Основы историко-экономической концепции Ф. Броделя
If relative deprivation matters to welfare in poor countries as much as it apparently does in rich ones then one would have to question the priority given to economic growth over redistribution in current development policies. We look for evidence in one of the world's poorest countries, Malawi. Using new survey questions that help address likely biases in past tests, we find that relative deprivation is not the dominant concern for most of our sample, although it is for the comparatively well off, including in urban areas. Our results strengthen the welfarist case for a policy focus on absolute levels of living in poor countries. The pattern of externalities suggests that there will be too much poverty and inequality from the point of view of aggregate efficiency.
The article is a reply to M. Dodlova and M. Yudkevich. In their recent paper they undertake an attempt to use the notion of gift in the analysis of principal–agent relationship and to generalize the idea of gift in order to obtain a theory of gift exchange in the workplace. However, the analysis suggested lacks conceptual clarity and rests upon false presuppositions regarding the nature of gift. As a result, authors draw erroneous conclusions and fall victims of the magic of the gift. This short reply points to these deficiencies and suggests some ideas for alternative approaches to the analysis of certain phenomena observed in the workplace.
Modern non-profit marketing theory was developed from narrow borrowing social sciences concepts discussed in sociology, organizational behavior, and economic anthropology. However, there are additional alternative concepts and ideas from social sciences that can better explain the phenomena of non-profit marketing.
Today globalization can be treated as the most important global process. It is a multi-faceted phenomenon and in every country it has its own image. One can get a truly objective picture of the rapidly changing and integrating world only through a synthesis of all those particular visions. In the present anthology one can find perceptions of globalization by a number of famous scholars from different countries of the world (Ervin Laszlo, Roland Robertson, Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, Randall Collins, Christopher Chase-Dunn, William Thompson and others), but one can also get to know rather peculiar visions of globalization by the Russian scientists.
The volume is entitled Globalistics and Globalization Studies. Globalistics may be regarded as a sort of systemic and more or less integrated ‘core’ within Global Studies. The anthology consists of four parts presenting a wide range of views on the meaning of the contemporary epoch, the past and the future of some important global processes. Part 1. Historical Dimension. Part 2. Globalistics, Global Studies and Models. Part 3. Trends, Risks, and Problems. Part 4. Perspectives and the New World Order.
The article discusses the controversial concept of marketing for non-profit organizations. The existing theory of marketing for non-profit organizations developed with borrowing some concepts from the social sciences. From sociology, organizational behavior and anthropology were borrowed the concept of the organization as an open system, motivation, self-interest, bilateral voluntary exchange. Alternative concepts of organization, motivation and relationships with the environment created within the social sciences, allow to formulate an alternative approach to the study of non-profit marketing organizations. Recommendations for future research are offered.
The author deconstructs the prevailing conceptualization of non-profit marketing and concludes it rests on three principles: voluntary exchange, an open system organization, and self-interest motivation. A review of the genesis of these principles revealed that alternative principles were ignored in the social science literature. Based on a qualitative analysis and critical hermeneutic approach a revised conceptualization of non-profit marketing was suggested which incorporated the principles of reciprocity, the features of a contingency-choice organization, and altruistic interest motivation. A revised definition of non-profit marketing is offered based on these principles.
Although the concept of non-profit sector marketing has been widely embraced by marketing academics, many scholars and managers in the non-profit field remain skeptical. Skeptics of the appropriateness of the marketing concept in the non-profit field argued that its application distorted a non-profit organization's objectives, antithetical to its social service ethic, and invited inappropriate commercialization of non-profit services P. Kotler and his associates modified existing political communication and public advertising theories to formulate the marketing approach comprised of the «4 Ps» model, voluntary exchange, and the marketing philosophy of meeting customers’ needs. This explanation of the notion of marketing resulted in the term «social marketing». In 1972, Kotler formulated his broadened, generic, and axiomatic concept of marketing that was conceptualized as being universal for any type of product or organization including non-profit organizations. Three major principles underling the school's conceptualization of non-profit marketing: An open-system model of formal organizations, borrowed from organizational theory and the concept of social exchange, adapted from individualistic sociology. An alternative explanation can be based on: A closed-system model of formal organizations. The closed-system perspective is older stemming from Weber's classical analysis of bureaucracy. «Coercion mutually agreed upon « motivation. Self-interest motivation has limited usefulness in context of non-profit organizations. In many contexts it is antithetical to the philosophy of non-profit services and, hence, is inconsistent with a legitimate conceptualization of non-profit marketing. The application of self-interest motivation is integral to the social exchange school of marketing, but in the context of non-profit agencies it is inappropriate. Reciprocity and Redistribution. The relationship of formal organizations with their environments can be explained not only from an exchange perspective but also from reciprocity and redistribution perspectives.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.