Institutional Theory, Socialization of Investment, and Care-Based Full Employment for Equity and Human Development

Abstract

The article discusses commitment to full employment in light of institutional theory and offers a renewed examination of the “socialization of investment” concept. The discussion builds on Veblen’s theory of human development, predation, and capitalism. It highlights contemporary institutional inquiry in a discussion of ongoing issues of care and disparities. Based on this, the article formulates problems for future inquiry. The article also provides insights about Job Guarantee based on institutional concepts.

Keywords:

• job guarantee
• care systems
• feminist institutional economics
• social stratification
• socialization of investment
• Modern Money Theory and Institutions

JEL Classification Codes:

• B52
• B54
• B55
• E12
• P16
• Z18

Notes

1 The near universal Child Tax Credit advancement of direct deposits to taxpayers reduced child poverty (even if not reaching all in need), yet its extension was continuously opposed in budget bill negotiations, amidst people’s struggles (see Swenson and Torbati 2021; Associated Press 2022; Zippel 2021). The Family First Coronavirus Act provided paid sick leaves, extended to the end of September 2021.

2 It has been shown that most families with incomes less than $35,000 are using the payments for food, clothing, shelter, rent utilities, and education (Zippel 2021). The issue is what kind of goods households could afford to buy with the “extra” income, given the systems of inequality, production, and consumption process (e.g. nutritional value, see Schneider 2021). See Timothy Wunder (2019) on the need of even more generous proposal and (Madrick 2020) about the multifaceted effects of poverty on children.

3 This includes nurse labor supply chains, as well as domestic workers, among others (McLaughlin 2020; York 2021.

4 Utilizing the Veblenian dichotomy I have also stressed the importance of conceptualizing unpaid community activities directed towards invidious distinction and vested interests, so that not to idealize “communities” (Todorova 2016a). That is why we need a conceptual qualifier discussed in the following section.

5 Research in feminist economics and changes of measurements has advanced understanding and the policy potential in that regard (see Figart 2017, 15–26).

6 See Jan Kregel (2020) on why in a shut-down economy, directing goods and equitable sharing of burden should be the objectives, rather than full employment and stimulus.

7 An example of deficiency of such “saving” or preparedness, is when large hospitals postpone surgeries en masse, amidst staff attrition, due to burnout, infections, and expected surges (see Lazar and Krueger 2022). The work of Thomas Kemp and Megan Roehl (2021) is instructive regarding the types of investigations for such preparedness, of course accounting for human needs (Davis 2021); as is Gregory Hayden’s Social Fabric Matrix (Fullwiler, Elsner, Natarajan 2009).

8 See L. Randall Wray (2020) and Stephanie Kelton (2020) for critiques of the standard view of government surpluses and deficits, and the differences it makes for problem- and policy-formulations.

9 On the diametrical differences between the institutionalist conception of social costs and its neoliberal doppelganger conceptions, see Sebastian Berger (2017).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Zdravka Todorova

Zdravka Todorova is a professor in the Economics Department at Wright State University.