Tracking Extraction

This post is part of a symposium on the Methods of Political Economy.

Angela Harris–

In a recent book, Raj Patel and Jason Moore argue that the genius of capitalism lies in its “violent extractions of extraeconomic life,” and that these extractions require not only technical innovations and market institutions, but also state power, culture, and ideology. If “law and political economy” examines the role of law in constituting and regulating marketcraft and statecraft, one way of “doing” LPE, I suggest, is to look for the role of law in managing the processes by which capitalists extract value from activity putatively outside “the economy.”

For Patel and Moore, as for LPE, “Capitalism is not just the sum of ‘economic’ transactions that turn money into commodities and back again; it’s inseparable from the modern state and from governments’ dominions and transformations of natures, human and otherwise.” Capitalism produces wealth in part by drawing human and nonhuman activities previously outside itself into its circuits of production, exchange and profit, without recognizing (let alone paying) the full social and ecological costs of their creation, maintenance, or extraction. Patel and Moore call this process making things “cheap,” and they illustrate their argument with seven “cheap things:” Nature, money, work, care, food, energy, and lives.

Continue reading

Stocking the Toolshed: A Symposium on Methods of Political Economy

This is the introductory post in a series on the Methods of Political Economy.

Luke Herrine–

In their Law & Economics textbook, Robert Cooter and Thomas Ulen ask: “Why has the economic analysis of law succeeded?” Their answer: “Economics provide[s] a scientific theory to predict the effects of legal sanctions on behavior….This theory surpasses intuition, just as science surpasses common sense.” Moreover, “economics provides a useful normative standard for evaluating law and policy….Efficiency [that standard] is always relevant to policymaking, because it is always better to achieve any given policy at lower cost than at higher cost.”

This is, to quote a wag, pure ideology.

Continue reading

LPE at RebLaw!

If you’re at (or on your way to) RebLaw, you should definitely go to the two events hosted by LPE student groups on Saturday! To wit,

10:15 a.m. in Room 129: “Reclaiming Our Legal Education: Alternatives By and For Progressive Law Students” (a panel featuring current law students and practitioners)

12:00 p.m. in Room 127: “Bringing LPE to Your Campus” (a breakout group for students interested in creating a home for LPE on their campus)

 

Welcome JustMoney.org!

just moneyLPE is thrilled to welcome JustMoney.org into the LPE ecosystem, and to share this message from the Just Money team: The website aims to provide a platform for exploration of money and credit as matters of design.  We  approach them and their larger architecture as legal institutions that are crucial dimensions of governance in modern societies.


JustMoney.org will serve a number of functions, including a feed of scholarship posts (abstracts and links to recent publications and working papers); roundtables (invited exchanges among commentators on breaking or critical topics like banking and money creation, virtual currencies, race and the monetary architecture, and the debate over funding the Green New Deal); policy spotlights (short, student-authored columns about current policy ideas), teaching and resources (an archive of syllabi, course materials, other teaching materials), and announcements (event notices, CFPs, job postings, and similar items).

We invite you to browse the site.  We would be happy to post relevant syllabi and course materials – just send them, along with comments, questions, and ideas to editor@justmoney.org.   Please spread the word, by tweet or traditional media – we’d like the website to serve a broad community!  Note that each post on our JustMoney.org website has a Twitter icon at the bottom that you can select to retweet the post on your own Twitter feed, a great way of getting the word out. You can also visit and follow our @justmoneyorg Twitter feed. If you know people that would like to subscribe to receive email updates from JustMoney.org, please refer them to our signup form.

Just Money will also host a conference on Money as a Democratic Medium in December 2020. From the organizers: A bit more than a year ago, many of us gathered at the Conference on Money as a Democratic Medium.  We aimed at a territory that is critical to political communities:  the design of money and credit, understood as collective projects that configure much of material life and political power, along with economic norms, social practices, and conceptual space.  The Conference began a conversation that many participants wanted to continue and expand.

The Role of Law in Global Value Chains: A Window into Law and Global Political Economy

The Role of Law in Global Value Chains: A Window into Law and Global Political Economy

NB: This is the introduction to a symposium on law and global value chains co-convened with the Institute for Global Law and Policy’s Law and Global Production Working Group.

Dan Danielsen and Jennifer Bair–

The ideas that form the basis for this Symposium have emerged through an ongoing discussion among critical legal scholars, sociologists, geographers and political economists that began in 2014 under the auspices of the Institute for Global Law and Policy (IGLP) at Harvard Law School. From diverse disciplinary locations and substantive research interests, we were all engaging with the concept of global value chains (GVCs)—that is, functionally integrated but geographically dispersed networks through which many goods and services are produced. While we agreed that studying GVCs was integral for understanding the nature of the global political economy, our collaboration, which we named the IGLP Law and Global Production Working Group, was inspired by our shared sense that the role of law in the organization, operation and effects of Global Value Chains (GVCs) was little understood and significantly undertheorized in the burgeoning social science and policy literatures on GVCs. Moreover, legal scholars had barely begun to consider the rich body of scholarship tracking GVCs in numerous industries and geographic contexts, nor had they appreciated the degree to which the study of GVCs was shedding empirical and theoretical light on the governance structures and distributional dynamics of the dominant form of doing business in the global economy. (According to UNCTAD’s 2013 World Investment Report, GVCs account for 80% of world trade, while a more recent OECD estimate puts the number at 70%.) Finally, we shared a deep skepticism of what seemed an emerging consensus among mainstream GVC scholars and policymakers that the most promising (and perhaps only) path to development today is via participating in, and ideally moving up the value chain by capturing additional rents through innovation-based upgrading. Our intuition was that diverse legal arrangements were enabling and sustaining the current asymmetrical distributions of resources, rents, and power in GVCs and that developing richer maps of these key legal drivers would make more legible the geographies of value and vulnerability in particular chain configurations, and perhaps suggest new strategies for resistance, solidarity and distributive intervention.

These shared ideas and intuitions led us to the core research question that remains at the heart of our work, even as we explore different aspects of it in diverse sectors and contexts: how does law shape the structure and organization of production and distribution globally, and how do structures of production and distribution in turn reconfigure what law is and how it works in this dynamic process? Our preliminary thoughts and methods for exploring this question were first articulated in a piece entitled “The Role of Law in Global Value Chains: A Research Manifesto” (the “Manifesto”), which was published in the London Review of International Law. In our introductory essay to this Symposium, we share some of the insights from the Manifesto and our ongoing work in order to frame the interventions to follow.

Continue reading

Care Work In & Beyond the Labor Market

Click here to read all posts in our Care Work series.

Noah Zatz –

ndwa

via ssir

Big ideas are flourishing these days—the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, sectoral bargaining, Universal Basic Income, prison abolition. This makes it all the more noteworthy when major policy areas are relatively quiet. One example is child care, despite Elizabeth Warren having started there in her “I have a plan for that” strategy.

What’s lacking is not merely depth of attention but also breadth of imagination. In particular, child care is being viewed almost entirely through the lens of labor market policy. Policy initiatives such as Warren’s focus first on enabling parents to flourish in paid work through access to affordable, quality care. Secondarily, they strive to ensure that the resulting caregiving jobs are themselves well-paid, protected, and respected. These important commitments especially advance the interests of women workers, particularly working class women of color overrepresented on both sides of this needing care/providing care ledger. The dual emphasis undermines both the family wage system’s gendered breadwinner/caretaker division of labor centered on married, middle-class white women and its incorporation of women of color into paid work, including specifically domestic work for white families, that lay outside the structures of labor citizenship designed for white, male breadwinners.

Nonetheless, focusing on universalizing access to better paid work submerges two other longstanding elements of critical feminist analysis of care work. These are particularly pertinent to LPE conversations about the political-economic centrality of markets. First, feminist accounts of social reproduction have long highlighted the extensive, essential, but systematically devalued or outright ignored work performed outside conventional labor markets in families and communities. This includes especially direct care work and housework or other household production, but also broader forms of civic participation often denoted “volunteering.” Second, attaching economic resources to nonmarket social reproductive labor starts to loosen paid work’s iron grip on household income more generally. That grip creates a legitimated dependency on labor markets that undergirds power relations both between labor and capital and, within families, between market “breadwinners” and those more conventionally labelled “dependents.” Valuing care thus could facilitate both reimagining work and decentering markets.

Continue reading

The Second Wave of Algorithmic Accountability

Frank Pasquale –

Over the past decade, algorithmic accountability has become an important concern for social scientists, computer scientists, journalists, and lawyers. Exposés have sparked vibrant debates about algorithmic sentencing. Researchers have exposed tech giants showing women ads for lower-paying jobs, discriminating against the aged, deploying deceptive dark patterns to trick consumers into buying things, and manipulating users toward rabbit holes of extremist content. Public-spirited regulators have begun to address algorithmic transparency and online fairness, building on the work of legal scholars who have called for technological due process, platform neutrality, and nondiscrimination principles.

This policy work is just beginning, as experts translate academic research and activist demands into statutes and regulations. Lawmakers are proposing bills requiring basic standards of algorithmic transparency and auditing. We are starting down on a long road toward ensuring that AI-based hiring practices and financial underwriting are not used if they have a disparate impact on historically marginalized communities. And just as this “first wave” of algorithmic accountability research and activism has targeted existing systems, an emerging “second wave” of algorithmic accountability has begun to address more structural concerns. Both waves will be essential to ensure a fairer, and more genuinely emancipatory, political economy of technology.

Continue reading

When All Social Problems Become Financial Problems

Sarah Quinn –

When it comes to government programs, credit support is often cheaper and less controversial than direct expenditures. Understand this, and you can understand why government officials have an incentive to define all sorts of social problems as financial ones.

Government officials face considerable pressure to promote credit markets. Wall Street firms leverage money, expertise and status to “capture” regulators. It is not only the rich and powerful who make demands on the state for easier access to credit: Farmers in the late 18th century, black activists fighting against redlining in the postwar era, access to credit cards in the 1930s– all have demanded that the governmental help them gain access to credit. When wages are low and welfare state support is stingy, families rely on easy credit to ride out hard times or even meet daily expenses. In the context of neoliberalism, credit access can be a kind of destructive consolation prize for workers with stagnant wages and frayed safety nets, as other scholars have noted.

Demands for easy credit are a crucial part of the story of credit allocation in any political economy, but they do not tell the whole story. That is because lawmakers have their own reasons for turning to credit as tool of statecraft, and those reasons help determine how, when and why government officials move credit and promote financial markets.

Continue reading

Friday Roundup

The latest in LPE World:

– LPE Blog

Restricting Women’s Autonomy in the Name of “Eugenics”

Mindy Roseman –

aclu

(via ACLU)

The public/private dichotomy—so fundamental to the liberal political and economic order—produces many (if not all) of our lived contradictions, especially our experiences of inequality along the multiple and intersecting lines of race, sex, gender, class, able-bodiedness, and so on. It should come as no surprise that where the private decision making of women is at issue, the privilege of freedom from state and third party interference has been hard-fought and never fully achieved. U.S. Constitutional and state level jurisprudence on abortion is predicated on the women “in consultation with their doctors,” choosing whether to carry their pregnancies to term. This provisional grant of autonomy has provided the logic for a continual legislative claw back of the abortion right: a right to decide but not to realize (Harris v. McCrae); a right to decide but only upon the due burden of state mandated reflection and guidance (Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania); a right to decide but not to elect the safest procedure (Gonzales v. Carhart). Women, this jurisprudence affirms, no matter their race or class, cannot be trusted.

Mistrust in women runs deep in current legislative efforts to wrest their private decision-making autonomy away. It hardly announces itself as such in the bills; rather, it comes to us through an appeal to humane and liberal values that impart to abortion-access restrictions an air of legitimacy. The latest obfuscation—restricting abortion in the name of combating “eugenics”—recently surfaced anew in the 6th Circuit’s decision in Preterm-Cleveland v. Himes, decided two weeks ago. The case concerns H.B. 214, an Ohio law that criminalizes abortions of Down syndrome affected pregnancies. Doctors who know (or have reason to know) that the woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy because of a Down syndrome diagnosis, and perform such an abortion risk a felony conviction, 18 months’ imprisonment, license revocation, and civil penalties. The U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction against its implementation and enforcement, which the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld, 2 to 1.

I will not review the reasoning behind the two-judge majority opinion. Instead, the dissent deserves unpacking, as it may well be echoed in any eventual Supreme Court review. This dissent is particularly noteworthy because of the way its adoption of language with a traditionally emancipatory valence is meant to misdirect. What appear to be individual, private decisions are in fact conditioned by state policy. Much turns on state action. This case highlights how abortion opponents intentionally confuse individual decision-making and state policy, with an aim to legitimate unwarranted interference in the exercise of women’s autonomy. Ohio H.B. 214 shifts our attention away from what the state is and is not doing for pregnant people and for the children they bear, and burden their individual decision making instead.

Continue reading