The last three decades have witnessed the emergence of a new species of capitalism. In spite of marked differences among its different national varieties, a common characteristic of this species can be found in the global monopolization of knowledge. This monopolization involves hierarchical relations among firms and between capital and labor because the capital of some firms includes the exclusive ownership of much of the knowledge used in production. Since the 1994 TRIPS agreements, the growing commoditization of knowledge has extended the role of closed science and closed markets at the expense of open science and open markets. The intrinsic long-term dynamics of this species of capitalism are increasingly characterized by inequality and stagnation. In order to exit from the current crisis, we must change many features of Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism and rely on an eclectic approach that draws insights from the Liberal, the Keynesian and the Marxian traditions.Jel: F55, G01, B52, E11, E12

The last three decades have witnessed the emergence of a new species of capitalism. In spite of marked differences among its different national varieties, a common characteristic of this species can be found in the global monopolization of knowledge. This monopolization involves hierarchical relations among firms and between capital and labor because the capital of some firms includes the exclusive ownership of much of the knowledge used in production. Since the 1994 TRIPS agreements, the growing commoditization of knowledge has extended the role of closed science and closed markets at the expense of open science and open markets. The intrinsic long-term dynamics of this species of capitalism are increasingly characterized by inequality and stagnation. In order to exit from the current crisis, we must change many features of Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism and rely on an eclectic approach that draws insights from the Liberal, the Keynesian and the Marxian traditions.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract:In biology, the laws that regulate the structuring and change of complex organisms, characterised by interlocking complementarities, are different from those that shape the evolution of simple organisms. Only the latter share mechanisms of competitive selection of the fittest analogous to those envisaged by the standard neoclassical model in economics. The biological counterparts of protectionism, subsidies and conflicts enable complex organisms to exit from long periods of stasis and to increase their capacity to adapt efficiently to the environment. Because of their interlocking complementarities, most institutions share the laws governing the structure and change of complex organisms. We concentrate on the complementarities between technology and property rights and consider historical cases in which organisational stasis has been overcome by mechanisms different from (and sometimes acting in spite of) competitive pressure. The evolution of institutions cannot be taken for granted; but even when institutions seem frozen forever by their interlocking complementarities, their potential for change can be discovered by analysis of those interactions.