Starting with Marx and Freud, scholars have attempted to identify the primary ethical challenge of capitalism. They have named injustice, inequality, repression, exploitative empires, and capitalism's psychic hold over all of us, among other ills. Nimi Wariboko instead argues that the core ethical problem of capitalism lies in the split nature of the modern economy, an economy divided against itself. Production is set against finance, consumption against saving, and the future against the present. As the rich enjoy their lifestyle, their fellow citizens live in servitude. The economy mimics the structure of our human subjectivity as Saint Paul theorizes in Romans 7: the law constitutes the subject as split, traversed by negativity. The economy is split, shot through with a fundamental antagonism. This fundamental negativity at the core of the economy disturbs its stability and identity, generating its destructive drive. The Split Economy develops a robust theoretical framework at the intersection of continental philosophy, psychoanalytic theory, theology, and political economy to reveal a fundamental dynamic at the heart of capitalism.

The quest for economic development is arguably the most frustrating and tragic dimension of human existence in Africa. As its primary task, The Split Time constructs an economic philosophy from a tradition of thought that is indigenous to Africa, arguing that there are long-neglected resources within African philosophy to guide economic policymakers toward creating an African economy that can sustain human flourishing. Exploring notions of destiny, temporality, and desire, Nimi Wariboko constructs an economic-philosophical framework to rethink solutions to the vexing problem of economic development in Africa. He also provides a robust social-ethical perspective in which the basic aspects of economic life—the agential (accounts of human agency, telos), the circumstantial (material/social context), and the affective (to feel appropriately what matters to a people in an economy or their desire for human flourishing)—come together to fire social imagination about development policies for the common good.

In 1990, John Major hailed 'the classless society'; in 1997, New Labour announced that 'we're all middle class now', yet we live in an age where food banks, pay day lenders and zero-hour contracts proliferate: it's clear that class matters. Foregrounding the economic nature of class, Split challenges the idea that class can be reduced to the cultural. From precarious labour to rising debt; from the housing crisis to environmental catastrophe; from an inflated prison population to the welfare state; Ben Tippet traces the class divide at the heart of all exploitation. Myth-busting meritocracy, he exposes the role that tax havens, colonialism and inheritance play in the wealth of the elite. Split highlights the potential for a diverse and eclectic working-class bloc to fight back in an age of austerity and uncertainty.

This text provides an alternative to conventional economics, drawing on the neoclassical and non-neoclassical insights of prominent economists from America and England. It is intended to provide productive analyses of several contemporary economic problems.

The Future of the Profit Split Method Edited by Robert Danon, Guglielmo Maisto, Vikram Chand & Gabriella Cappelleri Among the various transfer pricing methods, the profit split method (PSM) is under the spotlight after the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. However, both expert analysis and experience indicate that this method is not straightforward either for taxpayers to apply or for tax administrations to evaluate. In this thorough and detailed commentary – the first book to analyse this increasingly adopted transfer pricing method – notable scholars and practitioners working in the international tax community express their views on the method, answering some unresolved questions and highlighting issues that are still open and pending, especially in light of the digitalization of the economy. Crucial issues covered by the contributors include the following: choice of the appropriate splitting factors, their relative weights, and valuation of the contributions; uncertainties and outcomes potentially not aligned with the arm’s-length standard; possible role of assessments made by the European Commission on State aid; nexus with the work done by the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum; impact of profit split on indirect taxes (VAT/customs tax/excise tax); and application to digital business models and, in general, to the digitalized economy. Moreover, relevant experience of applying this method in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States is provided. A concluding chapter also deals with selected industry experiences. Due to a high level of uncertainty in alignment with international guidance in the application of the PSM – and to the underdeveloped nature of current literature on the subject – there is a need for this book because both tax administrations and taxpayers, going forward, will apply the PSM extensively. The book is highly relevant for policymakers, tax administrations, practitioners and academics engaged in the areas of international taxation, transfer pricing and tax policy.

Jonathan Harris demonstrates that the leaders of Stalin's Secretariat clashed sharply over the nature of the Communist party's 'leadership' of the Soviet state in the period between 1939 and 1948. The term 'party leadership' is generally misunderstood; it does not refer to the activities of the party as a whole, but to the efforts of its full time officials (the 'inner party') to direct the activities of the members of the party who manned the Soviet state (the 'outer party'). This study argues that A. Zhdanov and G. Malenkov, the two junior Secretaries of the CC/VKP(B) who directed the two major bureaucratic divisions of the Secretariat for most of the period under review, supported diametrically opposed conceptions of the leadership to be provided by the party's officials. A. Zhdanov argued that they should give priority to the ideological education of all members of the party and should allow the Communists who manned the state considerable autonomy in their administration of the five-year plans. In direct contrast, G. Malenkov, who directed the cadres directorate for most of the period under review, had little sympathy for ideological education and urged party officials to engage in close and detailed direction of the Communists who directly administered the five-year plans. This study contends that it is possible to illustrate this never-ending conflict by a careful examination of the public discussion of this issue in the various publications controlled by the major divisions of the Secretariat. When examined in conjunction with recently published archival materials, it is possible to pinpoint the linkages between the leadership conflict within the Secretariat, the shifts in the ongoing public discussion, and Stalin's role as the final arbiter in the dispute.