Towards a re-interpretation of the economics of feasible socialism

Dic Lo and Russell Smyth

Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2004, vol. 28, issue 6, 791-808

Abstract: This paper re-examines the debate on whether socialism is feasible from the perspective of the literature on the division of labour and organisational forms. The central argument is twofold. First, each of the major protagonists in the debate provide a partial explanation as to when market socialism, planned socialism and participatory socialism are feasible. Second, the different perspectives on when socialism is feasible can be reconciled through seeing the arguments in terms of specific techno-economic paradigms, which are underpinned by their own concepts of the division of labour and efficiency attributes. The authors show that theories on the economics of socialism reflect different techno-economic paradigms and that when, and whether, the various views on socialism are appropriate depend on the prevailing external conditions, economic growth path and mode of institutional arrangement. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2004
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beh035 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: TOWARDS A RE-INTERPRETATION OF THE ECONOMICS OF FEASIBLE SOCIALISM (2002)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:cambje:v:28:y:2004:i:6:p:791-808

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue

More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Cambridge Political Economy Society Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().