engleski

Systemic cycle theory and the periphery: Marx, Smith or Keynes?

The first part of the paper surveys the systemic cycle theory (Arrighi, Silver) and its recent interpretation (Lučev). It first explains the implicit conceptual reconciliation of this theory. Arrighi has used both a Smithian and Marxian dynamic to explain a fall in profitability central to his theory. The Smithian dynamic explains the expected process with rising competition lowering profits and a material expansion turning into a financial expansion as a result. He sees the Marxian dynamic as more suitable to explain crises – which play a role both in the change in material/financial regimes and in the geographic shifts of the central position in the global economy. More recent analyses reinterpret the systemic cycle via Keynes to draw conclusions on institutional incentives stemming from the design of developmental strategies (extensive/intensive capitalism). The second part of the paper continues by discussing the importance of the systemic cycle theory for the economies on the global political-economic periphery. The systemic cycle theory describes the investment shifts in the global center, and has little to say in matters of the periphery. However, the explicit inclusion of developmental strategies in the systemic cycle theoretical structure can help us change that. Even though they face more stringent restrictions to economic policy, peripheral economies are not bereft of developmental options, and varieties of capitalism do exist in the periphery.

systemic cycle ; varieties of capitalism ; periphery ; Arrighi

nije evidentirano