COmpETiTiON, TEChNOCrACy ANd iNEquAliTy
Paul CoCIoCa*
a)
Babeș-Bolyai University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Please cite this article as:
Article History:
cocioc, p., 2020. competition, technocracy and
inequality. Review of Economic Studies and Research
Virgil Madgearu, 13(2), pp.51-65.
doi: 10.24193/rvm.2020.13.60.
received: 30 August 2020
Accepted: 15 october 2020
Abstract: The article present a brief analyze of theoretical virtues of free
competition in relation with some visible limits and negative consequences observed
in real economic life. Social intervention to correct (at least in part) those social
failures and the new responses of the firms are discussed too. Possible motivations
of these new actions are presented in connection with technocratic model of firm
management. It seems that the model of professionalization of firm leadership
created not only a new structure within the category of the intermediaries (one
with extremely high powers), but later generated new interests typical for a social
category. The intermediary develops his own agenda and seeks to control not
only the market but also the business owners (which is possible in the conditions
of the fragmentation of the large property). They have the power to distort and
undermine normal competition (or at least to try it) and that conduct to some
practices at legal and ethical borderline.
Key words: competition; technocracy; market failure; exclusion; inequality
JEL Classification: D40; D42; K21; L11; L12; L41
© 2020 Alma mater publishing house. All rights reserved.
*
corresponding author. E-mail address: paul.cocioc@econ.ubbcluj.ro.
51
Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 2020, 13(2)
1. Introduction
starting with classical roots of economics, the mainstream approach
to competition states its major role in ensuring an efficient allocation
of resources and important increments in welfare. As a mechanism
for achieving equilibrium and allocating resources, competition is
practically the regulator of the market and activities. And all this,
even if there is no unanimously (not even a majority one) accepted
definition of competition, of what competition truly means and offers
(cocioc, 2014). not to mention whether it is a good thing or not. market
structure? economic mechanism? business strategy? simple rivalry?
for a more extensive discussion on competition meanings and how
they entered in economic literature, see stigler (1957) or robinson
(1980). moreover, even today, in most textbooks there is no formal
definition, the approach being rather intuitive.
however, the idea of competition has had and still has a strong
influence on the way we perceive the society in which we live, on the
way we look at things, we organize and lead economic activity and
society (under such aspects as administration, politics, culture, sports
and others) as well as personal life.
the purpose of this article is to describe the main limits and negative
impact of competition and to draw some lessons. there are lessons
both from observing things that were gone wrong, as well as from
situations considered to be successfully. competition can generate
distortions in the functioning of the economy, as well as devastating
social effects. And competition between firms alone cannot efficiently
solve the long-term problems of the contemporary world.
competition is (still) seen by most specialists as the universal
solution to contemporary economic problems. mainstream economics
insist on the general rising of the standards of living for all alongside
with high rewards for successful players (burke et al., 1991). moreover,
it is suggested that the ultimate cause of all the problems facing today
by economies and societies is the deficiency or lack of real, effective and
functional competition. Suboptimal equilibrium is determined only by
suboptimal competition. restoring the functionality of the competition
52
Cocioc, Competition, Technocracy and Inequalitiy
to its fullest is sufficient to solve these problems (at least in time).
nothing else would be necessary. if the competition plays its role freely,
everyone will win due to its many virtues.
The main benefits usually attributed to competition comprises:
optimal allocation of resources; stimulating technical-economic
progress; increasing efficiency; relative equalization of the
conditions of production; higher affordability of goods for consumers
(reduction of real prices); regulation of the social labor division;
establishing the equilibrium at micro and macroeconomic level;
income distribution; instrument for economic expansion (cocioc,
1999). Or in a simplified form: low costs, low prices and low profits
(karier, 1993). this kind of free competition, which ensures such
positive finalities, is obvious a competition understood as a perfect
one, but not necessarily in the classical limited view but in its
broader sense suggested by or cocioc (2000).
The competition is responsible for equilibrium in all markets, but the
presumption that this equilibrium is optimal in all situations is proved
to be rarely true. in real economy there are a number of phenomena
that put into question the absolute supremacy of competition, such
as: the manifestation for a shorter or longer period of a more or less
deep economic disequilibrium (e.g. various sectorial crises, recession
and / or overall crises); socio-economic inequalities within a national
economy and between world economies; marginalization and social
exclusion which lead to a high-scale poverty; excessive exploitation
of resources which could endanger a sustainable development;
increasing economic power and monopoly power by concentrating
and centralizing capital within giant economic units (from national
monopolies to multinational and “multi-territorial” firms).
competition has yet many constructive virtues and can yield
to major positive effects. From a stronger democracy by dispersing
economic power to a greater wellbeing by promoting individual
initiative and (especially economic) liberty (stucke, 2018). but there is
no guarantee that in the absence of any control or public surveillance,
markets and competitors will behave in a way in which such positive
results are obtained in all circumstance.
53
Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 2020, 13(2)
Nevertheless, each and every of those virtues or benefits will
determine (basically simultaneously) negative consequences as well.
the success of some also meant the failure of others, and in various
situations those others were more numerous. competition is not
an “all are winners” type process, even if general theory and public
policies often presented it as such. And, in most cases, there is no equal
gain in related to everyone’s individual contribution. so, the welfare
gains are significant for only a few, while for the majority they prove
to be low, completely missing or even negative in many circumstances.
competition creates both wealth and poverty at the same time.
2. Technocracy and the obsessive
short run objective of costs lowering
the change of perspective on the reference time period in
economic analysis, in elaboration of strategies and in the decision
at microeconomic level, seems to be related to the generalization of
technocratic system to the leadership of the companies. A technocracy
understood as the administration of the society or of an economic unit
by an elite, consists of experts, specialists in technical and economic
field. They act as intermediate professionals between capital owners
and the usage of property, theoretically assuring a higher yield both
individual and social.
this managerial revolution has marked greater changes in the
competitive process than anything in the past. Selfishness and
impatience of owners, as well as unethical practices have led to negative
effects in the past too, but many of them have been counterbalance by
social interventions (e.g. prohibition of market monopolization and
anti-competitive practices, control over products quality, imposing a
set of minimum working’s conditions for employees, prohibition on
child labor, limiting the length of the working day).
the initially goals seemed oriented towards a better use of
resources at the present time as well as in the future. originated
in the 1930s’ searches for solutions to end the great depression,
technocratic approaches demanded a full control of the companies (a
major limitation of economic freedom). the model was designed to
54
Cocioc, Competition, Technocracy and Inequalitiy
replace a capitalism in crises (wood, 2015), but ended to be a part of it
and in many way to control it.
later, technocracy seems to have developed its own agenda:
maintaining their top leadership positions in firms and financial
bonuses and other advantages as consistent as possible, obtained in
the shortest time possible. for this it was necessary at least to maintain
the market share and to offer the generous dividends to owners. If for
the first objective, advertising becomes the main tool (for the financing
of which R&D expenses are sometimes sacrificed and investments
are reduced to the minimum necessary); the second is based almost
exclusively on reducing the production costs. An immediate lowering
of costs with minimal respect to future development. And here the most
financial savings are not the result of improving economic efficiency,
which practically represents a planned competitive failure (one of the
basic functions of the competition is no longer fulfilled).
in the following table we tried to synthesize an analysis of the
decisional and competitive environment in which the technocrats
act. A kind of reverse swot analysis, reverse in the sense that we are
talking about factors and circumstances that tempt management to
adopt short-term policies based on cost cuts or certain anti-competitive
practices (at least in terms of fairness).
on the left columns we have elements which can determine and
favoring the adoption of measures oriented to increase the profit
principally by lowering costs and engage in some practices at borderline
from legal perspective (or moral). in the other columns we have some
essential features with opposite inhibitory effects (obstacles, risks).
the internal view comprises factors which can be controlled in some
manner by firm’s leadership.
in our approach the pressure coming from owners is included here
as the main trigger. when there is no separation between the owner
(or owners) and running a business, long-term goals are the law that
underpins decisions. In many circumstances, the today profits are
sacrificed to strengthen the company, for additional investments (not
only in fixed capital or raw materials but also in personnel). The image
of contemporary industries is dominated by joint stock companies
55
Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 2020, 13(2)
Table 1. Main elements of opportunity and risk in adopting
limitative practices
internal
Cons
y lower costs than the general level y effectiveness of the measures
in the industry;
adopted;
y appreciation of short-term results y necessary implementation period
and the time of response;
(mostly annual) and not of
y existence and the power of
perspective;
y performance evaluated mainly
a trade union / professional
on generic indicators: total
association of workers;
profit after taxation, dividend
distributed (mainly), incomes,
market share (secondary);
y presence and extension of the
barriers to entry;
y market power (monopoly);
external
Pros
y limits or lack of specific
legislation;
y limitations of law enforcement;
y delayed response of the
competitors and / or the state to
certain practices;
y practices used by competitors;
y market position and power
(including on the labor market);
y possibility to benefit and level
of state aids or other support
measures;
y competitors’ response (modality,
intensity, moment);
y availability and level of state aid
and other forms of support;
y transactional costs.
run by technocrats, in which property is dissipated in the hands of
a multitude of small owners (without the possibility of influencing
decisions and have a real control) or in the hands of investment or
pension funds or other companies (in which the decisions are taken
by other the technocrats seeking immediate gains). these technocrats
are not generally owners of a significant part of the firm they run, and,
56
Cocioc, Competition, Technocracy and Inequalitiy
more than that, most of the time they have obtained shares as a reward
for their work, as part of a management contract and not as a result
of their own investments. As consequence, they do not risk (or risk
insignificantly) their own well-being when they abandon optimal longterm development in favor of maximizing current profits.
Given that distributed profit is almost everywhere the main
indicator of shareholder satisfaction (and thus the continuity of the
management team), strategies must be adapted accordingly. the
short period becomes the reference period for analysis and decision.
if we add the preservation of market shares, we have the minimum
requirements that technocracy faces at the microeconomic level. Some
specific targets may occur for a particular period or for a market, but
generally those minimal expectations of shareholders are the only
matters which count. And the magic solution proves to be the cut of
expenditures. It is fast and does not require a high effort but rather the
capitalization of some opportunities especially in relation with others
(e.g. employees, suppliers).
A diminishing in the level of the wages could took place in an absolute
(direct or indirect) or relative way. directly by operating a nominal
cutting. indirectly by increasing the tasks assigned, the intensity or
duration of work. the relative procedure refers to reducing customary
bonuses and other advantages or by offering a salary increase lower
than inflation (no contractual changes are implied). The stability
of employees as well as the lack of collective bargaining and strong
unions are mandatory conditions for applying such measures. for this
raison the trade unions are the main enemy for the large corporation
and the technocracy system in general. in this respect they act not only
against unionizing but also in the direction of a more permissive labor
laws (for a large flexibility in individual contracts, for limitation of
collective bargaining, against minimum wages). in the same time the
stability is presumed to be a direct result of a labor market situation
(e.g. monopsony; high unemployment in profession or region): there
are no better alternative for unhappy employees. so the employees
have no alternatives, they are “captive” and they must accept the terms
of the new deal.
57
Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 2020, 13(2)
Higher net profits can be further obtained by adopting measures
like: changing suppliers and using cheaper substitutes; outsourcing
part of the production and distribution as well as collect the profit in
countries with low rates taxation. And all this are attained within the
same level of total income and production, only by lowering costs.
such practices that ensure lower spending for the moment can be
easily imitated by competitors (in non-monopolized industries). thus,
the market advantage can be easily counteracted and therefore the
positions on the market cannot be significantly improved. The benefits
of the firm as an entity are too small in these terms. The major winners
are the technocrats, who can provide the image of a success, tangible
profits (even if the efficiency is not truly improved) and keeping of
their positions, along with substantial rewards.
these methods (and the like) are stimulated by several opportunities.
we refer to aspect as: lack of rules; incomplete, imperfect or delayed
enforcement of regulations; unconditional or discriminatory public
aid; rigid and powerless fiscal system; low or delayed response from
competitors; the competitors’ failures to protect own practices from
copying; dominant or important position in industry; significant
market and monopoly power on outputs or inputs markets. All are
integrated in 3 synthetic realities: (1) improper or limited public
interventions; (2) inability of effective competitors and (3) market
position. They could offer permanent advantages (in some cases) or at
worst for a period of time (larger these period is, more rationality for
an active response).
the same realities act in opposite direction when the responses of
the market’s actors and society are strong, as well as there are problems
in the process of implementation (internal organizational structure;
form, intensity and moment of responses). probably the risk of high
transactional costs (e.g. related to engage additional workers after
a previous lay-off) is the major treat for adopting a cost’ cuts policy
(coase, 1937; svzzero and tisdell, 2001).
58
Cocioc, Competition, Technocracy and Inequalitiy
3. Competition simultaneously creates
both wealth and poverty
The explanation for these differences lies in the fact that
competition has most of the time contradictory effects. As already
mentioned, free competition normally is the key factor in increasing
and diversifying production and improving efficiency. But to the
same extent, it can be considered, in the modern and contemporary
period, responsible for severe negative consequences such: alienation
from work, alienation from nature and peers, excessive valorization
of material elements (perceived as visible outward signs of success),
broaden and deepens the inequalities and social exclusion. And in the
name of success, important sacrifices are made (individual when we
talk about competition in a strict sense and collective when we talk
about competitiveness). in order to have a more precise image of what
competition is in a social context, we will try in the following to capture
some fundamental aspects in terms of its impact.
let’s start with a deeper analyze of the competition’ virtues and
mechanism with emphasis on these social effects. The optimal allocation
takes into account the society as a whole and not in particular the
individual optimum. the total resources are optimally distributed on
the destinations that lead to the maximization of the global production.
the problem of wealth distribution is, if not completely ignored, at
least treated in subsidiarity. from this point of view, competition
creates and perpetuates inequalities.
An increasing efficiency over time also offers the premises for
a decrease in the price level (all other things equal). Even if lower
prices are possible in some cases (on long run only based on lower
costs), it cannot represents a permanent rule of functioning the
competition. we consider that the correct formulation refers not to
the nominal level of the prices but rather to its evolution over time in
relation with revenues and / or prices of other goods (i.e. real prices).
obviously, the appreciation of the price movement in comparative
terms is limited mainly due to the use of average revenues in the
analysis, and so the conclusions do not seem to be generalizable
59
Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 2020, 13(2)
for any case. it is clear that those whose incomes do not increase or
increase at lower rates (up to inflation) will not face lower real prices.
If we add a cutoff in wage level as a part of lowering costs policies,
the impact is more devastating over individual wellbeing. A visible
result of the last decade is an almost general increase in the risk of
poverty for employees. the share of persons who working and have
a disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold (set at 60
% of the national median equivalised disposable income after social
transfers) is higher in the majority of eu countries. it’s the case - for
instance - for 18 of the ue27 in 2018 compared to 2009 (eurostat,
2020). in other countries improvements was resulting mainly from
state intervention on the level of the minimum wage (as in romania,
where in 2019 the minimum net wage was around 2.5 times higher
comparative with 2009) rather than from a more generous salary
offer by employers (despite the apparent favorable evolution for
employees on post-crisis labor markets). And such evolutions are
characteristic for entire after-crisis period! A period of economic
growth, when this growth is it presume to be share to everybody and
in countries with strong social engagement.
normally (and for a long period of time that proved to be
true) a long run vision over economic activity is the lead idea in a
competitive environment (i.e. profit maximization). Considering
that the total profit could come from three sources: the normal profit,
the supplementary profit and the unfair profit (i.e. unjust, unethical,
unlawful), in conditions of a quasi-perfect competition the increase
of the profit above the normal level is exclusively the result of what
we will called the supplementary profit. This supplementary profit
is seen as a positive effect of competition that must be stimulated
by society, as opposed to the unfair profit that is required to be
eliminated. And here it is presumed that it is the direct result of a
level of efficiency (productivity) and a rate of renewal of products
and technologies higher than the market average and nothing else.
Pursuing to gain or maintain additional (supplemental) profits,
firms are stimulated to innovate, developing new products and
technologies, permanently perfecting the existing ones, eliminating
60
Cocioc, Competition, Technocracy and Inequalitiy
losses and improving activity’s organization. As a result, we expect
to have better and cheaper products in a larger variety, as well as
economic growth and development, greater productivity and wealth
at general level. Not equally distributed but visible for most people
even in the absence of any social redistribution. but these results
need a period of time (necessary for planning, implementation,
obtaining results); the future is uncertain and does not guarantee
success for all.
such a view of competition seems rather an idyllic one, which
describe less and less the common practices in today industries. As we
already seen, firms are more like governed by a limited (very) shortterm vision, which determine it to reduce costs immediately and as
widely as possible by any method, as long as quality is not visibly
affected and competitors’ response is not aggressive and/or based
on modernization. it seems that such a perspective is related to the
emergence and expansion of the role of technocracy in corporations.
in the absence of any control from the society - especially in the
conditions of contemporary globalization - practices such as: limiting
wage increases, employment of migrants, wage discrimination,
widespread use of cheap substitutes for quality raw materials, partial
or total outsourcing of production, tax optimization or reduction of
services associated with the sale, become more and more tempting and
are used on an increasingly large scale.
governments have to intervene each time when exist signs that
players seem to avoid competition or try to charges the inefficiency
over prices and to exploit the consumers (burke et al., 1991) or when
social inequalities became too deep and endanger the stability. Such
interventions took place for a very long period of time since the
beginning of monopolization in the 19th century.
Against the exploitation of employees were gradually enacted
laws that prohibited child labor, regulated working time and working
conditions, and set minimum wage levels. the working class seems
to have been exploited, due to the fact that its material condition
has improved too little (or even worsened in certain circumstances),
compared to the general level of well-being, which has increased to a
61
Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 2020, 13(2)
much greater extent (the group of lisbon, 1995). in order to maintain
within tolerable limits the economic and social inequalities, progressive
taxation systems were implemented, as well as redistribution
mechanisms and social security systems. to combat poverty and social
exclusion were designed social assistance programs and institutions,
or programs for creating new jobs. the protection of competition
was enforced thru the antitrust legislations (against monopoly, anticompetitive practices or to combat barriers to entry) as well as by
advertising contents responsibility laws or consumer protection laws
(beneficial for producers too, against unfair competitors). Against
some externalities (e.g. pollution) environment protection regulations
was adopted. other major problems with an impact on jobs and living
standards have never been solved (for example: alienation from work,
overwork, or outsourcing of production).
In all these circumstances, it seems that the most affected are
those who “lose” in the competitive process: long-term unemployed,
employees on minimum wages (insufficient paid), former owners
of small businesses that have gone bankrupt, the elderly, the young
workers (underpaid), as well as children from the families of these
categories or from large families. And the ultimate cause appears to
be in many situations the strategies adopted by firms. In other words,
the decisions of the technocrats influence the development of the
competition in such a way that accentuates the inequalities. Under
the same competitive model, the rich will become richer (and often
even fewer) and will share with each other more of the economic
growth while the rest (more and more numerous) will have a smaller
share as time passes. the lack of a rapid state intervention allows the
phenomenon to expand and generalize.
not only such an intervention is in many cases long overdue, but
in the current period there is an increasing pressure to relaxing the
previously adopted regulations. in the name of free competition, market
flexibility (especially labor) and competitiveness, several derogations
or legislative changes are demanded (and in many cases obtained).
they are the result of a strong lobby from the big companies, of the
technocracy, and are meant to reduce costs (e.g. thru externalization,
62
Cocioc, Competition, Technocracy and Inequalitiy
lower average cost with labor). the main targets aimed: the level
or the very existence of a minimum wage; maximum working time;
the obligation of collective bargaining; simplification of dismissal
procedures; reduction of certain technical requirements; elimination
or reduction of environmental protection norms; restrictions on
import and exports; taxation and tax advantages; and subsidies. once
again there are opportunities to make others (individuals and society)
to support a part of firm’s real economic cost.
4. Concluding remarks
based on some of the arguments presented, as well as others, in
a report on the limits of competition (the group of lisbon, 1995),
the authors consider that competition - as sole way to of functioning
the economic and social mechanisms and in the absence of a positive
cooperation (i.e. a pro-market one) at different levels - cannot be a
solution for governing the planet. competition is considered to be an
inadequate response to the new realities, especially in the conditions
of globalization and the dramatic intensification of resources crises
and environmental issues. the role of competitiveness must also
be redefined in the light of the new conditions, as it proves not
to be an effective tool for solving many problems such as: chaotic
urban development; quality and pricing of community services;
job creation in line with demographic developments; health care
system; uneven development of economic activities between the
regions of a country; increasing influence of the lobbying system
on the elaboration and adoption of public policies; (unfair)
competition in tax reduction and other public aids for businesses;
the fiscal optimization practices; and imbalanced distribution (and
inequitable) of wealth between countries and within countries (a
phenomenon visible even in developed countries). moreover, the
obsession of competitiveness is not only wrong but also dangerous.
it is wrong because it have less or none fundament from an empirical
point and dangerous because it distorts the public policies in various
fields (krugman, 1994).
63
Review of Economic Studies and Research Virgil Madgearu, 2020, 13(2)
but competitiveness proves to be not capable to harmonize and
integrate economic targets (like economic efficiency) with major
non-economic task and the fundamental desideratum to preserve
the social system (e.g. environmental conservation, social justice,
democracy and diversity). Obviously we need to find a more effective
and sustainable alternative for durable development. (the group of
lisbon, 1995).
even if we do not share such an anti-competitive view, we cannot
ignore the evidence of the contradictory consequences of the competitive
process. the competitive mechanism (as well as competition as a
whole) must not be removed, it must be just rethought and rebuilt
according to new realities; and the states interventions - individually
and especially internationally concerted - must not only be accepted,
but understood as an urgent necessity.
can we create something more like a social market? A market
based on a long-run equilibrium with a socially controlled quality
of goods and a fairer optimum. An optimum also determined by
reallocations to the disadvantaged categories whenever the resulting
social benefits are superior. Here we have in mind the total utility
acquired by a higher consumption (after redistribution compared to
the initial situation), the capitalization of otherwise stored resources,
the increase of the aggregate demand and thus the stimulation of the
economic growth.
such a socially constructed optimum also implies (and is not
possible in the absence of) an extensive cooperation, as well as a
generally accepted agreement on the pressing (global) problems. to
some problems free competition offer perhaps better solutions, to
other the cooperation is more likely to resolve them. but competition
and cooperation have always coexisted. Despite the selfishness gene
(as sociobiology derives it from smith’s social egoism combined with
hobbes’s general confrontation in a darwin background) and the
survival of the fittest, man has been, is and will remain a social being,
and so cooperation is an objective needs and a value in itself. we were
born to cooperate just as we were born to compete.
64
Cocioc, Competition, Technocracy and Inequalitiy
References:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
burke, t., genn-bash, A. and haines, b., 1991. Competition
in theory and practice. london: routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203702536.
coase, r.h., 1937. the nature of the firm. Economica. 4(16),
pp.386-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x.
cocioc, p., 2014. measuring competition in romania - basic
principles and extensions. Review of Economic Studies and
Research Virgil Madgearu, 7(1), pp.41-68.
cocioc, p., 2000. foundations of a revisited concept of perfect
competition. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Oeconomica, 45(1),
pp. 107-110.
cocioc, p., 1999. Teoria concurentei in retrospectiva. cluj-napoca:
Presa Universitara Clujană.
karier, t., 1993. Beyond Competition. The Economics of Mergers
and Monopoly Power. new york: sharpe.
krugman, p., 1994. competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign
Affairs, 73(2), pp.28-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/20045917.
robinson, J.v., 1980. what is perfect competition? Collected
Economic Papers. cambridge, mass.: m.i.t. press, vol.1, pp.20-35.
stigler, g., 1957. perfect competition, historically contemplated.
Journal of Political Economy, 65(1), pp.1-17. https://doi.
org/10.1086/257878.
stucke, m.e., 2013. is competition always good?. Journal of
Antitrust Enforcement, 1(1), pp.162-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/
jaenfo/jns008.
svizzero, s. and tisdell, c.A., 2001. concepts of competition in
theory and practice. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche
e Commerciali, 48(2), pp. 145-162.
the group of lisbon, 1995. Limits to competition. cambridge, mit
press.
wood, p.m., 2015. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global.
mesa: coherent publishing.
eurostat, 2020. [online] in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate by working
time - eu-silc survey. Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=t
essi250&language=en> [Accessed 28 August 2020].
65