In this reading circle, we’ll explore different ideas about property and possession, looking at both classical perspectives and more modern feminist views. We’ll discuss questions like: What is property? Can it ever be legitimate, and if so, under what conditions? Together, we’ll think critically about these issues and share our insights.

Main reading:

“Property and Ownership", article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In addition, read at least one of:

GENEALOGY OF WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS AND POLITICAL THOUGHT: A FEMINIST CRITIQUE OF THEORETICIANS FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD THROUGH MODERN TIMES by Shil and Majumber

The Body as Property: A feminist Re-vision by Petchesky

This workshop will present the Neorealist approach to institutional change, a heterodox theory which aims at analyzing the socio-political conditions which drive the stability and crises of any socio-economic model. Far from the normative theories of mainstream economics, in which institutional change is merely conceived as a move towards the ideal model of perfect competition, the Neorealist approach offers a non-normative paradigm to institutions which starts from social conflict and the diversity of social interests emanating from the heterogeneity of the social structure.

Both the theoretical and methodological aspects of the Neorealist approach will be presented to give the participants the keys to understand the evolution of the different models of capitalism in the last decades. Participants will be introduced to the main concepts of Neorealism such as systemic crisis, socio-political groups, social blocs and dominant social blocs and how these blocs shape institutional change. A special focus will be put on the empirical identification of these socio-political groups and how they can be aggregated into social blocs through political strategies, with example taken from France and Switzerland. Participants will finally have the opportunity to work with a concrete example taken from my own research on Switzerland's social blocs.

Materials: Workshop slides

Recommended readings:

Amable, Bruno. « In Search of the Bloc Bourgeois ». Revue de La Régulation. Capitalisme, Institutions, Pouvoirs, nᵒ 31 | 2nd semestre (24 août 2021). https://doi.org/10.4000/regulation.20350.

Amable, Bruno, et Stefano Palombarini. « A Neorealist Approach to Institutional Change and the Diversity of Capitalism ». Socio-Economic Review 7, nᵒ 1 (8 octobre 2008): 123‑43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwn018.

Amable, Bruno, et Stefano Palombarini. « Multidimensional Social Conflict and Institutional Change ». New Political Economy, 26 mai 2023, 1‑16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2215701.

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

Structural Crisis and Institutional Change in Modern Capitalism: French Capitalism in Transition (Amable 2017)

or

The Last Neoliberal: Macron and the Origins of France's Political Crisis

University Rankings (such as Times Higher Education, QS, Shanghai ranking, ..) have become integral to modern academia. Funding-based research schemes, accountability demands, and the global academic market's competition for resources and students have fueled interest in tools indicating higher education quality and status. Rankings provide market information and legitimize quality, reputation, and international outlook. Despite claiming to evaluate research performance and teaching quality, rankings primarily measure responsiveness to auditing and alignment with performance indicators. In this workshop we investigate how these tensions are negotiated and the impact of university rankings on higher education policy. The workshop is based on a prize-winning study that will certainly make you rethink academic structure and your own academic trajectory!

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

Groen, Tessa. "Rankings Practices: Understanding the Impact of World University Rankings on Policies and Practices in Dutch Higher Education." (2019).

To transform the dynamics of power and create a better society, we must consider how we sanction corporations. Discussion often focuses on writing new rules for corporations, while attempts to discipline corporations to this end have been a near-complete failure.

I have long supported expanding the power of the people/government to punish and even end the existence of corporations which continually damage society. Now, I have delved into the literature to present a case for the corporate death penalty, how this might be implemented, what it could imply, and gain insight into flaws in this approach from a more diverse and knowledgeable group. After making my case, you will have the opportunity to raise questions about issues within each area and build upon what I have been able to present. The goal is not to convince you that this is necessary but for us all to find out whether it should be pursued.

Recommended readings:

Main article with structured proposal (BEST IN MY OPINION): The Science fiction of Corporate Criminal Liability: Containing the Machine Through the Corporate Death Penalty by Mary Kreiner Ramirez (https://www.washburnlaw.edu/profiles/faculty/activity/_fulltext/ramirez-mary-2005-47arizonalawreview933.pdf)

Short article introducing topic: https://ilsr.org/articles/capital-punishment-for-corporations/

Second short, but more robust article (Access issues for some): If All Else Fails, A Corporate Death Penalty? By John Hulpke: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1056492617706545

Provocative article on scope of application: Towards Quantifiable Metrics Warranting Industry-Wide Corporate Death Penalties by Joshua M. Pearce: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/2/62

Cited by many others: Arthur Andersen and the Myth of the Corporate Death Penalty: Corporate Criminal Convictions in the Twenty-First Century by Gabriel Markoff: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2132242

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

The Case for the Corporate Death Penalty: Restoring Law and Order on Wall Street by Mary Kreiner Ramirez and Steven A Ramirez

What was the first chicken or the egg? When we think about economic systems we tend to think about chickens. Over the years we have crossbred them to lay more eggs, even bigger eggs, while lowering their living space. Now we are trying to increase their living space, some countries have even banned cage chicken breeding. But hey where is the egg in all of this?!

In this workshop, we will focus on the results of the systems. Starting with defining the needs for the products and the services and moving to reimagining them. How can forgetting about the chicken and focusing on the egg shape our perspective? Does this unorthodox D tour have the potential to change our angle on how we think and use eggs and therefore shift our perspective on chicken?

Join in and get ready for more than eggs and chicken, get ready to reinvent cars, washing machines, tomatoes, and more…

Utopia from an egg to a chicken.

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

Workshop was greatly inspired by book: Speculative everything, DDC (Danish Design Center) and Man's Search for Meaning by V.E. Frankl

Economics is typically a quantitative science, which exclusively relies on mathematical techniques, statistical analysis, experimental work, neglecting qualitative evidence, data, and research methods. However, most social sciences and adjacent disciplines do adopt qualitative methodologies when tackling economic phenomena, issues, and topics. Drawing upon the philosophy of the social sciences, this workshop seeks to interactively answer three questions: (1) why economists do not rely on qualitative research, (2) how they could implement it, and (3) in what subject domains.

Materials: Workshop slides

Recommended readings:

Bewley, T. F. (1995). A Depressed Labor Market as Explained by Participants. The American Economic Review, 85(2), 250–254. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117927

Blinder, A. S. (1991). Why are Prices Sticky? Preliminary Results from an Interview Study. The American Economic Review, 81(2), 89–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2006832

Helper, S. (2000). Economists and Field Research: “You Can Observe a Lot Just by Watching.” The American Economic Review, 90(2), 228–232. http://www.jstor.org/stable/117226

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

Radović-Marković, M., Alecchi, B. A. (2016). Qualitative Methods in Economics. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

In this workshop, participants will delve into the provocative notion that "doomers"—those who believe societal collapse is inevitable due to climate change and ecological overshoot—might be the new climate deniers. The session will foster vibrant debates on this perspective, scrutinizing the implications and responsibilities of doomism. Central to the discussion is the concept of "just collapse," which envisions an equitable and humane transition in the face of potential societal breakdown. The participants will collaboratively explore pathways that uphold justice and sustainability, emphasizing actionable strategies over academic discourse. The workshop will also provide clear definitions and frameworks for understanding doomism and just collapse, equipping attendees with the knowledge, resources, and inspiration to advocate for a fair and resilient future.

Materials: Workshop slides

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

Let This Radicalize You: The Revolution of Rescue and Reciprocal Care by Kelly Hayes, and Mariame Kaba

Note: takes two workshop blocks (9.00 - 12.30)

The Swiss food system is responsible for a significant proportion of the greenhouse gas emissions and negative environmental impacts. At the same time, food production is one of the sectors that is particularly affected by the consequences of climate change. In the new ""Climate Strategy Agriculture and Food 2050"", the federal government therefore states that the climate risks for Swiss agriculture should be minimized by means of appropriate policy instruments. Such a transformation of the entire food system is complex and affects the players in it in different ways and to different degrees.

WWF Switzerland's One Planet Lab (OPLab) aims to use the Swiss Food System Simulation Game to gain insights that will enable it to better assess the potential consequences of the necessary changes. This should help to ensure that the people in the affected sectors can be given the best possible support during these changes.

Readings: Please read the “Voraus Informationen” in the Readings folder in the drive, which you received a link to in your email.

The workshop has been developed and tested in German, so we recommend an intermediate level of German to be able to follow the game. However, it is possible to conduct the discussions in English. Please contact Mara in advance (or at the Summer School) if you are interested in this option.

More information: Link to board game

Son preference is one of the most persistent gender issues in Asian countries, particularly in India. This ipso facto leads to pre-natal and postnatal discrimination against the girl child. It is reflected in the country's male-biased sex ratios (such as child sex ratios, sex ratio at birth, and sex ratio at last birth) and gender gaps in education, health, and mortality.

Women's empowerment has been a holistic key policy objective of the government and in advocacy to encounter the son preference bias. In development economics and gender studies, the relationship between women's empowerment and son preference has been a critical theme. It has been intensively studied for three decades and is well-researched. However, there is still a wide variation and disagreement in the definitions/components/indicators used to conceptualise and measure women's empowerment and son preference, which leads to different conclusions.

My study examines the relationship between women's empowerment and son preference in India and spells out the pathways. Specifically, I will analyse women’s empowerment in three critical dimensions, i.e., mind, market, and household, where power dynamics (or balance of power) and gender social norms play a more significant role in determining fertility preference and choices. My study addresses the following three questions: 1) How to conceptualize and measure women’s empowerment and son preference in demographic research? 2) How women’s empowerment is associated with gender/son preference? Does an increase in the empowerment level lead to weaker son preference? 3) Are men and women the same degree of son preference? How do women bargain over babies and their sex composition in the face of opposition in an intrahousehold setting? The study is based on secondary data from the National Family Health Surveys (NFHS).

Recommended readings:

Maternal education and son preference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0738059322000025

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

Renegotiating patriarchy: Gender, agency and the ‘Bangladesh Paradox’

The ecological transition is often discussed in a way that’s quite large scale and abstract: the 9 trillion dollar question of paying for it, decoupling, growth vs degrowth, the rise of renewables. This framing obscures the necessary changes to our economic organization and whole way of life and the most pressing question: how do we meet everyone’s needs while respecting planetary boundaries?

In this workshop, we’ll think about demand-side ecological policy (sobriety as opposed to efficiency, really) and distributional issues they entail: who pays for them? Who gets more, who gets less and of what? We will do this using very simple so called « two sector » economic models that will allow to adress questions around changes in consumption, working time, taxes and distribution.

I will first present two simple models to familiarize everyone with the idea. We will then break into smaller groups to apply the concept to different issues: what happens to incomes and employment if there is no more planned obsolescence and we produce less stuff? Who loses out and benefits if ecological investment is financed by borrowing instead of taxation? What would be the distributional consequences of changing our food systems to less productive ecological agriculture?

Materials: Workshop slides

Recommended readings:

Economics for rebels podcast with Steinberger – living well within boundaries https://open.spotify.com/episode/16R3K1aP8mavzwOxCwAH7P

Cédric Durand : Elements of a theory of of ecological planning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJGIwUXv894

If you understand French I recommend listening to Durand in French rather than English.

Reading recommendations for afterwards:

If you read French : Cédric Durand and Razmig Keucheyan, "Comment bifurquer : principes de la planification écologique"

or

"Plan de Transformation de l'Économie Française" from the Shift Project.

If you don't speak French, "Who will build the ark ?", a collection of articles on ecological policy from the New Left Review