比较不同的社会主义民主计划模式——对阿达曼和迪瓦恩的回应

Q3 Social Sciences

Studies in Political Economy Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1080/07078552.2022.2161227

R. Hahnel

{"title":"比较不同的社会主义民主计划模式——对阿达曼和迪瓦恩的回应","authors":"R. Hahnel","doi":"10.1080/07078552.2022.2161227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the previous issue of Studies in Political Economy (103, no. 2), Fikret Adaman and Pat Devine critically compare their postcapitalist model “negotiated coordination” with the model known as “a participatory economy,” which Michael Albert and I have espoused. In this paper, I respond to some of their criticisms and present some criticisms of their model and approach as well.","PeriodicalId":39831,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Political Economy","volume":"103 1","pages":"262 - 279"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing different models of socialist democratic planning: a response to Adaman and Devine\",\"authors\":\"R. Hahnel\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07078552.2022.2161227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the previous issue of Studies in Political Economy (103, no. 2), Fikret Adaman and Pat Devine critically compare their postcapitalist model “negotiated coordination” with the model known as “a participatory economy,” which Michael Albert and I have espoused. In this paper, I respond to some of their criticisms and present some criticisms of their model and approach as well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Political Economy\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"262 - 279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Political Economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07078552.2022.2161227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07078552.2022.2161227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在上一期《政治经济学研究》（103，第2期）中，Fikret Adaman和Pat Devine批判性地将他们的后资本主义模式“协商协调”与我和Michael Albert所支持的“参与式经济”模式进行了比较。在本文中，我回应了他们的一些批评，并对他们的模式和方法提出了一些批评。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparing different models of socialist democratic planning: a response to Adaman and Devine

Abstract In the previous issue of Studies in Political Economy (103, no. 2), Fikret Adaman and Pat Devine critically compare their postcapitalist model “negotiated coordination” with the model known as “a participatory economy,” which Michael Albert and I have espoused. In this paper, I respond to some of their criticisms and present some criticisms of their model and approach as well.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Studies in Political Economy Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations

CiteScore

1.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Studies in Political Economy is an interdisciplinary journal committed to the publication of original work in the various traditions of socialist political economy. Researchers and analysts within these traditions seek to understand how political, economic and cultural processes and struggles interact to shape and reshape the conditions of people"s lives.