IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/capsoc/v4y2009i2n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The New Economy Business Model and the Crisis of U.S. Capitalism

Author

Listed:
  • Lazonick William

    (University of Massachusetts Lowell and Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV)

Abstract

Driven by industrial innovation, in the last half of the 20th century the population of the United States attained, on average, a very high standard of living. Yet, in the first decade of the 21st century, large numbers of Americans are economically insecure. In this paper, I summarize the findings of my research into the ways in which over the past three decades the transformation of the dominant "business model" that prevails in the information and communication technology industries has contributed to the rise of economic insecurity in the United States. I describe how the "Old Economy business model" (OEBM) that was in place in the immediate post-World War II decades gave way to the "New Economy business model" (NEBM) that is now ubiquitous in U.S. high-tech industry. Under OEBM, an employee could hold the realistic expectation of a career with one company. Under NEBM, career employment depends much more on interfirm labor mobility, which in and of itself makes continuous employment less certain. Nevertheless, in the ICT industries, NEBM has been an engine of economic growth so that a strong demand for high-tech labor can potentially offset a lack of employment security with one company. Since the early 1990's, however, this demand for high-tech labor has tended to be a demand for qualified lower-wage labor, which has meant that ICT companies have favored the employment of younger workers over older workers and of workers in developing nations over workers in the United States. At the same time, acting as both a motive for employing lower-wage labor and as a rationale for laying off experienced workers has been the adherence of U.S. corporate executives to the ideology that their companies should be run to "maximize shareholder value." The most important manifestation of the influence of this ideology on corporate resource allocation is the extent to which U.S. companies repurchase their own stock to support their stock prices. I conclude this essay by arguing that neither the ideology of maximizing shareholder value nor the practice of stock repurchases has any economic merit. Indeed both must bear the blame for contributing to the rise of economic insecurity in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Lazonick William, 2009. "The New Economy Business Model and the Crisis of U.S. Capitalism," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-70, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:capsoc:v:4:y:2009:i:2:n:4
    DOI: 10.2202/1932-0213.1054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1932-0213.1054
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1932-0213.1054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Storm, Servaas. & Naastepad, C.W.M.,, 2012. "Wage-led or profit-led supply : wages, productivity and investment," ILO Working Papers 994709303402676, International Labour Organization.
    2. Jean-Luc Gaffard, 2022. "Instabilité et résilience des économies de marché: Essai sur l'économie du libéralisme social," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-33, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Alberto Botta, 2017. "The Complex Inequality–Innovation–Public Investment Nexus: What We (Don’t) Know, What We Should Know and What We Have to Do," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 275-298, July.
    4. Lamberto Zollo & Riccardo Rialti & Cristiano Ciappei & Massimiliano Pellegrini, 2016. "Factors Stimulating Social Innovation in Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Evidence of Inter-Organizational Alliances in Italy," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Tang, Kai, 2024. "The influence of managerial ability on corporate financialization," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 93(PB), pages 1229-1245.
    6. Sidney A. Rothstein, 2022. "How workers mobilize in financializing firms: A theory of discursive opportunism," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 60(1), pages 57-77, March.
    7. William Lazonick, 2018. "Comments on Gary Pisano: “toward a prescriptive theory of dynamic capabilities”," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(6), pages 1165-1174.
    8. Daniele Tori & Özlem Onaran, 2018. "The effects of financialization on investment: evidence from firm-level data for the UK," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 42(5), pages 1393-1416.
    9. Servaas Storm & C.W.M. Naastepad, 2015. "NAIRU economics and the Eurozone crisis," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(6), pages 843-877, November.
    10. van Schaik, A.B.T.M. & van de Klundert, T.C.M.J., 2010. "Productivity Growth and the Labor Market," Other publications TiSEM 6eb6d2c5-95a7-44e9-9cd4-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Zheng, Zhong-Liang & Gao, Xiang & Ruan, Xing-Liang, 2019. "Does economic financialization lead to the alienation of enterprise investment behavior? Evidence from China," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 536(C).
    12. Dow Alexander & Dow Sheila C., 2011. "Animal Spirits Revisited," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-25, December.
    13. van Schaik, A.B.T.M. & van de Klundert, T.C.M.J., 2010. "Productivity Growth and the Labor Market," Discussion Paper 2010-06, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. repec:ilo:ilowps:470930 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Ulrike Schaede, 2022. "The Digital Transformation (DX) and the Financialization of Japan: A Case Study of Private Equity," IMES Discussion Paper Series 22-E-18, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan.
    16. Schuelke-Leech, Beth-Anne, 2018. "A model for understanding the orders of magnitude of disruptive technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 261-274.
    17. Hui Wang & Qing Wang & Xia Sheng, 2021. "Does Corporate Financialization Have a Non-Linear Impact on Sustainable Total Factor Productivity? Perspectives of Cash Holdings and Technical Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Lazonick, William & Tulum, Öner, 2011. "US biopharmaceutical finance and the sustainability of the biotech business model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1170-1187.
    19. Eileen Appelbaum & Rose Batt & Ian Clark, 2013. "Across Boundaries: The Global Challenges Facing Workers and Employment Research 50th Anniversary Special Issue," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 51(3), pages 498-518, September.
    20. Marie Carpenter & William Lazonick, 2023. "The Pursuit of Shareholder Value: Cisco's Transformation from Innovation to Financialization," Working Papers Series inetwp202, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    21. Ton Van Schaik & Theo van De Klundert, 2011. "Employment Protection Legislation and Catching up," Post-Print hal-00747937, HAL.
    22. Rothstein, Sidney A., 2019. "Innovation and precarity: Workplace discourse in twenty-first century capitalism," MPIfG Discussion Paper 19/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:capsoc:v:4:y:2009:i:2:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.