The Experts below are selected from a list of 1992 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jonathan Goldman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Structuralists contra serialists claude levi strauss and pierre boulez on avant garde music
Information Systems, 2011Co-Authors: Jonathan GoldmanAbstract:The adepts of serial music since the end of the 1950s seemed destined to ally themselves with structuralist thought—the broadly defined intellectual movement that profoundly marked the social sciences and humanities. The importance of the metaphor of language to the serialist project of Pierre Boulez in particular seemed sufficient to pave the way towards a conceptual alliance between avant-garde music and structuralist thought. Nevertheless, Claude Levi-Strauss’s acerbic pronouncements on serial music as well as musique concrete that appeared in the famous “Overture” to The Raw and the Cooked (1964) made it clear that Levi-Strauss was no friend of the serialist project. Drawing on recent research by Jean-Jacques Nattiez, Nicolas Donin, and Frederic Keck, this article will argue that the serialist compositional project of the postwar era, embodied primarily in the figure of Pierre Boulez, can be considered “structuralist” in the sense of the intellectual movement promulgated by Claude Levi-Strauss, despite the latter’s denunciation of serial music.
Thomas I Palley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
horizontalists verticalists and Structuralists the theory of endogenous money reassessed
Review of Keynesian Economics, 2013Co-Authors: Thomas I PalleyAbstract:This paper uses the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Basil Moore's book, Horizontalists and Verticalists, to reassess the theory of endogenous money. The paper distinguishes between horizontalists, verticalists, and Structuralists. It argues Moore's horizontalist representation of endogenous money was an over-simplification that discarded important enduring insights from monetary theory. The structuralist approach to endogenous money retains the basic insight that the money supply is credit-driven but remedies horizontalism's omissions and over-simplifications. Twenty-five years later, horizontalism has largely morphed into structuralism. The theoretical challenge going forward is to develop the role of money and finance in a Keynesian theory of output determination. As regards monetary policy, the challenge is how to conduct policy in a world of endogenous money. These concerns emanate naturally from a structuralist perspective on endogenous money.
-
horizontalists verticalists and Structuralists the theory of endogenous money reassessed
Research Papers in Economics, 2013Co-Authors: Thomas I PalleyAbstract:This paper uses the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Basil Moore’s book, Horizontalists and Verticalists, to reassess the theory of endogenous money. The paper distinguishes between horizontalists, verticalists, and Structuralists. It argues Moore’s horizontalist representation of endogenous money was an over-simplification that discarded important enduring insights from monetary theory. The structuralist approach to endogenous money retains the basic insight that the money supply is credit driven but remedies horizontalism’s omissions and over-simplifications. Twenty-five years later, horizontalism has largely morphed into structuralism. The theoretical challenge going forward is to develop the role of money and finance in a Keynesian theory of output determination. As regards monetary policy, the challenge is how to conduct policy in a world of endogenous money. These concerns emanate naturally from a structuralist perspective on endogenous money.
-
accommodationism versus structuralism time for an accommodation
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 1996Co-Authors: Thomas I PalleyAbstract:Within Post Keynesian circles there is a debate over what has come to be called the "accommodationist" and "structuralist"' approaches to endogenous money (see Pollin, 1991; Palley, 1994). This brief paper argues that the differences between these competing approaches can be understood in terms of (1) the treatment of the interaction between the monetary authority's policy reaction function and the asset and liability management activities of banks, and (2) beliefs regarding the feasibility of predicating monetary policy on targeted adjustments of the quantity of reserves. This paper maintains that accommodationist models leave unaddressed the interaction between the actions of the policy authority and the actions of banks, and they therefore fail to capture the feedback effects that link financial markets and monetary policy. This contrasts with the structuralist approach, which allows for the inclusion of such effects. Once such feedback is recognized, the accommodationist account ofthe determination ofthe money supply is revealed to be a special case of a fully articulated structuralist model in which it is assumed that the central bank fully accommodates increases in loan demand by increasing the supply of reserves.' Finally, accommodationists also claim that the only policy the monetary authority can follow is to control interest rates, while Structuralists believe that it can also control the supply of reserves. This accommodationist claim represents an unproven assertion that remains to be theoretically validated.
Rafael Saulo Marques Ribeiro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
economic development technical change and income distribution a conversation between keynesians schumpeterians and Structuralists introduction to the special issue
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Alberto Botta, Gabriel Porcile, Rafael Saulo Marques RibeiroAbstract:The original “manifesto” that gave rise to the Structuralist development theory was written for the Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA, subsequently ECLAC, after incorporating the Caribbean States in 1984) by Raul Prebisch (1949). This work had a strong impact on both the theoretical and policy debates and served as a rationale for the efforts at structural change and industrialization that many developing countries adopted in the following decades. By and large, the Latin American Structuralist tradition focuses on how the external constraint disproportionately affects output growth and domestic policies in less developed economies. The existence of bottlenecks in the productive system and labor market dualism characterizing peripheral economies opens space for state intervention and industrial policies as a way to promote structural transformation and economic development.
-
economic development technical change and income distribution a conversation between keynesians schumpeterians and Structuralists introduction to the special issue
PSL Quarterly Review, 2018Co-Authors: Alberto Botta, Gabriel Porcile, Rafael Saulo Marques RibeiroAbstract:The original “manifesto” that gave rise to the Structuralist development theory was written for the Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA, subsequently ECLAC, after incorporating the Caribbean States in 1984) by Raul Prebisch (1949). This work had a strong impact on both the theoretical and policy debates and served as a rationale for the efforts at structural change and industrialization that many developing countries adopted in the following decades. By and large, the Latin American Structuralist tradition focuses on how the external constraint disproportionately affects output growth and domestic policies in less developed economies. The existence of bottlenecks in the productive system and labor market dualism characterizing peripheral economies opens space for state intervention and industrial policies as a way to promote structural transformation and economic development. JEL codes : 010; 033
Omar Lizardo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Beyond the antinomies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sewell
Theory and Society, 2010Co-Authors: Omar LizardoAbstract:In this article, I attempt to address some enduring problems in formulation and practical use of the notion of structure in contemporary social science. I begin by revisiting the question of the fidelity of Anthony Giddens’ appropriation of the idea of structure with respect to Levi-Strauss. This requires a reconsideration of Levi-Strauss’ original conceptualization of “social structure” which I argue is a sort of “methodological structuralism” that stands sharply opposed to Giddens’ ontological reconceptualization of the notion. I go on to show that Bourdieu’s contemporaneous critique of Levi-Strauss is best understood as an attempt to recover rather than reject the central implication of Levi-Strauss’ methodological structuralism, which puts Bourdieu and Giddens on clearly distinct camps in terms of their approach toward the idea of structure. To demonstrate the—insurmountable—conceptual difficulties inherent in the ontological approach, I proceed by critically examining what I consider to be the most influential attempt to resolve the ambiguities in Giddens structuration theory: Sewell’s argument for the “duality of structure.” I show that by retaining Giddens’ ontological focus, Sewell ends up with a notion of structure that is at its very core “anti-structuralist” or only structuralist in a weak sense. I close by considering the implications of the analysis for the possibility of developing the rather neglected “methodological structuralist” legacy in contemporary social analysis.
Alberto Botta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
economic development technical change and income distribution a conversation between keynesians schumpeterians and Structuralists introduction to the special issue
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Alberto Botta, Gabriel Porcile, Rafael Saulo Marques RibeiroAbstract:The original “manifesto” that gave rise to the Structuralist development theory was written for the Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA, subsequently ECLAC, after incorporating the Caribbean States in 1984) by Raul Prebisch (1949). This work had a strong impact on both the theoretical and policy debates and served as a rationale for the efforts at structural change and industrialization that many developing countries adopted in the following decades. By and large, the Latin American Structuralist tradition focuses on how the external constraint disproportionately affects output growth and domestic policies in less developed economies. The existence of bottlenecks in the productive system and labor market dualism characterizing peripheral economies opens space for state intervention and industrial policies as a way to promote structural transformation and economic development.
-
economic development technical change and income distribution a conversation between keynesians schumpeterians and Structuralists introduction to the special issue
PSL Quarterly Review, 2018Co-Authors: Alberto Botta, Gabriel Porcile, Rafael Saulo Marques RibeiroAbstract:The original “manifesto” that gave rise to the Structuralist development theory was written for the Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA, subsequently ECLAC, after incorporating the Caribbean States in 1984) by Raul Prebisch (1949). This work had a strong impact on both the theoretical and policy debates and served as a rationale for the efforts at structural change and industrialization that many developing countries adopted in the following decades. By and large, the Latin American Structuralist tradition focuses on how the external constraint disproportionately affects output growth and domestic policies in less developed economies. The existence of bottlenecks in the productive system and labor market dualism characterizing peripheral economies opens space for state intervention and industrial policies as a way to promote structural transformation and economic development. JEL codes : 010; 033
