No abstract

In his classic 1973 article, Luigi Pasinetti formalised the algorithm of vertical integration. The algorithm ("logical process") shows the link between representations of industrial interdependencies, originating in Quesnay's Tableau économique and systematized by Leontief (1941, 1951), von Neumann (1945-6) and Sraffa (1960) among others, and vertically integrated representations such as those implicit in the classical theory of value, Keynesian macroeconomics and important strands of marginalist economics. 2 In industrial economies, production is carried out through interdependent processes. For example, agriculture produces corn, which is used in agriculture as seeds and in manufacturing for the subsistence of workers. Manufacture produces steel, which is used in manufacture to make steel and in agriculture in the form of ploughs. The fact that each industry provides inputs for other industries, and acquires the output of other industries as inputs, is what is referred to as industrial (or circular) interdependencies (CI henceforth). Vertical integration (VI henceforth) is the logical process whereby intermediate commodities are eliminated and attention is concentrated on primary inputs and final commodities. Corn is 1 The research leading to this article began with the presentation "The political economy of circular interdependencies and vertical integration: Opening the black box of 'national interest'" at the conference The Economics of Structural Change: A Conference in Honour of Luigi Pasinetti, 12-13 September 2012, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and the SSRN working paper with the same title (Cardinale, 2012). 2 The dualism between industrial interdependencies and vertically integrated representations provides a fundamental lens to interpret different traditions in economic analysis (see contributions in Baranzini and Scazzieri, 2012a (1 st edn. 1990) and in particular Baranzini and Scazzieri 2012b, 2012c and Landesmann and Scazzieri, 2012; see also Scazzieri 1990, 1996). This paper's focus on vertical integration does not mean to privilege vertically integrated representations over those based on industrial interdependencies, but rather to concentrate on the possibility to switch back and forth between the two representations, which was highlighted by Pasinetti's (1973) formalization. attention to the socio-political dimension of the structure of division of labour-a layer that is connected, but not reducible, to the material dimension emphasized by the 20 th-century revival of structural analysis.

authors are grateful to participants in the 'Structures and Transformations' conference at the Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare 'Beniamino Segre', National Lincei Academy, for stimulating discussion and comments. We also acknowledge with thanks the insightful comments and suggestions of two anonymous referees. The usual caveat applies. 4 '[c]e sont donc les proportions qui font toute la richesse' (Boisguillebert, 1843 [1707], p. 279).

This paper analyzes the socioeconomic dimension of vulnerability and resilience from the viewpoint of connectivity. While no consensus has yet emerged on the definitions of vulnerability and resilience or on their relationship, it has been recognized that both have an important normative dimension, in that whether a system is considered vulnerable or resilient depends on the interests of the stakeholders involved. The paper proposes a dimension of resilience and vulnerability that is likely to be shared across a significant spectrum of stakeholders. To do so, the paper analyses connectivity within social-ecological systems from a BStructural Political Economy^viewpoint. A key concept in this regard is Bsystemic interest^, which is defined as the interest of stakeholders in keeping viable the system of connections within which they act. Systemic interest has desirable properties to conceptualize the normative dimension of vulnerability and resilience and leads to problematize their link with connectivity. In fact, it raises the question of what features of connectivity can be expected to lead to systemic interest, and how this impinges on vulnerability and resilience in different contexts. On the one hand, one might expect that a more interconnected system is more vulnerable to shocks, which propagate more easily throughout the system. On the other hand, such system might have a stronger systemic interest, so that a shock would trigger stakeholders' reaction to counteract its effects and avoid systemic consequences. The paper points to the institutional conditions that might make either outcome more likely in any given context.

The Eurozone as a Political Economy Field i v a n o c a r d i n a l e , d ' m a r i s c o f f m a n a n d r o b e r t o s c a z z i e r i