Capitalism
The degree of competition, role of intervention and regulation, and scope of state ownership varies across different models of capitalism.[5] Economists, political economists, and historians have taken different perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire capitalism, welfare capitalism, crony capitalism and state capitalism; each highlighting varying degrees of dependency on markets, public ownership, and inclusion of social policies. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy. Etymology[edit] The term capitalist as referring to an owner of capital (rather than its meaning of someone adherent to the economic system) shows earlier recorded use than the term capitalism, dating back to the mid-17th century. Economic elements[edit] The essential feature of capitalism is the investment of money in order to make a profit.[35]
Anglo-Saxon economy
The Anglo-Saxon model or Anglo-Saxon capitalism (so called because it is practiced in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia[1] and Ireland [2]) is a capitalist model that emerged in the 1970s[citation needed], based on the Chicago school of economics[citation needed]. However, its origins date to the 18th century in the United Kingdom under the ideas of the classical economist Adam Smith. Disagreements over meaning[edit] Proponents of the term "Anglo-Saxon economy" argue that the economies of these countries currently are so closely related in their liberalist and free market orientation that they can be regarded as sharing a specific macroeconomic model. Differences between Anglo-Saxon economies are illustrated by taxation and the welfare state. Although the term refers to the macroeconomics of Anglo-Saxon countries, it isn't limited to English-speaking countries. See also[edit] References[edit] Bibliography[edit]
Social Responsibility: Chapter 1Social Responsibility Chapter
Slide #1 Created 6/20/2008 Loading... Slide #2 Slide #3 Slide #4 Slide #5 Slide #6 Slide #7 Slide #8 Slide #9 Slide #10 Slide #11 Slide #12 Slide #13 Slide #14 Slide #15 Slide #16 Slide #17 Slide #18 Slide #19 Slide #20 Social Responsibility: Chapter 1Social Responsibility Chapter Presentation The Business Government Society Bob Potanovich Copy the following code to your webpage or blog to embed this presentation: <a href=" class="slidefinder">Vicini7</a> <a href=" class="slidefinder">Vicini7</a> Det3 <script type="text/javascript" src="
Market Capitalism, State-Style
Ying Ma on The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? by Ian Bremmer. Ian Bremmer. The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? Portfolio. 240 Pages. $26.95. Ian bremmer believes that the free market is worth defending. That threat is state capitalism, and around the world it appears to be the new fad. The governments may be different, but the underlying logic is the same. State presence in the economy, however, does not automatically make a country state capitalist. Unfortunately for market capitalism, the great crash of 2008 has greatly burnished state capitalism’s credentials. Nonetheless, state capitalism is not the way to go, according to The End of the Free Market. Since the end of the Cold War, one authoritarian country after another — from Asia to the Middle East, from Russia to Latin America — has embraced capitalism. Of course, no country can rival China as the granddaddy of state capitalism today.
The Market Capitalism Model
Management Fundamentals: Concepts, Applications, Skill Development - Robert N. Lussier
Shareholders v stakeholders: A new idolatry
THE era of “Jack Welch capitalism” may be drawing to a close, predicted Richard Lambert, the head of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), in a speech last month. When “Neutron Jack” (so nicknamed for his readiness to fire employees) ran GE, he was regarded as the incarnation of the idea that a firm's sole aim should be maximising returns to its shareholders. This idea has dominated American business for the past 25 years, and was spreading rapidly around the world until the financial crisis hit, calling its wisdom into question. Even Mr Welch has expressed doubts: “On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world,” he said last year. In an article in a recent issue of the , Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, charts the rise of what he calls the “tragically flawed premise” that firms should focus on maximising shareholder value, and argues that “it is time we abandoned it.”
From shareholder to stakeholder capitalism
Corporate social responsibility
The term "corporate social responsibility" became popular in the 1960s and has remained a term used indiscriminately by many to cover legal and moral responsibility more narrowly construed.[4] Proponents argue that corporations make more long term profits by operating with a perspective, while critics argue that CSR distracts from the economic role of businesses. McWilliams and Siegel's article (2000) published in Strategic Management Journal, cited by over 1000 academics, compared existing econometric studies of the relationship between social and financial performance. They concluded that the contradictory results of previous studies reporting positive, negative, and neutral financial impact, were due to flawed empirical analysis. In his widely cited book[6][7] entitled Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility (2001) David Henderson argued forcefully against the way in which CSR broke from traditional corporate value-setting. Approaches[edit] CSR Approaches
4 examples of corporate social responsibility done right
Here at Socialbrite, we’re always looking for sterling examples of how the corporate sector is contributing in genuine ways to the social good. Those bridges between the for-profit and nonprofit/social good sectors are becoming increasingly vital. So I was jazzed to see the presentation by Beth Kanter and Kami Huyse of Zoetica yesterday at NewComm Forum in San Mateo, Calif., on what they’re calling “lethal generosity” (a term from Shel Israel’s “Twitterville”). Without going into whether the term will catch on (I think it probably won’t — it’s really just CSR done right), here are four fantastic examples of how large companies have been contributing to the social good in compelling ways: Molson Coors & responsible drinking 1.Over the years, Molson Coors Canada has used CSR to advance its brand — and is one of the few major corporations to take advantage of social media in doing so. Tyson Foods & hunger relief Haagen-Dazs & honeybee preservation • Help the Honeybees microsite
