd more rewarding work. More fundamentally, it would allow people theeconomic security to spend less time working for pay, perhaps none for the few withvery austere needs, and more time for pursuing more intrinsically satisfying activities.This could include emulators of J. K. Rowling writing childrens stories, political ac-

tivists, rock musicians honing up their guitar technique, computer buffs contributingon line to the development of freely available open source computer programs . . .students, people looking after children or gardening. (Glyn, 2006, p. 182)

In making this argument, Glyn acknowledged that, in one way, it involved a change inthe traditional socialist perspective. That perspective, he argued, focused centrally on raisingthe rate of growth of material production (Glyn, 2006, p. 180). As we have seen, this perspec-tive was integral to much of Glyns own thinking, centred on the problem of how to reconcilegrowth and equity. But Glyn now pointed out that growth is instrumentally, not intrinsically,important: the longer-term objective of socialism was always to facilitate the development of peoples lives in a more fullling direction (Glyn, 2006, p. 180). The issue, therefore, should not just be how to get growth, but how to use it for truly liberating purposes. The concern for

efciency in Glyns work was thus given a new, qualitative twist. Basic Income represents,he argues, a means of achieving greater material equity and a qualitatively superior use of available resources: in this sense, a simultaneous gain for equity and efciency.

V. Andrew Glyns legacy: egalitarianism without illusions

Andrew Glyns work, I have suggested, can be read at one level as a sustained exploration of how far, and how, an economy can be at once tolerably egalitarian and efcient in the sense of delivering stable growth and, thereby, improvements in general well-being and life-chances.

At the centre of this exploration, lies Glyns analysis of social democracy as an approachto the management of capitalism. Glyns work points on the one hand to the fragility and instability of social democracy: it can produce real gains for labour but at the same time putcapitalism under severe strain, posing the question of whether and how social democracymust go beyond capitalism in order to preserve (and further extend) these gains. This isthe lesson of the 1960s/1980s. On the other hand, Glyns work points to the robustness of social democracy: it can produce sustained, if limited, gains for labour and the disadvantaged within the framework of capitalism, provided that it is able to tackle the political question of building encompassing distributional coalitions to support the egalitarian spreading of labour incomes. It is also well placed to identify and harness certain complementarities betweenegalitarianism and capitalist efciency. His view of New Labour was that it did have the


9/10


potential to produce some gains for the disadvantaged, and to identify and harness someof these complementarities, but that its resistance to corporatist arrangements weakened its ability to construct and hold together the kind of distributional coalitions necessary for signicant redistribution.

Andrew Glyns lasting legacy is, in part, a collection of works which are exceptional inthe understanding they give us of the capitalist economy as it has developed internationallyover the past 60 or more years. But what we can and should also take from Glyns work is his determination to face the basicif, at times, unpleasantquestions: To what extentcan capitalism function with greater equality? What are the institutional conditions for this?At what point must egalitarians be prepared to challenge fundamental aspects of capitalistsociety, such as elite control of investment ows? Are egalitarians willing to make such achallenge when it becomes necessary? If so, how do they intend to rise to it? Only if weconfront these questions can we have egalitarianism without illusions.

References

Armstrong, P., Glyn, A., and Harrison, J. (1984), Capitalism Since World War Two , London, Fontana. (1991), Capitalism Since 1945 , Oxford, Blackwell.Baker, D., Glyn, A., Howell, D., and Schmitt, J. (2005), Labor Market Institutions and Unemployment:

Assessment of the Cross-Country Evidence, in D. Howell (ed.), Fighting Unemployment: The Limits of Free Market Orthodoxy , Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Corry, D., and Glyn, A. (1994), The Macroeconomics of Equality, Stability and Growth, in A. Glynand D. Miliband (eds), Paying for Inequality: The Economic Cost of Social Injustice , London, RiversOram/Institute for Public Policy Research.

Glyn, A. (1982), The Cambridge Economic Policy Group and Prots, Socialist Economic Review . (1992), Corporatism, Patterns of Employment and Access to Consumption, in J. Pekkarinen, M. Pohjola,

and R. Rowthorn (eds), Social Corporatism , Oxford, Oxford University Press. (1997), Does Aggregate Protability Really Matter?, Cambridge Journal of Economics , 21 (5). (1997/8), Egalitarianism in a Global Economy, The Boston Review , December 1997/January 1998. (2001 a ), Aspirations, Constraints, and Outcomes, in A. Glyn (ed.), Social Democracy in Neoliberal

Times: The Left and Economic Policy since 1980 , Oxford, Oxford University Press. (2001 b), Inequalities of Employment and Wages in OECD Countries, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and

Statistics , 63 . (2002), Labour Market Success and Labour Market Reform: Lessons from Ireland and New Zealand,

SCEPA Working Papers 200203, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis (SCEPA), 287, NewSchool University.

(2006), Capitalism Unleashed: Finance, Globalization, and Welfare , Oxford, Oxford University Press. Harrison, J. (1980), The British Economic Disaster , London, Pluto. Miliband, D. (eds) (1994), Paying for Inequality: The Economic Cost of Social Injustice , London, Rivers

Oram/Institute for Public Policy Research. Sutcliffe, B. (1972), British Capitalism, Workers and the Prot Squeeze , Penguin, Harmondsworth. (1999), Still Underwhelmed: Indicators of Globalization and their Misinterpretation, Review of

Radical Political Economics , 31 . Wood, S. (2001), New Labours Economic Policy, in A. Glyn (ed.), Social Democracy in Neoliberal

Times: The Left and Economic Policy since 1980 , Oxford, Oxford University Press.Kalecki, M. (1990 [1943]), Political Aspects of Full Employment, in J. Osiatynksi (ed.), The Collected

Works of Michal Kalecki: Vol. 1 , Oxford, Oxford University Press.Rowthorn, R. (1980), Capitalism, Conict and Ination , London, Lawrence and Wishart.Van Parijs, P., and van der Veen, R. (1986), A Capitalist Road to Communism, Theory and Society , 15 .White, S. (2008), On the Limits and Possibilities of Social Democracy: The Economics of Andrew Glyn,

Renewal , 16 (3/4), 13447.


10/10

Documents

Equality and Efficiency must conflict.pdf