Peter Mihalyi – författare

The entire world was taken by suprise when 1990 brought an end to Soviet communism in Europe and thus a genuine end to World War II. The fact that these developments surprised not only the leaders and the people of the countries concerned, but also scholars is an extraordinary challenge to the students of Soviet-type economics. In the academic world, where predictive force is one of the key indicators of a successful theory, this weak performance calls into question the validity of earlier findings and interpretations. Something was wrong in the general framework. "Socialist Investment Cycles" offers an explanation of this failure. "Socialist Investment Cycles" is the first monograph in English on investment fluctuations in planned economies, a chapter in history. While providing a broad overview of the literature on socialist investment cycles, as well as a quantitative description of the actual processes, the author puts forth a new framework for understanding investment fluctuations. In this framework socialist planners were able to adjust the volume of investments without risking the fulfillment of politically more sensitive target variable."Socialist Investment Cycles" encompasses all 35 countries which were ruled by communism and penetrates deeply into the data problem, country by country, and series by series. "Socialist Investment Cycles" has been written after the collapse of Soviet-type communism in Eastern Europe, the USSR, and the countries of Asia and Africa. It thus offers a retrospective view on both the theory and practice of socialist economies.

This book intends to be a contribution to the "varieties of capitalism" paradigm. The theoretical background is Weber 's theory of legitimacy. Was communism ever "legitimate"? What kind of legitimacy claims were made in the transition from communism to capitalism? Central Europe was closer to the Western "liberal" model. Russia built capitalism in a patrimonial way. China followed its own unique way; some called it "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Putin experiments with an innovation for post-communist capitalism. He confronts the "oligarchs" and reallocates property from those who challenge his political authority to old and new loyal ones. This book asks to what extent such forms can serve as generic models for post-communist capitalism?

Mihályi and Szelényi provide a timely contribution to contemporary debates about inequality of incomes and wealth, offering a careful examination of various sources of rent in contemporary societies, and considering several policy options to reduce inequality in order to preserve the meritocratic nature of liberal democracies.While Rent-Seekers, Profits, Wages and Inequality acknowledges the rapid and disturbing increase of incomes and wealth in the top 1 or 0.1%, it focuses on the increasing rent component of incomes and wealth in the top 20% as even more consequential. The attention to cutting-edge issues on inequality in macroeconomics, political science and sociology will appeal to social scientists interested in income distribution and wealth accumulation.

This book intends to be a contribution to the “varieties of capitalism” paradigm. The theoretical background is Weber’s theory of legitimacy. Was communism ever “legitimate”? What kind of legitimacy claims were made in the transition from communism to capitalism? Central Europe was closer to the Western “liberal” model. Russia built capitalism in a patrimonial way. China followed its own unique way; some called it “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. Putin experiments with an innovation for post-communist capitalism. He confronts the “oligarchs” and reallocates property from those who challenge his political authority to old and new loyal ones. In conclusion, the central question is to what extent is “Putinism” a generic model for post-communist capitalism?

by Peter J. D. Wiles Professor Emeritus University of London There are two sorts of writers of prefaces: the obliging and the disobliging. Surely Peter MiMlyi knows where to place me in this taxonomy. For the most part I write my own irrelevant opinions, but there was one act of gross interference: my insistence on a point he had already quietly made, the greater stability of the production of consumer goods under Communism even of food, if we exclude bad harvests. The many Marxist and some other scholars who wrote about Dr. Mih