THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF WORKER PENSION FUNDS

Increasing concentration of economic power within the corporate sector, as well as the extent of corporate control by a few financial institutions such as commercial banks, have been subjects of intense scrutiny and debate in recent years. However, the role of private and public worker retirement trusts in providing power for institutional investors has not been adequately addressed. Pension fund assets, which were relatively inconsequential prior to 1960, and their investment in and share of total corporate equities minor, have grown to over $l410 billion by the end of 1977. In their analysis of and interest in public and private pension trusts, scholars, employers and even employees have tended to emphasize narrow economic issues such as investment performance. It is the central argument of this article that workers’ funds have become a major source of capital in the American economy, and as such have been used to help create and/or sustain practices that adversely impinge on workers themselves. It is argued that pension assets have contributed to: 1) the increasing power of financial institutions; 2) growth of corporate profits that only minimally benefit some pension plan participants; 3)capital shortages for 'socially useful’ investments; and 4)support of corporate enterprises that refuse basic worker demands including unionization itself. The study further suggests that the rapidly growing pension assets have the potential to serve‘the public interest’ as well as the needs of workers. Threat of withdrawal of funds from selected money managers and corporations, and utilization of share–holder voting rights to influence corporate policies can be potent weapons for organized labor. Since this is an exploratory analysis, the aim of the article is to gather, present and clarify basic information on worker pension trusts and to propose alternative avenues for future research in this critical area.     

THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE GROWTH/NO-GROWTH DEBATE*

This theoretical analysis focuses on the properties of conservative, liberal, and radical paradigms in social science and their application to the growth/no-growth debate in environmental policy literature. We find conservatives working with an evolutionary model of society which suggests that environmental problems are imperfections to be remedied by science, technology, and the free market. Liberals recognize the benefits and costs of growth, and they articulate ways to minimize the costs through state regulation and planning. Radicals argue for state ownership of the means of production and new cultural values about growth as the only effective environmental policies. This analysis closes with a discussion of the future of the growth debate in terms of these paradigms.     

URBAN POLITICAL ECONOMY: INTRODUCTION

I used to think that what was needed was to bring the mountain people into the “economic mainstream.” I thought it would be possible to do this and still preserve some of the positive, humanizing qualities of mountain cultures. I no longer think that is either possible or desirable. Our challenge is not to join mainstream America. It is to recreate (and) renew … what the mountains have always been … an alternative to mainstream America. This alternative is nearer to being absorbed today than it has ever been in the past. The task before us is to renew this alternative and endow it with the capabilities it will need to survive in late Twentieth Century America. (Mike Smathers, Mountain Life and Work , February, 1973, p. 19).