Karl Marx és Karl Menger néhány gondolata a pénz eredetéről = The thoughts of Karl Marx and Karl Menger about the origin of money

Kisebb bizonytalankodás után a legtöbb közgazdászhallgató a pénz funkcióinak felsorolásába kezd, ha megkérdezik, hogyan határozná meg a pénz fogalmát. A gyakorlatiasabb, vagy a számvitel iránt elkötelezettebb diákok esetleg felidézik a banki mérleget és – részben helyesen – a pénzt kötelezettségként helyezik el benne. Mintha azonban még mindig egy kicsit pironkodnánk, hogy nem találjuk a megfelelő definíciót. És ez már így megy évszázadok óta. Jelen tanulmányban két XIX. századi közgazdász – Karl Marx és Karl Menger – néhány pénzelméleti következtetését igyekszem összehasonlítani, figyelembe véve az általuk képviselt közgazdasági elmélet alapvető eltéréseit. A mára általánosan elfogadottá váló szubjektív értékelmélet és a kissé elfeledett munkaérték-elmélet látszólag teljesen eltérő feltevéseire alapozva a két gondolkodó egészen hasonló eredményre jutott. Számukra a pénz nem egy egyszerű eszköz, sem követelés és kötelezettség, ahogyan most elkönyvelnénk, hanem áru. Eredetét nem állami törvényekből vezetik le, hanem társadalmi konszenzus során létrejött jelenségnek tekintik a pénzt, ami fölötte áll a törvényeknek, eredendően nem jelképet testesít meg, hanem különleges jószágként válik alkalmassá értékjel kifejezésére. / === / If being asked how to define money most students of economics would start listing the functions of money, or those students with more practical insight would place money as liability in the balance sheet of banks. It seems, however, as if we were still embarrassed by not finding the right definition. In the present study I am endeavouring to give a brief overview of various theoretical findings on the essence of money in the economy preceding the 19th century and then compare some money theoretical conclusions of two economists – Karl Marx and Karl Menger – considering the major differences of the economic theories represented by them. On the basis of the premises of the widely accepted subjective value theory and the somewhat forgotten labour theory of value the two 19th century thinkers came to rather similar results. For them money is not a simple means of payment, nor liability or claim, the way we would account for them now, but a special commodity. They do not attach its creation to the appearance of state laws on money as a legal tender but regard it as a social phenomenon which became capable of expressing a value token due to its peculiar characteristics.

Effects of the current financial and economic crisis on the rural landscape as well as the agri-food sector in Europe and Central Asia

This paper reviews the expected effects of the current financial crisis and subsequent recession on the rural landscape, in particular the agri-food sector in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) on the basis of the structure of the rural economy and of different organisations and institutions. Empirical evidence suggests that the crisis has hit the ECA region the hardest. Agriculture contributes about 9% to gross domestic product (GDP) for the ECA region as a whole with 16% of the population being employed in the agricultural sector. As far as the impact of the financial crisis on the agri-food sector is concerned, there are a few interconnected issues: (1) reduction in income elastic food demand and commodity price decline, (2) loss of employment and earnings of rural people working in urban centres, implying also costly labour reallocation, (3) rising rural poverty originating mainly from lack of opportunities in the non-farm sector and a sizable decline of international remittances, (4) tightening of agricultural credit markets, and the (5) collapse of sectoral government support programs and social safety-net measures in many countries. The paper reveals how the crisis hit farming and broader agri-business differently in general and in the ECA sub-regions.

"Rentier States" or the Relationship between Regime Stability and Exercising Power in Post-Soviet Central Asia

The paper intends to give an insight into the relations of the economic and political systems of the Central Asian republics using the theoretical framework of the "rentier economy" and "rentier state" approach. The main findings of the paper are that two (Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) of the five states examined are commodity export dependent “full-scale” rentier states. The two political systems are of a stable neo-patrimonial regime character, while the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, poor in natural resources but dependent on external rents, may be described as "semi-rentier" states or "rentier economies". They are politically more instable, but have an altogether authoritarian, oligarchical “clan-based” character. Uzbekistan with its closed economy, showing tendencies of economic autarchy, is also a potentially politically unstable clan-based regime. Thus, in the Central Asian context, the rentier state or rentier economy character affects the political stability of the actual regimes rather than having a direct impact on whether power is exercised in an autocratic or democratic way.