Alienated connections between the economy, marketing
and globalization
Conexiones alienadas entre economía, marketing y
globalización
Conexões alienaram entre economia, marketing e
globalização
Jorge Enrique Garcés Cano [1]
Reflective Essay
Date of reception: 16 oct 2014
Date of approval: 25 jun 2015
Abstract
The orientation of enterprises
towards the market or consumer (Garcés, 2010), as a work focus of a
non-neoclassical/neoliberal marketing theory, and one that is not centered on
operational activities that seek, on the short term, to maximize the sales and
profits of individual producers, is a task that is overdue in this discipline.
Restructuring it tied to the theories of Marx and Keynes seems to be the only
safe refuge, where all demand generates
its own supply, contrary to the old “law” of Say (Say, 1803). This article
constitutes a theoretical-conceptual and descriptive effort to understand the
connections between marketing theory with a real customer focus (the role of
demand) and the socio-cultural, ideological, political and economic aspects of
the authors of macro marketing, who are assumed to be divergent from
micromarketing, the neoclassical origin of which has impeded its
conceptualization from the point of view of science and its method; especially
in this stage of capitalism, where the effects of globalization are manifested
on the inhabitants of planet Earth, all consumers and human beings with the
right to develop themselves integrally, in coexistence with other species.
Keywords: dialectics,
economy, globalization, micromarketing,
macromarketing, neoclassical
marketing, historical materialism.
JEL: A12, D11, F60, L10, L13, M31.
Resumen
La orientación de las empresas al mercado
o consumidor (Garcés, 2010), como foco de trabajo de una teoría del marketing no neoclásica-neoliberal, y no
centrada en las actividades operacionales que persiguen a corto plazo maximizar
las ventas y utilidades de productores individuales, es una tarea pendiente en
esta disciplina. Refundarla amarrada a las teorías de Marx y Keynes parece ser
el único refugio seguro, donde toda
demanda genera su propia oferta, en contravía de la vieja “ley” de Say
(Say, 1803). Este artículo constituye un esfuerzo teórico-conceptual y
descriptivo por entender las conexiones entre una teoría del marketing con real foco en el consumidor
(el papel de la demanda) y los aspectos socioculturales, ideológicos, políticos
y económicos de los autores del macromarketing,
que se asumen divergentes de un micromarketing
cuyo origen neoclásico ha impedido su conceptualización desde la ciencia y su
método; máxime en esta etapa del capitalismo, en que los efectos de la
globalización se manifiestan sobre los habitantes del planeta Tierra, todos
consumidores y seres humanos con derecho a desarrollarse integralmente, en
convivencia con las demás especies.
Palabras clave: dialéctica, economía, globalización, micromarketing, macromarketing, marketing neoclásico, materialismo histórico.
Resumo
A orientação das companhias para o
mercado/consumidor (Garcés, 2010), como foco de trabalho de uma teoria do marketing não o neoclássico/neoliberal e
não centrou nas atividades operacionais que procuram a curto prazo para
maximizar vendas e utilidades de produtores individuais, é uma tarefa pendente
nesta disciplina; refundarla amarraram às teorias de Marx e Keynes parece ser o
seguro só refúgio onde toda a demanda
gera sua própria oferta, paren contravía da velha “lei” de Say (Say, 1803).
Este artigo constitui um esforço teórico-conceitual e descritivo para entender
as conexões entre uma teoria do marketing
com real foco no consumidor (o papel da demanda) e os aspectos socioculturais,
ideológicos, políticos e econômicos dos autores do macromarketing que é simulado divergente de um micromarketing cuja origem neoclássica impediu seu conceptualização
da ciência e seu método; máxime nesta fase do capitalismo onde são manifestados
os efeitos do globalização nos habitantes da terra de planeta, todos os
consumidores e seres humanos com direito ser desenvolvido integralmente, em
coexistência com as outras espécies.
Palavras Teclam: dialético, economia, globalização, macromarketing, marketing
neoclássico, materialismo histórico, micromarketing.
INTRODUCTION
According to the theoretical
perspective of this work on science, in agreement with the statements of Bunge
(1980 and 1985), the central problem is transferred to the method; and at the
same time, the functional interaction between hypotheses, laws, theories and
models cannot be either linear nor depend on the level of “aggregation” or “reduction”
with which we approach the object of study, much less, the route or trajectory taken
to address the constructs. For this reason, induction per se (of extensive use in neoclassical marketing[2] and by new neoclassical economists)
or simple deduction, are not absolute or superior routes in themselves, so as to
confirm the presence or not of scientific research; this interaction is as
dialectic as the connections of the universe and demands going from the general
to the particular, or vice versa, depending on the nature of the phenomenon under
study; that is to say, always beginning from reality, the only possible point
when it comes to science and method.
Equally, it demands the integration
of the theoretical level with the empirical, a line of work validated in the
theory-practice relationship that is reflected in the work of Marx[3]. For this, prior to any empirical
validation experiment, exists the need to have a real theoretical hypothesis (Popper,
1957 and 1967), which allows the basic research proofs to be correctly
addressed. A relevant aspect is if it is taken into account that in
neoclassical marketing, logical empiricists have put emphasis on the gradual
and increasing verification of statements that are called “theories”, insisting
reiteratively in case studies and their statistical mechanisms that they are
the only probationary arguments (a profound questioning can be read in Martinez,
2000); when in these fields of knowledge, which are above all social,
historical-dialectical materialism as a method, is a basic precondition of scientific treatment.
The academic teaching, spread
through “gurus”, speakers, consultants, and other experts en vogue, and the
practical use (corporate) of real marketing (not only academic), has been
submerged since its origins in neoclassical or neoliberal theoretical concepts
(suppliers and productionists), with
emphasis on the operational marketing of the 4Ps[4], as administration of objective
variables to secure private individual short-term sales and profits of the
macroeconomic units called enterprises. Their clearest tendency in the
micromarketing world has been the use of magical formulas to attain such
corporate results. Thus, modern management seems to continue to be immersed in
the old problem of the capitalist method of production, which gave rise to the
concept of marketing: how to get rid of their products ahead of their
competitors in the context of great
competition and inertial structural overproduction, in the face of amorphous
groups of consumers that appear to be passive, malleable, easily influenced,
easily manipulated, etc; some that supposedly react to Say’s Law[5], or the law of the markets,
according to which, all supply creates its own demand (Say, 1803) and the
markets tend to structurally balance in a magical and inertial manner.
It is from the works of Marx and
Keynes, who in their time contributed to the disruption of this conceptual
structure and its accumulation of assumptions, that is possible to identify the
true law that supports a serious theory of marketing: all demand creates its
own supply. And it is evident that the world needs new ways to frame and
understand the relationship with consumers; the old classical and neoclassical
ideas that support the ancien régime will
not, in the future, be able to adequately support an integral theory of
marketing, with a real focus on the consumer. For this reason, although Marx
could show the macroeconomic grounds that underlie the micro problem; or
Keyenes could make a point regarding the microeconomic aspects that weigh down
the aggregates, a task pertinent to the development and advancement of
marketing is precisely being able to link the connections between what some
thinkers call micromarketing (understood to be exclusively directed towards the
actions of economic units, organizations, enterprises, consumers, and
households), and macromarketing that few management authors have been able to
frame in the study of their dialectical interrelations with society; not only
the simple linear cause and effect relationships that they believe they can
observe in their superficial analysis.
At the end of the 90s, some
macro-marketing writers accentuated five relevant topics, as regards the
relationship between marketing and: a) the environment; b) justice and ethics;
c) economic development; d) quality of life; and e) market behavior. One more
topic is added that not only seems to be in fashion, but that also, in the
current context of the capitalist production method and its most recent crisis,
would be most relevant; globalization. But not neoclassical-neoliberal
globalization of Fukuyama (1992, 2012),
understood as “a final and perfect phase of capitalism”, where supposedly,
“marketing” reached market oriented
companies and “the consumer is king” (micromarketing?); but rather a
real-history that sheds light on the process that arose in the imperialist
context of advancement and development, as opposed to the capitalist production
method, linked to the need for the expansion of capital flows beyond national
borders (macro-marketing?); one that, as well as the two world wars and
countless localized wars, has led to the expansion and deepening of all social
relationships of production, distribution, accumulation, and consumption among
countries[6], and thus, has generated greater
interdependence between nations and cultures of diverse ethno-geographic
origin, in contrast to an economic model that continues to defend the XVIII
century homo oeconomicus, individualistic,
selfish, hedonistic and “of the strongest”, from both fields: micro and
macro-economics.
Understanding the connections
between an integral theory of marketing (micro or macromarketing) with a real
focus on the consumer and the sociocultural, ideological, political and economic
aspects that the authors of neoclassical marketing put forward, is a key task
in this process of conceptualizing and working with marketing as from science
and its method; a maxim in this senile stage of the capitalist production
method, where the effects of globalization are felt worldwide, with consumers
who seem to lose their social nature, their essence and control as
individuals-live social actors: human beings with the right to develop
integrally and in harmonic and peaceful cohabitation with their fellow human
beings and with all the species that inhabit the earth, but structurally
marginalized from such decisions.
With all of this, this article
begins by approaching a relevant discussion about the historical connections
between neoclassical economics and its different schools[7], and marketing, which possesses a
neoclassical structural orientation and theorical vocation. Afterwards, an
alternative and conflicting theoretical vision is put forward, from the point
of view of the dialectical model of marketing developed by Garcés (1994), as
the only social mechanism to guarantee the orientation and focusing of
organizations on the market (the consumer), or in general terms, of production
to consumption. Later on the concepts of macromarketing and micromarketing are
delved into, which like in their basic science (economics) reflect another of
those separations based on their neoclassical theoretical orientation. And
finally, some realities and myths about the possible relations between
marketing and globalization are revealed under the critical lens of both
concepts. At the very end some conclusions and observations are presented,
which arise from the historical-dialectical analysis carried out.
HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS AND MARKETING
It is necessary to emphasize a
historically evident fact that has scarcely been approached in the traditional
literature of marketing: the evolution of economic thought and the way its main
schools were outlining a mechanical vision, static and balanced, of the
economic process and its actors (suppliers and demanders), with the consequent
producer-supplier focus of markets that self-regulate and self-sustain in a
natural way, so as to perpetuate their perfect functioning, all of these
elements that gave rise to the neoclassical marketing theories and which have
adequately accompanied its literary production until today.
Table 1.
Main schools of economic thought.
|
Mercantilists (1500-1750): |
M. de Azpilicueta, T. de
Mercado, J. Bodin, A. de Montchrétien, W. Petty, etc. |
|
“Le Tableau Économique ” or economic table |
François Quesnay (1759). |
|
Physiocrats (S. XVIII - La
tierra) |
François Quesnay, Anne Robert and Jacques Turgot (Francia). |
|
Classical Economics (1776
to 1870) |
J. B. Say, 1803 (O=D), J. Bentham, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, T. Malthus,
John S. Mill, James Mill, etc. The Wealth of Nations, by A. Smith (1776). |
|
Marxist theories
(comprehensive) |
Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883). Capital, V.1 (1867). |
|
Neo-classical theories (micro and macro) and the school of rational
expectations (stagflation) |
1.
Marginalistas-Escuela
Austriaca: W. S. Jevons; K. Menger; E. Bohm-Bawerk; F. Edgeworth and B.
Wieser (concept of continuous time). 2.
School
of Lausanne: L. Walras, 1874 (General Equilibrium Theory); W. Pareto, 1909 (optimal
allocation); K. Wicksell, 1898 (Theory of Capital). 3.
Partial
Equilibrium Theory A. Marshall, 1890; y
A. C. Pigou. 4.
Monetarists:
K. Wicksell, I. Fisher and M. Friedman. 5.
Sinthesis
of “Keynes” – Model IS-LM: J. R. Hicks (1939) and A. Hansen. 6. Neoclassicists:
P. A. Samuelson. |
|
Institutionalism |
T. Veblen (1857-1929), J. R. Commons (1862-1945) and W. C. Mitchell
(1874-1948). The
Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899, T. Veblen. |
|
Keynesian Theories (macro) |
Jhon Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). General Theory, 1936. |
|
Post-Keynesian theories and the school of disequilibrium |
1.
Neo-keynesians:
J. Robinson, N. Kaldor, R. Harrod, E. D. Domar, A. Eichner, J. Shumpeter, P.
Davidson, E. Weintraub, Minsky, etc. 2. Neo-ricardians:
P. Sraffa, L. Pasinetti, P. A. Garegnani, etc. 3.
Neo-marxists:
Michael Kalecki, P. Seezy, J. Steindl, A. Shaik. |
Source: the author
Table 1 shows a simple summary of
the most important and representative schools of economics grouped by author
whose ideas have been similar, such as in the paradigms of Khun (1971); a
synthetic review of the evolution of economic thought and its diverse schools
and main theories, in real historical contexts, demands seeking the
relationship between the origins of marketing and the object of study.
Without going over Platos concepts
of common property in depth, if and only if such property was framed within the
rights of the ruling classes of the empire, which was of a slave-owning
socioeconomic nature, there is not much that can be said as regards the
advancement of economic thought between Plato and Aristotle, who was considered
one of the first advocates of private property and its virtues. His defence regarding
the superiority of private over common property, due to reasons of productivity
as well as the cultivation of certain virtues and moral conditions, has without
doubt run through economic thought up until today.
All the schools prior to the
stabilization of the liberal ideas of Adam Smith and David Ricardo (the classics
par excellence), based themselves on the arguments of Aristotle; one of them,
the first in history to appear (the mercantilists), defending the interests of
groups of merchants in training; and the other (with Quesnay and other
physiocrats), trying to give air to the landowning classes who were fighting to
defend their interests over land. But it is evident that both were moving in
the Europe of the XVI, XVII and the first half of the XVIII centuries, in a
period of historic transition which Marx would identify as precapitalist
economic formations, with feudal regulations and incipient states and national
sovereignties in a process of formation. It is important to highlight those
arguments that nowadays are still relevant, simple physiocratic ideas of XVIII
century France: the existence of a type of natural law with foundations in its
divine origins and under which the good functioning of the economic systems
would be secured without the intervention of the governments (their main
argument with the first mercantilists), in fact, the essence of this doctrine
has dominated classical thought in economics until our times and has permeated
neo-classical marketing, with surprising
rejuvenation in modernity, under their old expressions: laissez faire, laissez
passer.
And clearly, what better legacy for
classic economic thought, whose works were developed in a period of economic
boom in the capitalist production fashion, where the industrial revolution was
causing massive social changes that promoted and reproduced social organization
around capital; that is to say, a production system where each individual had
to seek and procure their own individual economic benefit, as the only
guarantee of long term collective wellbeing. If this was done, the system
rewarded them, if not, it punished them. There, in the inexorable and marvelous
world of Adam Smith (as Marx would call it), the economic hedonism of Jeremy
Bentham[8] was necessary, so that Smith shaped
the mold of his homo oeconomicus: a
social being that is calculating, maximizing, cold, an insatiable pleasure
machine, always searching for his own, maximum individual wellbeing; one
retaken afterwards by neoclassical economists (old and modern), who contributed
to the formation of the first ideas of marketing. Thus, tied to an invisible
hand, it is possible to assemble the classical as well as the neoclassical
model (micro and macro-economic), in order to ensure the harmonic consistency
and long term equilibrium of all the productive process; that is to say, the
theoretical support of the supposed superiority and perpetuity of the
capitalist production method.
The final stitch in the classical
argument, which would intertwine with the later theory of neoclassical
marketing, is the so-called Say’s Law, or the Law of the Markets, synthesized
as follows: all supply creates its own demand. Say (1803) describes a linear
process in which, before the consumers can demand goods, the producers should
have produced others in order to exchange them for the desired one. This is
translated into a simple exchange process, barter style (M-M), with a
cause-effect relationship between supply and demand, where money is a simple
veil of connection between the acts of buying and selling (M-D-M), and the
corollary of which would be simple: there cannot be long periods of
overproduction (from the point of view of Marx), or of underconsumption (seen
from Keynes point of view), if the market, which is assumed to be perfect, does
not suffer undue interference from governmental agents.
But something strange happened in
the last third of the XIX century with the simultaneous appearance of the works
of W. Stanley Jevons, Karl Menger and León Walras, between 1871 and 1874, who
would make the subjective theories of value the central axis of economic study.
Neoclassical economics appears on the scene, a group of thinkers whose economic
approaches of a positive nature would displace the analysis towards the theory
of marginal utility, insisting on the mechanical and harmonic equilibrium between
long term supply and demand; and thus, one of the main changes corresponds to
the shift in the layout of the object and field of study of economics, now
understood as the science of scarcity, with rational human beings, making
economic decisions of maximization, in asocial and ahistoric contexts (almost
like automatons).
Under this lens, economics stops being
a social science and becomes a rational and logical activity, an attractive and
sophisticated technique, applicable to the study of the optimal conduct of
individuals with restrictive behaviors (supposed). We are no longer talking
about social beings making mediated decisions (determined) and, at the same
time, determining contexts of class (devoid of its social character), but
apparently in an independent and disconnected manner, detached from the
historical and institutional framework in which these relationships develop,
full of contradictions. And something even more relevant: the economic laws,
which defend the superiority of the free system of prices (market prices), become
optimal, universal, irreversible, and
insuperable. This is another point of
great relevance in the origins of the ideas of neoclassical marketing. But, of
course, this refers to a hidden strengthening to the set of beliefs that
reflect a certain system of values, with their respective ideological support:
the neoliberal ideology and its economic model and model of government, focused
on the open contest between unequals, the globalization of the markets and the
perpetuation of this type of production (capitalism), under supposed
organizational superiority (productivity and efficacy) and thus, the so called
end of the story (Fukuyama1992 and 2012).
However, it is against the approach
of classical economics (not against the incipient neoclassical theories) that
Marx reveals himself; his profound criticism of economic processes that are
unambiguous, onedirectional, conscious, rational, and lastly, which constituted
more a set of beliefs as a reflection of the system of values and its ideological
support (liberal ideology), whose objective theory of value had a structural
flaw in the way in which Smith and Ricardo interpreted work and its relation to
capital. This led him to carry out the most complete diagnosis of the
endemically unhealthy functioning of the capitalist production method.
Marx’s theories, presented in
Capital, unveil the economic laws of the movement of modern society. They allow
us to move progressively closer to the reality of the capitalist production
method, from high degrees of initial abstraction (commodity) to ever lower and more
concrete degrees with the objective of being able to interpret a reality (the
economic phenomena that drive the process of extended reproduction of capital),
whose level of complexity is too great to attempt to approach it directly: it
is precisely, in its essence, an example of the dialectical combination of
theory and practice, logic and history, theoretical observation, constructs and
observation-empirical validation, a hypothesis of research (Marx. 1867). For
its relevance in the reformulation of a solid theory of marketing, it is only
important here to highlight its contribution to the theme, in relation to three
topics[9]:
a) his pertinent distinction between values of use and values of change; b) his
questioning of Say´s main statements; and c) his theory of consumption.
It is necessary to make a clear
distinction between the double role of value (use-value and change-value) and
of its dialectical interactions in order to understand the context in which the
dynamics and interconnections between demanders and suppliers take place,
exchanging abstract values in the markets, under the concrete form of goods
(tangible and intangible products), but equally, as a specific way of calling
into question Say’s Law, where it seemed
as if production was directed in a balanced, magical, and infinite way towards
consumption.
In this way, for Marx “Use-value takes form only in the use or
consumption of objects (…). In the type of society that we intend to study,
use-values are, in addition, the material support of change-value” (Marx, 1867;
ed. 2000, p. 4). It is precisely the quality of goods of possessing use-value,
by serving to satisfy human needs, which guarantees their possibility and
viability as change-values (this is a change-value determined by its use-value).
However, it is not possible in the capitalist society (in any of its stages) to
exchange goods only and directly in relation to their use-values (total or
marginal), given that what will determine their change pattern (change-value),
apart from their potential existence for consumption (use-value), is the extent
or amount of work socially necessary for their production: a product (tangible
or intangible) may represent use-value without having change-value as such,
which is individually acquired (i.e. air) and it will only exist as
change-value if it carries use-value for consumption, that is to say, social
use-value (i.e. a diamond).
If after production, in the process
of circulation and consumption, the product does not become a commodity (it
does not somersault, as Marx would put it) it will not have materialized
change-value for its producer: although, with use-value, it will not represent
change-value and there will be a decrease in value for the producer. It is
important to insist in this argument, as therein lie the theoretical bases of
the true concept of marketing; if there was a law that regulated the movement
of the markets, it would be the opposite to Say; that is to say, all demand
creates its own supply. Marx
states, referring to Say’s argument:
Nothing could
be more foolish than the dogma that because every sale is a purchase, and every
purchase a sale, the circulation of commodities necessarily implies an
equilibrium between sales and purchases…Its real intention is to show that
every seller brings his own buyer to market with him…. No one can sell unless
someone else purchases. But no one directly needs to purchase just because he
has just sold. Circulation bursts through all the temporal, spatial, and
personal barriers imposed by the direct exchange of products, and it does this
by splitting up the direct identity… between the exchange of one’s own product
and the acquisition of someone else’s (in barter) into two antithetical
segments of sale and purchase… If the assertion of their external independence…
proceeds to a certain critical point, their unity violently makes itself felt
by producing – a crisis (Marx, 2000, p 72 and 73)
And from the above, Marx identifies
the double meaning and role of consumption, in the process of the circulation
and exchange of commodities, as a criticism of the classical view of homo oeconomicus, determined in a
natural and anthropological way under an idealist view (the connection between
Hegel and Smith). For Marx the market is nothing more than the place-time
–space (and obviously its context) in which a social process of exchange among
human beings takes place, not always as voluntary as neoclassical marketing
texts tend to suppose; it is “(…) the stage on which the process of change
develops (…)” (Marx, 2000, p. 65), where owners as well as consumers go with
particular interest in generating value. The owners are not interested in their
commodities as regards their concrete use-values; this only concerns the individual
interests of the consumers; for the former
(…) his commodity possesses for himself no
immeadiate use-value. Otherwise, he would not bring it to market. It has
use-value for others; but for himself its only direct use-value is that of
being a depository of exchange value, and, consequently, a means of exchange
(…) Hence, commodities must be realized as values before they can be realized
as use-values. (Marx, 2000, p. 49)
In order to be able to produce and
generate change-value for their producers, it is necessary to “enclose” use-value
for their consumers: “(…) to be able to realize themselves as values, there is
no other way than accrediting themselves as use-values” (Marx, 2000, p. 49).
This is the dialectic interaction that underlies the dyad of value, which
becomes even more complex when the role of money is introduced into the
process, before and after these, the commodities (tangible and intangible
products) have been produced for circulation and consumption[10]. This means that, while the
exchange is for the producer a general social process (that is, objective), for
the consumer (including the productive consumption that the owners of the
production means carry out) it is an individual process (that is, subjective),
where commodities only exist as regards their function as products
(use-values). This is a key element to understanding a comprehensive theory of
marketing which clearly opposes the neoclassical views on the topic.
Finally, it is in the bosom of the
theories of equilibrium where one of Alfred Marshall’s student’s rebels against
his school, showing that the neoclassical interpretations of capitalism
correspond to idealizations and particular conditions (not general ones) that
are difficult empirically validate. Keynes (1936) shows that it is demand that produces income and,
like Marx, contradicts Say’s argument with profound implications in economic policy:
the variations of production suppose modifications in the use of the existing
productive capacity and from this, stagnation; something that could have been
verified empirically with the effects of the Great depression that started in
1929, which Marx had already identified half a century earlier, with somewhat
different conclusions and effects on economic policy. However, it is in the demonstrations
of how the forces and dynamic of the markets come from demand (not supply) that
marketing thinkers should turn to in order to reform their paradigm.
From there, it can be said that some
postkeynesian and neomarxist authors have tried to survive the onslaught of the
ideological structure of the neoclassical and neoliberal theories. They can be
identified by two main elements: a) the real existence of markets of imperfect competition, where there are
no natural mechanisms that correct productive deficiencies; and b) the inherent
and secular tendency of capitalism towards structural macrodesequilibrium. For
the postkeynesian[11], of clear relevance to the effects
of a serious and comprehensive marketing theory, the macroeconomic world is characterized
by uncertainty, economic men ignorant of the future, and complex contextual
interrelations between the decisions and economic actions of the different
actors of the market. The constants are: the structural disequilibrium of the
markets, with cyclic crises inherent in overproduction and spiralling growth (nowadays
called bubbles); industrial sectors
under dynamics of imperfect competition
(monopolies), the structural tendency of which is towards oligopolic
concentration; and market asymmetries of all kinds and levels, on the side of demand
as well as on that of supply (information, sectorial barriers, strategic
resources and corporate capacities, etc.).
Marx’s questioning on that vision of
selfish, individualistic, hedonist human nature, rewarding individual interest
and the search for the optimal satisfaction over collective interests, is
probably one of the most pathetic omissions of neoclassical marketing
literature. As disgraceful as the structural omission of those who try to see
Keynes’ models of efficiency and harmony (certainty) in contexts of equilibrium
(all the thinkers of the IS-LM model, that is to say, the revisionist synthesis
that the neoclassics made of Keynes thoughts), and they even disregard his main
contribution of uncertainty as a main determining factor of demand in the
processes of the investment and accumulation of capital (the true principle of
effective demand). To conclude this part, it is necessary to make two final
observations: a) the definition of economics as a social science; and b) the
separation between microeconomics and macroeconomics.
To begin with, as a guide to the theoretical
aspect of this work, it will be understood that economics is a social science,
the objective of which is the contextual study of real social relationships of
production, distribution, accumulation and consumption, among groups of people
- human beings- whose interests necessarily appear in clear conflict (social
classes) [12]; not only in their behavior as
suppliers (producers, sellers, etc.) but equally, in their role of demanders
(consumers, buyers, clients, etc.) and among all the actors at the same time, especially
when they resort to exchanging somewhere very specific called the market.
Secondly, the separation of
microeconomic and macroeconomic aspects has been very much questioned in the
literature[13]: not only it is recognized that
both approaches complement each other, but also it can be demonstrated how the
predominant line of teaching (neoclassic and neoliberal theories) has used such
a separation to continue to support its ideology of the functioning and
economic behavior of the actors of the market (beliefs). And it is remarkable
how the micro and macroeconomic models (all of them of a neoclassic type)
require the assumption questioned by Robinson (1973): unless there is perfect
competition in an economy, equilibrium cannot exist; the assumption lead
directly to the conclusions, and they would not be possible without the
existence of such an accumulation of assumption about the reality of the markets and the behavior
of their agents (simple and vulgar tautologies).
According to such a separation, while
micoreconomics is dedicated to the
analysis of the efficiency of productive units (choice theory) for given
quantities of product, macroeconomics deals with the analysis of aggregates of
supply and demand in order to determine the global product. But beware, because
this supposed concretion of their field of study was only used in abstract-logic
models, it clashes reiteratively in the practice of macroeconomists who tend to
aggregate in the context of industrial sectors, homogeneous supply and demand,
of economic goods of all types: tangible and intangible products (services);
workforce; and even, liquid assets (money).
As the focus of their analysis is on
the relative prices (which are determined exogenously, the reason why they are
called free market forces), money
always ends up having a neutral role, as a kind of “veil” over the connection
between purchase and sale (C-M-C’)[14]. At the same time, after Keynes
(1936) work, what had been taught since the forties is the macroeconomic exercise of Hicks-Hansen (the IS-LM model) and, for
this, it is possible to affirm that in both cases (macro and microeconomics) there
is a profound neoclassic and neoliberal interest in validating the so called
conditions of equilibrium and harmony: optimal for production, levels of
productive efficiency and social effectiveness, and collective welfare (macro),
as a byproduct of the rational, selfish and maximizing actions of the
individual actors in a perfect market (micro). All of them are precisely the
input of the neoclassic marketing theories which will be mentioned below.
WHICH MARKETING ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
Economists have been trying for over
200 years to interpret the economic conduct of human beings and the interaction
between psychologists and economists, in the treatment of these topics. It is
as old as these two disciplines and the origin of the human attempt to explain
and solve their problems; in fact, it has been the center of the micro-macro
discussion in the diverse schools of economic thought and, in this debate, one
and the other have tried to frame it as strictly rational or to place it on the other extreme, as something random and chaotic, given that in the
observable reality of human behavior it definitely does not appear as one or
the other, like all the events and behaviors of energy-matter in space-time
(Hawking, 1988).
This, de iure, is a social problem, largely determined by the prevailing
economic conditions (of superstructure, or of the macrocontext, in the language of neoclassic marketing) and its
interrelation with the other phenomena that could be framed in the classic
identification of the microeconomic. Of
course, its use applied and normative in excess on the part of the managers of
corporate policies and, more specifically, for the analysts of consumer
behavior and marketing professionals, it is not but the result of the
development of technologies that this method of production has invented in
order to try to increase or, at least, maintain productivity at any rate: of work, of the circulation of values, of
their realization and consequent monetization of goods (tangible and intangible
products), of circulation of financial capital, etc.
Thus, facilitating tasks and
processes in the sphere of the circulation of commodities was an urgent and
demanding task, in a phase of capitalism where the intensive accumulation of
capital went hand in hand with the exacerbated decreasing tendency of the rate of profit to fall; a capitalism that produces a
plethora of commodities requires ever more sophisticated and modern mechanisms so
as to intervene in the asymmetric relationships of exchange between producers
and consumers; and, at the same time, to try to better manage the growing asymmetries
between producers and their suppliers, their strategic partners (channels),
etc.; that is to say, so as to try to self-regulate
a free market plagued by unequal struggles, of unequal masses of capital,
in a world more and more interconnected and multidependent, that is,
globalized.
Although, as has been indicated, the
original ideas of neoclassical marketing should be traced as far as the
economic approaches of their “parents”in neoclassic theoretical (see footnote
7, p. 4-5 and Table 1, p. 5), who transferred the discussion from the (objective)
labor theory of value to one based on subjective utility, it was only until the
beginning of the 20th century and with a pronounced emphasis, in the
period between the two big world wars, especially after the great economic
depression and overproduction crisis of the thirties, that the real, historical
conditions required can be validated for this applied science or technology[15], called marketing, to appear.
The theoretical-conceptual meeting
point between economics, psychology, and marketing (nowadays called
micromarketing) should be traced as far as there, where the neoclassics would
make sure that the emphasis was put in the individual
agents (consumers and corporations) to distract adequately from the
dialectic approaches of Marx’s work on the historical conflict between classes;
likewise, displacing the attention to a specific type of goods: the limited or
scarce ones (no longer goods created by and for human beings, in their social
context and class interaction), something that would necessarily lead to the
revision of the object of study of economic science. The new focus of the
analysis would be some logical magnitudes, given and static, of abstract
conditions of: a) the homogeneous tastes and preferences of the consumers; b)
endowments of productive resources equally homogeneous and perfectly
replaceable; c) a given technology, with structures and costs; and d) an economic
problem circumscribed to the effective
and efficient allocation of scarce resources, in conditions and
characteristics typically static (harmonic equilibrium).
It is evident that their structural
theoretical roots and origins have to be sought in the neoclassic models of the
firm and the first psychological-economic theories of consumption of the Austrian school, but it is after the
historic reality of generalized overproduction in the world markets (a problem
that would later be dealt with by macromarketing), where its demanding
appearance should be located as a real and organic corporate need. It was after
this that ideologists and managers, between the fifties and the sixties,
managed to consolidate the paradigm of marketing which, due to the explanations
given, has been classified as neoclassical.
Because of the multiple versions
that exist about the origins and the historical development of marketing, the
following would be a key question: historically speaking, is it possible to
validate the existence of real business marketing, not as an isolated activity,
disconnected from the context of social relations with which it has been
identified in this work, or of the any other type of social practice with the
same interests or ends, before the great overproduction crisis and the
subsequent great depression of the thirties?
Does it make sense to talk about its
presence in business activity or conceptual-academia, in a world where the social
relations of production, distribution, accumulation and consumption, prevailing
and determining, were precapitalist? In the context of the primitive communism
of the first homo sapiens; in the
slave world of the Greek-Roman society of Plato and Aristotle; in the feudal
order with its courts, kings, serfs, and droit
de seigneur (feudal lord’s right to bed a servant girl)?
No serious socio-historic analysis
would reach such a hypothesis, except if idealistic mechanisms are used
(Hegelian) to answer such questions. But without going that far back in
history, it will make sense to think about marketing in the context of the
first stages of the evolution of the capitalist production method, where it is
still possible (given the poor state of progress and development of productive
forces) to validate Say’s equation where all
offer creates its own demand; that is to say, under structural conditions
of a permanent surplus of demand over supply, and where the endowment of
resources and the capacities installed are not yet sufficient to attend to the
aggregates of consumption (macromarketing).
In summary, what sense does it make to propose marketing in a society where anything
that someone decides to produce will be automatically absorbed by the markets
(demand), which will passively accommodate to its conditions of production;
that is, all the pre-capitalist economic formations and even the first stages
of the evolution and transformation of the current production method Marx would
refer to as processes of simple accumulation (non-sustainable), which validated
such an excess of demand over supply. Marketing was definitively never required there.
Once this aspect has been clarified,
it is to this historical reality, in the advance and development of the
capitalist production method, as a phenomenon objectively observed and
measurable, to which we will refer to as something possible to generalize, extensible,
and necessarily sociable; something that will be called marketing. This new
technology or applied science which arises from the strengthening of the
worldwide, expansive phase of capitalism (globalization of production), with
its self-sustained processes of growth, accumulation, and increases in labor
productivity. It is there that the development of such a productive force
actually makes sense, a historic transformation that has a clear initial
identification in the period between the end of the XIX century and the
beginning of the XX century.
But, like all social categories in a
permanent process of evolution and change, as a live productive force of
society, which has already acquired a dynamic of its own of movement and change
(even, moving against the status quo set
out by the prevailing social relations of production, its regime of
accumulation and its regulatory framework), there is no argument that supports
the hypothesis that it should necessarily have to die with capitalism, like
Fullerton (1988) thinks. It is far more probable that it outlives capitalism and
acquires a new dynamic in the processes of the exchange of units of value,
focusing more on the integral and holistic resolution of the real needs of
human beings (all of them consumers and, at the same time, producers), even contrary
to the ancien régime; this is, a
clear historical demonstration of the relevance of marketing in a
postcapitalist society and in the construction of socialism in the XXI century.
The American Association of Marketing
defined it in the sixties as that which “…includes all business activities involved
in the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers.” The traditional marketing of the 4Ps was founded
based on the vision of those who brought their conceptualization in the 60s[16] and 70s to the operational
instruments of the marketing mix (incorrectly defined by many as strategies), where the main protagonists
are a set of fundamental variables
which appear to acquire a life and relevance of their own, and alienated the
problem from its true essence: the consumer. And although in the following 20 years
there were so many versions of the 4Ps written as marketing authors and
corporate fashions continued to appear (Garcés, 2003, 2005, 2005A and 2006),
this did not contribute to the anchoring of this paradigm to real science and
to the orientation of organizations towards the market and the consumer
(Garcés, 2010).
Afterwards, between the 80s and 90s,
the discussion on the strategic base of the marketing problem, where underlies the
connection with the consumer and their needs, would be relegated due to a
superficial line of works interested in showing that marketing could be
extended to all types of portfolios, organizations (private, public, mixed,
etc.), and exchange experiences (short and long-term) , where there are some
units interested in supplying and others in demanding ideas, causes, political,
cultural, and religious activities, etc.; and, in general, any case studies
that appeared and allowed for any topic that the discoverer chose to become fashionable.
The discipline fell into the deep abyss of superficial crazes (see Garcés,
2003, 2005 and 2006).
Anderson (1982 and 1983) affirmed
that marketing could only acquire the title of a science if it dedicated itself
to studying the phenomena of exchange from the perspective of all the actors
and participsnts of the process, and not only from the point if view of business
or managerial practice, which had become the most widespread corporate-academic
practice. Likewise, when Hunt (1991) questioned the theories identified by
Bartels (1988), claiming that they did not meet the requirements of a general
theory, he was locating the core of the
problem, identifying how this young discipline had (and still has) serious
structural problems of fragmentation, identity, and credibility, hanging
between two great extremes: a) either it suffers from excess generalization,
without having a rigurous base on science (Sarabia, 1999); or it gets entangled
in poor and tautological dissertations of elevated nano-specialization,
unconnected among its parts (Martínez, 2000).
The discussions posed by Day and
Wind (1980), Webster (1981, 1988, 1992 and 1994), Day & Wensley (1983 y
1988), Carlzon (1987), Day (1990, 1992, 1994A, 1994B, 1995, 1996 and 2000), and
Day & Van den Bulte (2002); along with the arguments of Grönroos (1983,
1989, 1990, 1994 and 1995) & Gummesson (1987, 1988 and 1991), would establish
a new line in the understanding of marketing, which would in the long run return
the consumer, and the process of relationship building with the same, and would,
in August 2004, pressure for the publication of a definition of marketing by
the managing group of the AMA:
"Marketing is a function of the organization and a set of processes
directed to create, communicate, and distribute value to the clients, and to direct
the integral relationships with the clients, so that the organization and its
public of interest mutually benefit” (AMA, 2004). In this definition [17], there are still some topics unlooked
at: a) marketing is, above all, an organizational function, such as accounting,
purchasing, etc.; b) it is defined based on a set of processes; c) for the
first time, the 4Ps disappear from the stage as well as the concepts of satisfaction
and exchange; d) the new key words (the fashionable ones), which substitute the
extint ones, are value and customer
relationship management ; and finally, mutual benefit is spoken of.
In order to prove that marketing
uses a scientific model, talking about social and natural science, basic or
applied, its explanatory capacity and applicability in all possible contexts
(case studies) have to be demonstrated, where social processes of the exchange
of units of value are identified, between actors of the market dyad, with
asymmetric and diverse interests and almost always in conflict and, moreover,
whose explanatory capacity being provable (historically speaking) in the
context of those diverse concrete means of production (simple mercantile
economy, capitalism, socialism, etc.) where it was possible to verify its
presence as a social category. This means, a marketing that answers to that
part of the study of the social relations of production, distribution,
accumulation and consumption, for which the prevailing paradigm of its basic
science (the neoclassical economic theory) could not adequately respond at the
time; more specifically, macroeconomics with a neoclassical foundation. From
there its lack of focus on the use of circumstancial theories and corporate
trends, in the case study proposed by the authors of marketing literature,
elements that have only managed to distance it from its true essence and
development as a social and applied science.
Thus, what should be discussed is
whether it is a science or not; and if it is, to define its nature properly;
and if it is a social science (which it definitely is), with all that it
implies, it would seem to be redundant to speak, under any pretext, of a
supposed social marketing (that would
seem to incorporate macromarketing) or another thing
that it could not be (old micromarketing); but still more important, if
the satisfaction of the needs of the consumer has been, is and will be the main
element, the dynamic and interaction of which is the object of understanding
and resolution for this young discipline, it makes no sense to speak of some
phases of marketing where there has not been a focus on the consumer or the
market: difuse language, not serious, which has undermined its credibility.
With all this, it is now possible to pose the challenge of defining it bound to
a comprehensive and human economic theory, indicating that marketing is a
paradigm of science in a process of development where it is possible to
identify the elements that bring it closer to science from those that keep it
distant, and that have given more emphasis to ideas closer to metaphysics, the
esoteric, or any other pseudo-scientific approach.
So marketing can be seen as an
applied social science (a technology) which becomes concrete in the study of
those contextual aspects that determine social relationships between suppliers
and demanders, in order to guarantee the exchange processes that are generated
in the markets. It is circumscribed to the identification of some of the
socio-economic, cultural, demographic and human behavior (among them
psychological) aspects which determine production and consumption so as to
secure the exchange of units of value between suppliers and demanders (the
dyad); not necessarily of equivalents, nor in harmonic and balanced contexts, such
as neoclassical approaches suggest.
Like all social sciences, it uses
history as its central method of analysis (information on exchange relation),
with the objective of building models of consumer behavior that allow for constant
learning from the relations that are established in the markets between
producers and consumers; and by understanding how its determining factors
behave with time, real strategies (of growth and market participation, in the
short term; of positioning, in the medium term; and competitiveness, in the
long term) can be definined, as well as commercial tactics (operational
marketing), which facilitate the elaboration of models and mechanisms for
measurement and prediction, under the
central principle of the uncertainty of markets and not the automatic
guarantee of balance between supply and demand.
As a result of the above mentioned,
like any other science (basic or applied), it works with possible error margins
to establish and measure, under reasonable levels of risk, and associated
probabilities of success in the prediction, greater than those offered by
intuition or pure chance (50-50). Thus, a comprehensive marketing model, based
on science, has to verify the components and elements of its dialectic and
dynamic. Although it is not the objective of this work to delve into
this topic, as it goes beyond its limits and objectives, Figure 1 summarizes
the dialectical model of marketing suggested by Garcés (1994). A detailed explanation on the topic
can be found in Garcés (2003, 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2014).
Figure 1. Dialectical model of maketing
Source: elaborated by the author from Garcés (1994).
Figure 1 summarizes the graphic
model of marketing under a dialectical view of the process described; a
comprehensive model based on science and its method, where the phases,
components, elements and functional interactions of its different parts are
verified, seen from an integral and holistic perspective, which will be
referred to as the dialectical view of marketing from now on[18]. Under the dialectical model of
marketing (DMM) described in Figure 1, strategic marketing (phases I and II, components
1 to 5) precedes, but at the same time it includes, operational marketing
(phases III and IV, components 6 to 10); demanding the identification of its
viability from the phases of strategic thought (phase I) and strategic planning
(phase II). Under this theoretical panorama, emphasis is made on two aspects:
1) Strategic marketing – the strategy- is only possible where it identifies and attends to the dialectic relationship existing between strategic thought (phase I DMM, with the components 1 to 3 of Figure 1), strategic planning (phase II DMM, with components 4 and 5), and strategic action or tactic (phase III DMM, with components 6 to 9). These aspects will be explained later on.
2) Although there are strategic topics on the short-term[19], real strategic marketing can not focus on strategic actions in the short term, under the use of different operational variables of the marketing mix, the emphasis used by neoclassical marketing. From the perspective assumed here, they are simple tactics or operations that constitute their independent variables; and the strategy, as a set of variables dependent of the same, demands additional mid and long term approaches (see footnote 19). This aspect is dealt with later on.
The DMM of Figure 1 explains the systemic
development of the commercial processes of thought (phase I), planning (phase
II) and strategic action (phase III). These last: the tactics, operations,
activities, and necessary and sufficient tasks to conquer, draw in, seduce, and
retain the market -demand-, with product portfolios or solutions -supply- which
satisfy the needs of consumers and thus, consolidate the permanence and
profitable growth of any type of organization in said market. The development,
monitoring, and follow-up of the history of a possible long-term market-product
relationship ensures permanent feedback through the functional operation of a
quality system, service audit or “the voice of the client” (phase IV, component
10).
This is only possible through
establishing sustainable relationships in time with groups of consumers who
aquire the category of clients, in the process of which the consumer is both
the starting and finishing point. It is about processes to identify, create,
communicate and give units of value: use value or subjective value, on the side
of the demand; and change value or objective value, as material support of the
capacity of the producer to create value, on the side of supply. It is
impossible to make an extensive presentation of the DMM; for this reason, only
a few comments on the different phases, components, and elements that
constitute Figure 1 are made, explained extensively in Garcés (1994, 2003,
2005, 2005A, 2006, 2010 and 2014). There are three key components to resolve in
the strategic thinking phase in marketing (phase I):
1.
The
strategic diagnosis of the marketing situation (DESM, by its acronym in
Spanish), component 1 of Figure 1, as sine
qua non condition of the processes of strategic planning (phase II,
components 4 and 5) and the strategic action or tactic (phase III, components 6
to 9), which minimizes the probability of error (a level of probability risk,
which is not the same as supposing the absence of risk).
2.
The
building of a market information system (MIS), component 2 of Figure 1, as the
only continuous and structural mechanism for the valuation and guarantee of the
diffusion of the voice of the market within organizations to ensure processes
of permanent measurement and thus, a steady decrease of the intuitive-emotional
decision making process.
3.
The
definition of key success factors (KSF), component 3 of Figure 1, a technique
that guarantees the alignment of the organizational strategy[20] with the strategic marketing plan,
as an additional mechanism of internal pressure for the orientation towards the
market and the consumer.
In phase II of marketing strategic
planning (components 4 and 5 of Figure 1), the first step of the process should
always be clearly identified, from the previous diagnostic phase, the stable
consumption groups with which there will be interest in building market-product
relationships, in their different contexts of relation and time units. This is
the first strategic decision in marketing that is shown in component 4 of
Figure 1: an approach strategy, there the segmentation of the market is not the
strategy, it is simply a technique, an instrument, or a tool of the
administrative-economic sciences that has to be used in the process so as to be
able to determine in its three dimensions[21]
the markets to attend to on the long (potential market), medium (objective
market), and short (goal market) term.
And the second step, which initialy
consists of the qualitative definition of the three marketing strategies:
growth strategy on the short term (using Ansoff, 1968, as a theoretical
reference), positioning strategy on the medium term (with Ries & Trout,
1990; and Ries & Ries, 2000, as theoretical references), and competitiveness
strategy or the building of competitive advantage on the long term (Porter,
1979, 1982 and 1990). After this, their quantification with indicators of
achievement, effectiveness or results is vital, which allow for the measurement
and tracking in time; that is, their realization as dependent variables (Yi) of
the DMM (output), which constitute the explicit form of measurement of the
results of the commercial strategy through its 3 indicators, the marketing
strategy objectives (MSO), component 5 of Figure 1: MSO of growth and
participation in the market on the short term (Y1); MSO of positioning on the
medium term (Y2); and MSO of competitiveness on the long term (Y3).
Finally, phase III of marketing
strategic action (components 6 to 9, Figure 1) or tactical-operational
marketing, which includes the tactics, operations, actions, activities, tasks,
etc. [22], which should be verified according
to its highest to lowest level of relevance and contribution to the real MSO
defined above [23]. These tactics are the independent
variables (Xj) of the DMM (input), which should only be defined when there is
clarity as regards what is expected to be achieved. They have been identified
using and reorganizing some elements of the neoclassical marketing mix,
components 6 to 9 of Figure 1 (MIX), and they are shown as statistical factors
or sets of control variables so they can be easily compared:
1. The integral or global product (component 6 of Figure 1), which
includes the decisions and investments in technical characteristics of the
product (X1), prices (X2), packaging (X3), and brands (X4).
2.
Commercial communication (component 7 of Figure 1),
corresponding to advertising (X5), merchandising (X6) and other ways of direct
communication (without the media), public relations with a commercial focus
(X7), and promotion (X8), such as discounts and incentives to the final user, on
the very short term.
3. Commercial management (component 8 of Figure 1), in relation to traditional channels of
commercialization or sales (X9), physical-geographical distribution channels
(X10), direct marketing campaigns (X11) and virtual channels – alternative or
complementary – of sales and distribution (X12), And finally,
4. Customer service (component 9 of Figure 1) with campaigns and reactive and proactive programs for: guarantees and post-sale services (X13); management of petitions, complaints, procedures and claims (X14); repair, retention and recovery of clients (X15); and maintenance, satisfaction, and loyalty – fidelity and loyalty- programs of clients (X16) [24].
It can also be said that the
difference between strategic and operational objectives is given in relation to
the existing dialectical relationship, defined already, between strategy and
tactic: the operational objectives are subordinate to the strategic, but at the
same time, the strategic incorporate, direct from their conception and suggest
the viability of the operational strategies; whereas the strategic correspond
to the output variabes, the latter correspond to the input variables. The
former (SOM) will aways be dependent variables of the DMM (Yi; where i=3); and
the latter, the MIX, will correspond to their independent variables (Xj; where
j=16).
It being an applied science, apart from the graphic (Figure 1) and verbal models (its detailed conceptual explanation), its summarized representation as a mathematical model is required (Garcés, 2010 and 2014); an abstraction and synthesis of reality, which allows us to simplify the phenomenon by its categorization, study and measurement in time. For this, a simple matrix system of simple linear regression can be used[25]:
Yi = ˆβo + ˆβijXj + Error
Y1 + Y2 + Y3 = ˆβo + ˆβ1(X1Y1) +ˆβ2(X2Y1) +…+ ˆβ16(X16Y1) + ˆβ17(X1Y2) + ˆβ18(X2Y2) +…+ ˆβ32(X16Y2) + ˆβ33(X1Y3) + ˆβ34(X2Y3) +…+ ˆβ48(X16Y3) + ϵ%
As is indicated in the verbal and
synthetic description of the model, there are always three dependent variables
(Yi; i=3) and only for the synthesis presented in this work, 16 independent
variables have been proposed (Xj; j=16); the former correspond to the
indicators of achievement od the three strategies of the DMM, explicit through
the SOM (Y1, Y2 y Y3); and the latter correspond to the possible set of tactics
or MIX (X1 to X16), listed in their four groups of variables (conglomerates or
statistical factors), the elements of which have already been briefly
identified for each of them.
In this mathematical explanation of
the DMM, ˆβo is the
parameter that indicates the proportion of the results (SOM) that cannot be
explained by the marketing tactics used (MIX), that is to say, factors which
are exogenous, random, and uncontrollable. The ˆβij correspond to 48 parameters or unbiased
linear estimators that can identify existing mathematical correlations in time,
between each pair of dependent (SOM) and independent variables (MIX). Finally, ϵ% identifies an acceptable degree or
level of error, corresponding to the same modeling exercise; ϵ% is the error margin obtained in a
regression, associated with the quantity and quality of the series of data in
number of years used to obtain the parameters of regression, in this case, the matrixes correspond to the annual
series with indicators of results obtained in the three strategies (SOM) and
their corresponding monetary investments in the 16 variables of the marketing mix
(MIX) [26].
The possibility to obtain a greater
probability of achievement in the implementation of plans will depend on the
capacity of the marketing analysts and scientists to study, model, and
understand such relations. Strengthening such long-term relationships between
producers and consumers is a marketing task in its casuistry, whether it is of
local, national or international application; an aspect that will not be
developed without a continuous follow-up on the history of such interactions
and exchange relationships, not only mediated and guided by pecuniary
objectives and maximization of profits, but also with short-term individual
appropriation.
Thus, marketing as a builder of
models can contribute to establishing better connections in the markets to
facilitate an efficient use of the society’s productive resources, in accordance
with the real needs of the people. Nevertheless, neoclassical management is
still immersed in how to get rid of products, instead of how to discover and
get closer to those who really need them, those in whom they can find the
expected value. Society requires new ways of approaching the relationship with
consumers. Nowadays, in an ever more pronounced way, a product is much more than a set of technical characteristics,
tangible or intangible; and its price is never validated in isolation. The price
(in a capitalist framework) is not formed under passive supply/demand interactions
and markets of perfect competition, in organizations that calculate points of
financial balance, but rather in markets with asymmetric sectorial structures
and tendencies of monopolic or oligopolic concentration.
Neoclassical marketing has reiteratively
bet on the laws of chance and intuition; historical/empirical evidence ratifies
a pretty poor indicator, with only 1 out of 10 cases that are probaby right.
From there, the urgency to implement scientific processe3s of analysis in order
to fullfil the three great strategic objectives suggested in DMM (SOM), as
dependent variables: with higher probabilities and lower error margins than the
ones given by pure chance. Making predictions on the markets’ behavior is one
of the main objectives of marketing’s scientific approach. However, it is
important to remember that production factors are looked into. The behavior of
the human beings is studied, in their social relations of consumption: that is,
all the determining elements of demand and the way it influences supply. If
psychology, sociology, and antropology provide relevant information to
marketing, it is necessary to continue advancing in that line. And the low
level of conceptualization, the lack of strategic clarity, the conjunctural
excess, the trial or testing without any measurement –without learning from
experience-, have been the evident norm of the corporate style and of the
neoclassical marketing questioned here.
The world and its “modernity” require new ways to approach the relationship with consumers. Say’s Law will not help for much longer. In most companies of the third world, even some large ones that operate on a transnational level, they do not have appropriate budgets for market research and the development of new products, even less to implement permanent monitoring systems of the level of satisfaction of consumers: a central key to the processes of marketing. More than 60 years ago Drucker (1954) affirmed that the ojective of enterprises was to create clients, he said:
“It is the
customer who determines what a business is. What the business thinks it
produces is not of first importance- especially not for the future of the
business and to its success. What the customer thinks he is buying, what he
considers “value”, is decisive- it determines what a business is, what it
produces and whether it will prosper. The customer is the foundation of a
business and keeps it in existence.”
It is not possible to continue
improvising to the beat of circumstances or fashion, and feeding in all types
of organizations the idea that as we are talking about people’s behavior (supposedly unpredictable), the best
thing to do is to act quickly and take advantage of the great experience of those
who have been handling business, or of some
“guru” consultants. The low level of
conceptualization, the lack of strategic clarity, conjunctural excess, the
trial or testing without measurement (learning from experience) are blatantly
norms of neoclassical marketing; especially in the Latin context of
administration (paraphrasing Sallenave, 1995), which not only shows some
immaturity and poor development in organizational marketing, but that is also
reflected in other activities, such as: a) improvisation in the planning of
income and expenditure budgets; b) deficiencies in staff recruitment,
especially in managerial positions which have technical relevance; c) the
little or inexistent orientation towards team-work (something that is reinforced
in recruitment processes, very much oriented towards individual qualities and
aptitudes in general, to guarantee stars in the field; d) the belief that the
boss is the one who sets the direction of the organization (almost like feudal
lords) and their tribes should follow them to the letter (like serfs), which is
translated into low levels of empowerment.
MACROMARKETING AND MICROMARKETING: ANOTHER UNFOUNDED NEOCLASSICAL
SEPARATION
After setting out the discussion on
micro and macroeconomics, it is pertinent to revise the rise of these two
tendencies from within marketing: how is it possible that there was a beginning
to and an evolution of marketing, which focused on problems and operational
aspects, exclusive from the context of the interests of private investors
(micromarketing), behind the back of the great macrodeterminations (before the
70s); an how and why, under social marketing in the early 70s (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971) there arose an
interest in revising the conception of the paradigm (its expansion into new
activities and topics), which seemed to have left behind some key and relevant
aspects of macromarketing.
In fact, the first arguments of the
current trend of corporate social responsibility (Garcés, 2007, 2009 and 2012)
have their origin here, in the ideas of Lavidge (1970), Kelley (1971), Dawson
(1971), Feldman (1971), and Spencer & Moinpour (1972), who proposed that
the marketing director added the following elements to the classic 4Ps: a)
consumerism; b) cleaning (ecology, eco-friendly products, recycling); and c)
resource conservation (prudence, efficiency, and justification of resources
used). Furthermore, some of them insisted on the formation of organizations
that cared about social interests and they also talked about the need for government
intervention; an anti-neoclassical heresy, surely taken from Keynes work, but
never acknowledged as such.
Perhaps, the first to openly work on
the concept with the term macromarketing were Moyer (1972), and Bartels &
Jenkins (1977). Later on, in 1976, the American Marketing Association organized a number of seminars on
the topic, which would contribute to the creation of the Journal of Macromarketing in 1981. In the work of Bartels and Jenkins (1977) it is
mentioned that under that name different aspects were being revised in a wide
range of senses in order to designate systems and groups of institutions
related to the microenterprise problem of marketing: distribution channels,
private and public institutions, associations, unions, etc., which had not
initially been taken into consideration in the main components of
micromarketing (understood up to that moment as a type of marketing for individuals and companies of
private accumulation of capital).
But it is vital to highlight that
this theoretical-conceptual omission openly obeyed the original source of the
rise of marketing and its starting point: the neoclassical microeconomic
theories; and to the related fact that the marketeers believe that there is
only one line of thought when it comes to economic theory (from Smith to
Ricardo, the classics; and from Walras to Marshall, the first neoclassics),
disregarding or eliminating through theoretical incompatibility the
contributions of pioneering and revolutionary works which allow for relevant
qualitative leaps in the economic debate; and of course, in the development of
an alternative macroeconomic theory: the criticism of the classical political
economics of Marx and the attack on the neoclassical postulates of Keynes.
Logically then, to the later developments on the Marxist and post-Keynesian
lines, and the rise of alternative paradigms to the explanation of the micro
and macroeconomic interactions, such as, for example, the works of Piero
Sraffa, which would result in the start of the neoRicardean school.
But the line of development and
separation between micro and macromarketing is very recent, given that it dates
from the beginning of the 70s, whereas the discussion between micro and
macroeconomics is a debate which has its origins in the XIX century and starts
with force with the publication of Keynes’ General Theory; he is nowadays
considered the father of modern macroeconomics. The first serious attempt at
the separation of the micromarketing approach was the work carried out by R.
Moyer (1972), for whom, while micromarketing only focused on organizational
topics, macromarketing should approach its relation with the general context of
the economic system as a whole: paradoxically, this sounds more like an
argumentation made by Marx than that of a XX century, neoclassical business
administrator. Later on, Hunt (1982) would suggest that while micromarketing is
exclusively directed to the actions of economic units (organiations,
enterprises, consumers, and households), macrmarketing is framed in the study
of the interrelations (cause-effect) between marketing systems and society, and
vice versa.
I must agree with Quintanilla (2002) when he affirms that from
there, the scientific production on topics related to macromarketing has been
quite poor, and also, the main reason for it is found in the way in which this
young discipline was born, highly biased by neoclassical microeconomic
influence and its emphasis on the elements that relate it to corporate
decisions on products (supply), in subordination to the decisions of consumers
(demand): with the belief in the perfect functioning of the markets and Say’s
Law.
But it is not possible to agree with
the same author, when he gives Katona (1963) the credit for the origin of the central
topics of economic psychology; for example, by indicating that his work allowed
to establish how economic behavior depends on the capacity and will of
individuals to consume or save, when any economics freshman knows that this is
one of the most important of Keynes contributions (1936) to economic thought:
the backbone of Keynes work is the principle of effective demand; and there,
part of the theoretical definition of both sides of the macroeconomic process
in the income equation (consumption and saving), managing to establish that it
is a certain psychological situation (the marginal tendency to consume or its
opposite, to save), the explanatory basis of how human beings distribute their
income between consumption and saving.
In general terms, it is not possible
to find in the works of some marketeer of the last 50 years, the origin of the
emphasis on supply-related topics; that change in perspective and emphasis in
topics of the economic process of the side of demand was seen in the works of
Marx, by disrupting all the basic postulates of the classical economic
theories; and de iure, in Keynes, by doing the same with the approaches with which
he was educated at Cambridge (the neoclassical economic theories). Both, Marx
and Keynes, would contribute in their own way to disrupting the conceptual
structure of the main assumption which underlies them: Say’s Law, or the law of
markets; a law that in the neoclassical beginnings of marketing would harm the focus
given to commercial processes: production, product, the salesperson’s work,
advertising communication, brands, and any other action that, in an underhand
way, has always been marked by production, strength of the supply, entrepreneuring
spirit, etc. All of these are simple manifestations of a world that still does
not accept the role that demand has in the dynamic of these relationship
processes, within or outside of the capitalist production method.
For this reason, one should not be
surprised by the fact that it can and has to establish a connection between the
origins of a comprehensive economic interpretation (macro and micro), with
emphasis on social elements, like Marx’s; the rise of modern macroeconomics
with Keynes; and the first works of a marketing alternative to the traditional
view focused on microeconomic aspects: the macromarketing of the 70s, where it
seemed vital to revive concepts, such as the quality of life of citizens. At
the end of the 90s, macromarketing accentuated at least five relevant topics:
a) marketing and the environment; b) marketing, justice and ethics; c)
marketing and economic development; d) marketing and quality of life; and e)
marketing and markets.
REALITIES AND MYTHS REGARDING THE RELATION BETWEEN MARKETING AND
GLOBALIZATION
What is the relation between
marketing and globalization? What is globalization, from an economic
perspective? When did the
process actually start and why has it sped up
in the last few years, at a growing rate? What are its main
implications in different types of national sovereignties? What can be concluded from all of this process?
In this work the view of
neoclassical marketing is dealt with, which is by definition “a set of
operations a commodity has to go through, from the producer to the consumer” (Economia Planeta, 1980, p. 491); and that of
globalization, which is described as an accelerated process of dependence of the
every day and domestic life of human beings on a set of economic and political
forces that go beyond national states, turning into a final and perfect phase
of capitalism[27], it is possible to approach the set
of interactions that necessarily has to do with the understanding of these
aspects that nowadays are approached from so-called macromarketing (its point
of convergence). And it is important here to highlight that the term
globalization has been used for the last 20 years by neoclassical or neoliberal
thinkers in the management and marketing fields as a literary trend. That is to say, an ideology, a sort
of recipe and corporate premise, which vindicates the final stitch of the unlimited
process of the sustained accumulation of capital all over the planet, under the
eternal dream of capitalists and investors: accumulation without protests
(Anderson, 1992); a kind of universal society without social classes, where
laborers are virtually defenseless to resist the economic dictates of those who
possess economic control of the planet (Hirsh, 1995).
It is, to the understanding of its
advocates[28],
the final phase, ultimate and perfect, of capitalism, the qualitative
transformation of which has allowed it to supply itself with magical and
invisible mechanisms of self-regulation, and its functioning is beyond and
above the individual. Human beings, no matter their social class (if classes
are considered in the analysis) appear to be attending Fukuyama’s (1992 and 2012) end of history and the dynamic of the
system has reached a neutral phase, where the perfect society has finally
managed to eliminate all of that which was preventing it from flourishing: the
alleged triumph of individual freedom
over any type of collective oppression
(the economic freedom of those who can make use of it); and capitalist democracy shown as the universal
political system. But, is that the real globalization of today? Is it not the
case that when facing the historical analysis of this method of production
there appears a ferocious globalization that reflects great contradictions,
which make it unsustainable? Without such a revision it is impossible to shed
light on its connections with true comprehensive marketing, no matter if it is
classified under the term macromarketing or not.
Under Marx’s lens, globalization
would be the particular way in which the advancement and development of the factors
of production are shown; the concrete way in which productive forces exert pressure
and erode the capitalist social relations of production, although born from its
interior as a concrete method of production; one whose clearest manifestation
is the unstoppable advance of the organic composition of capital, in opposition
to the evolution of real values (objective) and the materialization of capital
gains, with the resulting decreasing tendency in the installments of the
average profits of investors; not in their absolute masses (Marx, 1867); and
from there, Bonefeld (1998) accurately describes five definite elements of this
process:
1.
The
significance and the growing importance of the financial structure and the
global creation of credit, which leads to the dominance of finance over
production (see Lenin, 1917, 1985); where financial capital has turned into an
independent force, whose rising power has built a sort of financial
superstructure which exerts pressure on productivity.
2.
The
growing importance of the so-called knowledge structure, where knowledge is one
of the most important production factors.
3.
The
increase in the speed of the cycles of technological obsolescence and the
growing process of transnationalization, where the industrial emphasis lies on
sectors based on knowledge, with a fast rate of innovation and the rapid
introduction of new products.
4.
The
rise and increase of oligopolies, which appear as multinational corporations,
as a result of fusion, acquisition, joint venture, strategic alliance or any
other method that allows local corporations to become global and transnational,
under threat of disappearing; by their side, large transnational banks with powers
and influence superior to those of their national states, or their local
economies. And
5. The globalization of the production,
of knowledge and of finance, where old national states retire as possible
regulators, in order to eliminate the inefficiencies that this causes in the
free market; and, in addition, a globalization of political power, appearing a
sort of plural authority structure associated with the United Nations, the G7,
the G8, etc. The old national states become states of competition.
We talk about a globalized world,
for whom? For the states of competition, which are the heads of economic
blocks; for global and transnational corporations with sufficient economic
power (resources and strategic capacities) to monopolically impose their
productive conditions and their products on the consumer all around the world;
for the 100 richest men on Earth[29]. Or for the poorest countries in
Latin America, Asia, and Africa; for the millions of microenterprises that
clearly constitute the anti-Pareto of third world enterprises, registered in
their respective chambers of commerce; for the billions of inhabitants
(potential consumers), who cannot be incorporated into the demand equation of the
majority of the products that are sent to the world markets, not because they
do not have needs, but because they do not have purchase capacity (the demand
equation in the context of the current method of production); and even, in the
most recent paradox of the structural crisis of capitalism, for the millions of
typical middle-class citizens (North American and European), who, indignated, let their discontent with globalization show.
Neoclassicists and neoliberals, staunch
supporters of globalization, proclaim that it is a source of individual
freedom, which secures economic freedom and guarantees a free system of
political order, where the capitalist democracy turns into the very same end of
history. Thus, the old bourgeoisie dream is secured: globalization as the start
of a transnational sustained process of accumulation of capital without
protests. If, in any geographic location, the method of production or its
conditions are not accepted, capital decides to relocate to those places where
such inefficiencies and frictions do not take place (more favorable areas, with
better prospects for investment); the rulers in office, linked to the plutocratic
interests of the local bourgeoisies, will make sure that it is so, signing as
many international free trade agreements
as they can[30], consolidating the role of the
poorest nations as the recipients of the capital surplus and the leftover
commodities of the world powers, a condition required in their attempt to
escape the turmoil caused by their overproduction crisis and its consequences,
a decreasing structural tendency in their average profit rates.
For this, the bourgeoisie has always
acted according to the rationality of capital. As a social category (not a
factor of production), it does not acknowledge borders, races, creeds, age,
gender, or any other element which defined the old national states, that were important
at some point to undermine the old feudal regime. But the process of worldwide capitalist
expansion (or globalization) is not something that has started socially in the
last twenty years, like some marketeers and management writers think, or is it
that capital discovered the world market at the end of the 80s?; if it were so,
where was capital before?, as Bonefeld (1998) questions. Two world wars, the
commercial origins of which seem to be repeatedly forgotten, speak of this and of
the participation of the main actors of Wall Street in world economic and
financial management, clear evidence from history: a great depression in the 30s
(overproduction crisis) and multiple financial, bank and key industrial sector
blows, between the 70s (two oil shocks), the 80s (external debt crises), and
the 90s and the beginning of XXI century (embezzlement - Enron, Madoff,
Stanford, Lehman Brothers, AIG; bubbles – dotcom and sub-prime mortgages; and
fake reports on Greek debt, like those of Goldman Sach), all the above is proof
of this.
What is clear is that in the current
conditions of the international order, the defense of the globalizing process ensures
a mechanism to strengthen the liberal and old idea that the process of capital
accumulation can take place without crises, as long as the workers [31] get used to being mere factors of production
of global citizenry; in this way, the non-observation of social relations among
people is secured and any type of class resistance to the process of capital
accumulation is eliminated. When the owners of the means of production are
mentioned, we refer to those who have the capital as critical mass, this means
that they have the real or potential power to become actors of the sustained
accumulation process, more demanding now given the transnational conditions and
globalization; it is not an apt scenario for street vendors or irrelevant
service providers in the third world.
This being the case, it is necessary
to understand that globalization is, first of all, a globalization of
production; that is, an intensification of the transnational phase of
capitalism. As a historical process that arises in the context of the
development of the capitalist production method, clearly linked to the needs
for expansion of the capital flows beyond national borders, it leads to
expansion and deepening of all the social relations of production,
distribution, accumulation and consumption among countries. In this way, its
corollary is the generation of greater interdependence between nations and
cultures of diverse ethnical-geographical origin, in opposition, even, to an
economic model that still defends the XVIII century philosophy of homo oeconomicus: individualistic,
selfish, hedonist, and with the idea that the strongest prevails. This is an
additional intensification of its multiple social contradictions. As with all
historical-social processes, this method of production will continue to advance
within the dialectic of its own contradictions. For this, those who study the economic-administrative
sciences, whatever their condition or place is, must learn to read the signs
clearly and discern which possibilities of intervention countries, industrial
sectors, enterprises, organizations, consumers, and any other actor that is
affected by the process, have.
Technological developments,
innovations, and increases in productivity, as well as major reductions in
geographic distances and almost unlimited growth in virtual communications,
have shown an advancement in the prevailing method of production, even under
unthinkable conditions, and with results not yet measured: an ebullient world
of production amid the most profound squalor of the majority of humanity. The
most visible and quantifiable result has been a rapid growth of the global
process of capital accumulation (with its cyclical phenomena of overproduction
in most of its productive branches), amid abundant poverty and squalor: an
insurmountable contradiction.
Some management and neoclassical
marketing writers still think that globalization is a process that started a
few years ago; especially for countries like Colombia which opened up indiscriminately
to the neoliberal model at the beginning of the 90s, and it has intensified
with the last three governments with the application of macroeconomic policies
for its nationals. This ahistorical fixation, of strict neoclassical (economic)
and neoliberal (political) origin is linked to the assumption of a supposed new
validation of the conditions of market
perfection. This is a theoretical assumption which is impossible to verify
on an empirical level in the capitalism of the early XX century and even less
so in the present: the so called conditions of balance in the markets are, as
defined by Robinson (1959 and 1973) theoretically impossible to sustain and
empirically impossible under the current oligopolic competition.
It is worth making some final
comments regarding the relation between marketing and globalization, given that
the advocates of liberalization at any cost are equally supporters of the idea
of erasing any trace of state participation in the economies of poor countries,
and for that matter, of privatization, the destruction of the public enterprise
and the oniric fixation of turning everything into a commodity (tangible and
intangible products). Its promoters claim, in their argumentation, that private
enterprises are by their nature efficient and there is no corruption in them;
thus, the best contribution of a government to its nationals is to put an end to
the public sector and allow private enterprise to intervene in all operations
(private business). For this reason, all around the world, the neoclassics/neoliberals
managed to restructure even sectors that were strategic as regards social
development and that produced great achievements in constitutionally protected
universal rights, into large for-profit businesses. Among those felt the most
are: basic public services (drinking water supply, sewer-treatment,
electricity-natural gas and basic phonelines); health; education in its
different levels; and the management of individual pension savings and
long-term savings for workers.
Fedesarrollo (Foundation for Higher
Education and Development), a non-profit private entity, which defines itself
as “independent in the study of the best economic public policies in Colombia,”
emphasizes on a supposed causal line between globalization and democracy, where
democracy guarantees and promotes economic freedom per se; this means that, it
ensures the strengthening of the private sector while the presence of the
public sector is eliminated; and where political freedom is interpreted as a synonym of the
strengthening of the largest and most traditional political parties which
support said democracy, with the risk of
eroding and breaking up national unity even more. In opposition to what the
economic process indicates, its followers fall into the typical contradiction that
surrounds liberal philosophy, when it comes to giving a scientific explanation
or a social justification for a process whose evaluation is carried out on a
purely technical plane, with the aim of hiding the social relations of
production which dynamize this process; logically, it is the old process of
capitalist accumulation, whose phase of transnational expansion (globalization)
is as old as the origin of capital (Wallerstein, 2007).
CONCLUSIONS
Marketing could have been
conceptualized comprehensively from the very beginning, that is to say, by
incorporating both its aspects (micro and macro) which underlie the problem of
how to ensure the focus of production on consumption and the real resolution of
the needs of the inhabitants of planet Earth, not only the basic and
reproductive ones that perpetuate our species, but also all those relevant to
the advance of productive forces in the context of valid social relationships
of production, or in the societies that are to be built in the future: XXI
century socialism. This seems to be the most relevant affront of humanity in
this phase of production with intensive accumulation of capital in world and
transnational contexts, called globalization.
But as is taken from this article, this
emergence was doomed to failure given the neoclassical and neoliberal approach
of the paradigm, which had given it theoretical life at the end of the XIX
century. This failure has been ratified by a history of endemic and structural
behavior in the crises of overproduction of the current capitalist production
method. The economic apparatus that gave life to marketing as a social force
for change, and as a historical necessity of the process of sustained
accumulation of capital, has rapidly turned against it and the integral
economists tied to the most advanced approaches of the theories of Marx and
Keynes, owe a debt to humanity. It is necessary to recontruct marketing into
something that actually guides production to consumption and guarantees the focus
of all types of organization on the market, that is to say, on the consumer
(Garcés, 2010 and 2014).
It is possible, by way of
conclusion, to make some final observations concerning its relationship to the
current crises of the capitalist production method, inserted into the context
of globalization, where the phrase socialism
or barbarism[32] returns with a new meaning. Questioning from
there the reductionist and linear view of history, which some thinkers made, is
of the utmost importance; just as capitalism had many historical forms of
gestation and implementation, the postcapitalist societies which will arise
from the breast of their historical contradictions will have “embryos” as
diverse as the diverse national configurations of today allow for. That is to
say, as well as humanity, which marks the pace at which the process of the sustained
accumulation of capital advances in its cyclical process (a growing spiral),
unsustainable in the long run[33], where generalized misery amid
relative abundance will continue to be the norm (globalization at present),
humanity itself, as a social collective, will be the one to decide what path to
follow; and it has as many possible future stories as there are types of social
construction that are gestating in the
diverse parts of the planet.
But independently of that, the
society that arises from the ashes of the present one will be as the historical-social
process dictates; and what the data shows (not only the social data) [34] is that just as capitalism in
modern times represented a profound advance after the previous organizational
forms, it has ceased to be a revolutionary engine of the transformation and
advancement of humanity, in the middle of productive forces that are barely
controlled and that erode everything. That insurmountable historical-social
contradiction, which has been the engine of the history of humanity, is one of
the few social laws that can be referred to, and marketing is playing and will
continue to play a relevant role there.
It is evident that in the last
interventions of Krugman and Stiglitz on what is called the present bubble, although it advances
ahead of the neoliberal and neoclassical “caverns”, they are promulgators and
believers in the salvific policies of the capitalist production method. As
Skidelsky (2009) affirms, these neokeynesians only have an old family dispute
with the neoclassicists: they are like siblings which share the same mother
(though of doubtful reputation), disputing the political scenario every five
years. Some are even more daring by associating them with a left wing (Democrat Party) and an
extreme right (Republican Party) in the United States, something that can only
cause laughter.
Skidelsky (2009) poses the topic by
indicating that both try to hide their theoretical outbursts with mathematical
overloading, attempting to show purity in the method, but in both cases
omitting the real contributions of Keynes and, of course, of Marx, namely: that
in capitalism uncertainty is a constant of the investment process and uncertain
expectations about the future make it a weak, faltering, cyclical, and
speculative system; that is to say, a system that structurally involves boom
and bust cycles, in which the assignations and calculations of probabilities do
not always make sense; they are not mere bubbles, but structural forms of
endemic and sickening self-destruction in the long-run, as a result of the same
inertial intervention of investors who share the same uncontrollable passion of
the usurer; not irrational, it is the liberal philosophy per se, elevated to
the category of law.
The neo-neoclassicists simply deny
the phenomena due to their beliefs, ideology, and assumptions, which manage to hide
behind the vulgar category of economic laws. And the neokeynesian believing
that the problem is simply reduced to information asymmetries, which can be
solved by the good management of the intervening state. Both are incapable of
explaining the tendencies of the structural crises of the markets where, as
Skidelsky (2009) puts it, the blind lead the blind. "This is a crisis of symmetric
ignorance, rather than one of asymmetric information."
In a different line as regards the
form, but close to it at its core, Akerlof and Shiller (2009) show some Animal
Spirits which are inscribed within the currents of behavioral economics, affirming
that the behavior of economic agents is totally irrational: something that the
old Marxists (under the thought and work of Marx) know to be incredibly stupid;
each regime, according to its method of production, involves a specific way of
producing and, for that reason, of consuming. In this case, capitalism is
oriented by private investors, whose passion is to accumulate and to
continue to accumulate, becoming richer is their leit motiv, which leads
them to compete fiercely[35], something that they share with
usurers, but what in the latter is a vulgar, unstoppable passion (irrational),
in the former is the same form that moves their process of extended and
cyclical accumulation of capital (not always sustained, in general in a spiral).
It is their social reason of being, the nature of their class, there is nothing
irrational there; there is nothing more rational than the liberal
philosophy, its concept of class, and all the ideological structure that has
been built over more than 200 years to make humanity believe that the end of
history is here (Fukuyama, 1992 and 2012). In the local panorama (Colombia), it
is only necessary to observe the role of the bourgeoisie: traitor to the
country, plutocratic, corrupt, which when they took hold of power only sought their
own benefit and the individual profit that their business relationship with the
North facilitates; it is not about something really human, but it is liberal
rationality per se.
At the same time, the analysis of
consumtion behind the back of the very same production process, or its
categorization as irrational for focusing in the subjective/individual problem,
of cleat neoclassical and neoliberal tradition, behind the back of it being
seen as a social category (men permeated by a superstructure), which imposes a
way of life proper of its method of production (culture, ideology, regulatory
framework, etc.), it is another of the archetypical ways that modern times and globalization
assume to mascarade the actual problem. This means that, it is shown as
critical in the form, when in de iure, in
fact, it accepts all the exposure that the statu
quo fosters in order to defend the ancien
regimé, that today more than ever is fatally wounded.
John Gray, a modern philosopher (as
he describes himself), suggests that "although Marx was right because the
world of the bourgeoisie has been destroyed, at the same time he was
wrong, because communism has also been defeated (Gray, 2011); and
paradoxically, in the same line, with an apparently contradictory title, Lord
Meghnad Desai, member of the House of Lords and emeritus professor of the London School of Economics, indicates
that, contrary to Marx, "capitalism is alive and well, but not in the
west, it has migrated to the east" (Desai, 2011). Both positions are
disjointed from the true essence of Marx's thoughts, but most importantly,
correspond to journalistic, showy, ahistorical, idealistic interpretations
which do not resist a debate from historic-dialectical materialism, and for
that matter, observations on this case need to be made.
Although the title of Gray's book is
true, his explanatory arguments could not be more misguided. In the first
place, because Marx did not build a model of how communism would be managed in
the practice, and his scattered notes on socialism were more descriptive than
normative, a reason why political re-elaborations on the topic and the
visualization of the socialist model of development as an alternative path or
way to savage capitalism, which would remain as pending tasks for future generations;
and even, so-called real socialism, does not invalidate its importance and
historical relevance, in this necessary and possible path towards the
construction of the XXI century; or is it that all the bourgeois revolutions
were not involuted by the enfeoffing restorations: every Napoleon was followed
by their Louis XVIII.
In this way, what these modern
philosophers do not understand, and in that they match the defenders of the ancien regime, is that Marx was a real
thinker: integral, holistic, a scientist who dissected in all the possible
levels, the way in which the capitalist method of production was gestated, was
born, developed and entered its senile stage (even within its historical
youth), as the method was condemned to its self-destruction, in the same way as
all those that came before. Their conclusions could not be less unfortunate:
the bourgeois world has not been destroyed, on the contrary, the ancien regimé is still alive, it is
going through its most destructive metastasis; the bourgeoisie, the true
bourgeoisie ever more global (plutocracy in the exercise of power) has managed
to destroy almost all the old relationships and has transformed all the places
and social relationships on the planet; it has magnified out of all proportion
Marx's premise that with capitalism everything would turn into a commodity
(tangible and intangible goods), even the most profound of human relations.
Their levels of economic
concentration today (power, wealth, assets, utilities, etc.) have reached this
point, that the 600 global corporations and their real owners (the
shareholders; not the managers and administrators of capital, vulgar white
collar workers, as Kalecki, 1977, would call them) concentrate more than 70% of
the strategic assets of the planet (Bonefield, 1998); and thus, just like Amin
(2009) shows, 20% of the inhabitants of the planet (logically located in the
so-called rich countries) consume annually more than 80% of its strategic
resources. This means that the neoclassical and neoliberal model of globalization
only manages to deepen those economic conditions (production and consumption),
which sooner or later will necessarily cause problems.
Gray, the philosopher, is right when
he affirms that Marx was right, but not due to the arguments he presents, but
because of the relevant facts from a scientific-historic-dialectical view, that
Marx's thought is valid simply because of his scientific method used to deal
with social phenomena. This made him a visionary and an exceptional mind, a
ideology of class, despite that the dominant ideology still maintains the prevailing
conditions of superstructure which allow it to control the system for some
time, (for how long?), that is the question, because as Rosa Luxemburg states
(1871-1919) borrowing a phrase from Engels[36], humanity faces an inalienable
historic reality: socialism or barbarism. And, of course, when we refer to
barbarism, we are talking about this experience historically ratified by the
globalized civilization of capitalism; one that with two world wars and the
many localized small wars subject to the circumstantial needs of the US empire
(structurally open, such as the double invasion to Iraq; to the most atrocious
and genocidal practices of corralling whole nations that do not align with the
globalizing view, for instance, the Cuban blockade for more than 50 years)
clearly show that there was never more barbarism than during this stage of
advancement of modern capitalism.
Finally, on the intervention of Lord Meghnad Desai, according to which capitalism is still alive and well, but not in western countries, it has migrated to the east. As a corrupt Colombian politician would put it[37]: more false than falseness. Socialism did not die 20 years ago, what died was the attempt of a model which was flawed in its form of political management and social development; that is to say, a model that concentrated power and wealth in the hands of some burocratic castes which did not represent the interests of the Russian society (in particular) and the Soviet (in general) ended up destroying itself in its own contradictions and internal disputes; and what is paradoxical about it all, is that that model and pattern of extended production-accumulation proved to be quite efficient (some identified it as a monopolist capitalism of the state) and, in fact, it is one of the tendencies of the concentration of the globalizing capitalism of our times, with its plutocrats at the service of the world’s financial capital. The Soviets implemented it so fast, that they threatened the power of the regent empire of the west and its coalition forces.
SOCIALISM (in capital letters) and
its multiple and possible forms of historical birth and development, as a form
of social organization which rewards the interests of collectiveness and the
social, on top of taste (Bentham-Smith) and individual kindness (Moore-Keynes),
has the constructive task of the real revolutionaries, social scientists and
left wing thinkers. Re-reading Keynes, it is possible to observe, without any
problem, that his ideas correspond to those of a shameful moralist of capitalism, who cherished an advanced,
superior, post-capitalist society, clearly copied from the ideological designs
of Marx about scientific communism: one where production and scientific-technological
development had reached such an advanced level that human beings would not have
to work to subsist and their needs would be covered by the world’s productive
apparatus: there would not be incentives to produce with the prospect of a
market where such things would be exchanged in order to gain individual profit.
And thus, one in which its socialist transformation phase, still in market
economy, requires an efficient connector in the processes of value exchange
between suppliers and demanders, of integral marketing, human and focused on
the consumer, as it has been described in this work, under the dialectical model of marketing (DMM).
But under his argumentation, it was
capitalism that would directly lead to that, given that capitalists would
become good (a moral and ethical
argument), as if by magic, and would eventually be transformed into those
philanthropic and altruist people with whom Keynes used to dream: more a religious
ideology, in line with the biblical tradition. There was never a class, in the
historical development of the class struggle (engine of history), which has
renounced their class-group interests; why would this production method bring
about a social class that exotic with such characteristics? This is the real
interpretative difference between Marx (historic-dialectical method) and Keynes
(linear method of cause-effect relationships). It has to be mentioned that the
latter, apart from copying many of Marx’s ideas (without acknowledging any of
them, except for some private correspondence that have recently appeared in
Cambridge), he benefitted from the investment process, vulgar financial
speculation and the stock markets, where he managed to amass an interesting
fortune (what a paradox!).
From there, the most relevant
conclusion of this writing: in the current circumstances and phase of the capitalist
production method and its globalizing process of sustained accumulation of
capital. Developing a theoretical marketing, robust and comprehensive, is an
inevitable task. However, at the same time, thinking from the left is not an option;
it is a must for the true social and democrat scientists of the world, who face
the only possible condition in the future: socialism or barbarism.
REFERENCES
Akerlof, G. A. & Shiller, R. J.
(2009). Animal spirits: How human
psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
American Marketing Association
-AMA- (2004. 2007). AMA Definition of marketing.
Retrieved from http://www.marketingpower.com/Community/ARC/Pages/Additional/Definition/default.aspx
Amin, S. (2009). La crisis. Salir de la crisis del capitalismo o salir del capitalismo en
crisis. España: El Topo.
Anderson, P. (1982). Marketing
strategic planning and the theory of the firm. J. of Marketing, 46, 15-26.
Anderson, P. (1983). Marketing, scientific progress, and
scientific method. Journal of Marketing,
47, 18-31.
Anderson, P. (1992). Zones of engagement.
London: Verso.
Ansoff, H. I. (1968). Corporate strategy.
New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Bartels, R. (1988). The history of
marketing thought. Columbus: Publishing Horizons Inc.
Bartels, R. & Jenkins, R. L. (1977). Macromarketing.
Journal of Marketing, 41, 17-20.
Bonefeld, W. (1998, julio). Las políticas de la globalización: ideología y crítica. Revista Globalización.
Bunge, M. (1980). Ética y ciencia.
Buenos Aires: Siglo Veinte.
Bunge, M. (1985). Pseudociencia e
ideología. Madrid: Alianza Universidad.
Buskirk, R. H. (1961). Principles of marketing. Nueva York: Holt, Rinehart y Winston.
Carlzon, J. (1987). Putting the customer first: the key to service
strategy. En Lovelock, (1991). Services marketing:
text, cases and readings (pp. 424-432). UK: Prentice Hall International
Editions.
Cundiff, E. W. & Still, R. R. (1964). Basic marketing: concepts, environment and decision. Nueva Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Davidson, P. (2003). ¿Qué es erróneo en el consenso de Washington y qué
debemos hacer? Cuadernos de Economía, 22(39).
Day, G. S. (1990). Market driven
strategy: processes for creating value. New York: The Free Press.
Day, G. S. (1992). Marketing’s
contribution to the strategy dialogue. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(4),
323-329.
Day, G. S. (1994A). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37-52.
Day, G. S. (1994B, Summer). Continuous learning about markets. California Management Review, 9-31.
Day, G. S. (1995). Advantageous Alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 297-300.
Day, G. S. (1996). Market driven
organizations: building marketing capabilities. Pennsylvania: The Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania.
Day, G. S. (2000). La organización que actúa en función del
mercado. Bogotá: Norma.
Day, G. S. & Van den Bulte, C. (2002). Superiority in customer
relationship management: consequences for competitive advantage and
performance. Marketing Science Institute,
Report Summary (2-123), 1-41.
Day, G. S. & Wensley, R. (1983). Marketing
theory with strategic orientation, J. of
Marketing, 47, 79-89.
Day, G. S. & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: a framework
for diagnosing competitive superiority, Journal
of Marketing, 52, 1-20.
Day, G. S. & Wind, J. (1980). Strategic planning and marketing: time for a constructive
partnership. Journal of Marketing, 44,
7-8.
Desai, M. J. (2011, 28 de sept.). El capitalismo está vivo y saludable, (pero no en
Occidente). BBC de Londres. Recuperado de
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2011/09/110928_capitalismo_vivo_aa.shtml
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice
of management. New York: Harper Business.
Economía Planeta (1980). Diccionario Enciclopédico. Barcelona: Planeta.
Feldman, L. P. (1971). Societal adaptation: a new challenge for marketing, J. of Marketing,
35, 54-60.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). El fin de la historia y el último hombre. Barcelona: Planeta.
Fukuyama, F. (2012, Jan/Feb). The future of history. ¿Can liberal democracy survive the decline of the
middle class?
Foreign Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations Inc. Retrieved from http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/FA_FutureOfHistory_Fukuyama.htm
Fullerton, R. A. (1988). How modern is modern marketing? Marketing's evolution
and the myth of the “Production Era”. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 108-125.
Garcés C., J. E. (1994). Metodología para el desarrollo de plan estratégico de marketing –PEM. Material de clase de los cursos Marketing Estratégico y Marketing Operativo, Postgrado de Psicología del Consumidor. Bogotá: Universidad Konrad Lorenz.
Garcés, J. E. (2003, 14 de oct.). El marketing: un paradigma balbuceando, en un capitalismo mutando. En Conferencia en Expo academia. Universidad Konrad Lorenz, Bogotá, Colombia.
Garcés, J. E. (2005, enero-junio). El marketing: un paradigma balbuceando, en un capitalismo mutando. Revista Poliantea 3, 53-87.
Garcés, J. E. (2006, febrero). Revista Suma Administrativa, 1(1), 32-71.
Garcés, J. E. (2005ª, 22 de sep.). ¿Es posible la ciencia del marketing? En Conferencia en Expo academia, Universidad Konrad Lorenz, Bogotá, Colombia.
Garcés, J. E. (2007, 10-12 de oct. 2009 y 2012). Marketing y responsabilidad social empresarial RSE. En Ponencia, 1er. Congreso Iberoamericano de RSE, Cali, Colombia, Universidad Santiago de Cali.
Garcés, J. E. (2007ª, oct.). Grupos estratégicos en la banca colombiana 1995-2004. Revista Vox Populi, 6, 3-66.
Garcés, J. E. (2007B). Revisión del concepto de grupo estratégico y propuesta de definición para aplicaciones en el ámbito colombiano, Revista Innovar, 17(30), 99-111. Recuperado de http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/818/81803008.pdf
Garcés, J. E. (2007C): Grupos cognitivos (estratégicos y competitivos) en AFP de Colombia al 2005. Revista Suma Psicológica, 14(1), 107-200. Recuperado de http://openjournal.fukl.edu/index.php/sumapsi/article/view/40/0
Garcés, J. E. (2008): Grupos estratégicos en la banca colombiana: análisis estático y dinámico. Revista Innovar, 18(32), 195-226. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/inno/v18n32/v18n32a11.pdf
Garcés, J. E. (2009, oct.). Marketing y responsabilidad social empresarial RSE. Revista Vox Populi, 8, 29-44.
Garcés, J. E. (2010). Desarrollo de un modelo de medición de la orientación al mercado con real foco en el consumidor, y pilotaje en el sector asegurador colombiano. Tesis para la obtención del título de Magíster en Psicología del Consumidor, Posgrado en Psicología del Consumidor de la Universidad Konrad Lorenz, Bogotá, Colombia.
Garcés, J. E. (2012). Investigaciones en psicología del consumidor. Barranquilla, Colombia: INPSICON. Recuperado de www.inpsicon.com/elconsumidor/archivos/Maryres.pdf).
Garcés, J. E. (2014). Dialectical model of marketing versus trends and fashions. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 2(3), 58-68. Retrieved from http://pubs.sciepub.com/jbms/2/3/1.
Garcés, J. E. (2014). Dialectical model of marketing versus trends and fashions. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: E, Marketing, 14(5), 23-35. Retrieved from https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume14/E-Journal_GJMBR_(E)_Vol_14_Issue_5.pdf
Gray, J. (2011, 11 de sep.). Karl Marx tenía razón. BBC de Londres. Recuperado de http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2011/09/110906_marx_capitalismo.shtml.
Grönroos, C. (1983). Innovative marketing
strategies and organization structures for services firms. In Lovelock (1991). Services marketing: text, cases and readings,
(pp. 433-448). UK: Prentice Hall Int.
Grönroos, C. (1989). Defining marketing:
a market-oriented approach. European J. of
Mark., 23(1), 54-58.
Grönroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing. Managing the moments of truth in service competition. Massachusetts-USA: Lexington Books.
Grönroos, C. (1994). Marketing y
gestión de servicios. Madrid: Díaz de Santos.
Grönroos, C. (1995). Relationship marketing:
the strategy continuum. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4),
252-254.
Gummesson, E. (1987). Marketing: a
long-term interactive relationship. Research
Report. Sweden: Marketing
Technology Centre (MTC), Stockholm University.
Gummesson, E. (1988). Marketing: a
long-term interactive relationship. Gothenburg, Sweden: Anderson Sandberg
Dhein.
Gummesson, E. (1991). Marketing
orientation revisited. The crucial role of the part-time marketer. European
Journal of Marketing, 25(2), 60-75.
Hawking, S. W. (1988). Historia del tiempo.
Madrid: Crítica.
Hirsch, J. (1995). Der “Nationale”
Wettbewersstaat: Demokratie, und
Politic im globalen Kapitalismus. Berlin: Edition Id-Archive.
Hirsch, J. (1996). Globalización, capital y Estado. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
Hunt, S. D. (1982). The
macromarketing/micromarketing dichotomy: a taxonomical
model. Journal of Marketing, 46, 11-26.
Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern marketing theory: critical issues in the philosophy of marketing science. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.
Kalecki, M. (1977). Ensayos escogidos/dinámica
de la economía capitalista, 1933-1970. México: F.C.E.
Katona, G. (1963). Análisis psicológico del
comportamiento económico. Madrid: Rialp.
Kelley, E. J. (1971). Marketing
changing social environmental role. Journal of Marketing, 35,
1-2.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). La teoría
general de la ocupación, el interés y el dinero. México: F.C.E.
Kotler, P. (1967). Marketing management.
(2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs-New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: an approach to planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 35, 3-12.
Kuhn, T. (1971). La estructura de las
revoluciones científicas. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Lavidge, R. J.
(1970). The growing responsibilities of marketing.
Journal of
Marketing, 34(1), 25-28.
Lenin, V. I. (1917). El imperialismo,
fase superior del capitalismo (esbozo popular). Petrogrado: Parus.
Lenin, V. I. (1985). El imperialismo, fase superior del
capitalismo (esbozo popular). Bogotá: Fondo Editorial Suramérica.
Luxemburgo, R. (1915). Folleto de Junius: La crisis de la socialdemocracia
alemana. En Obras escogidas.
Recuperado de http://www.marxists.org/espanol/luxem/09El%20folletoJuniusLacrisisdelasocialdemocraciaalemana_0.pdf.
Martínez, M. (2000). Ciencia y marketing. Manual para investigadores y doctorando en Ciencia
Social. Madrid: ESIC.
Marx, K. (2000). El Capital. Crítica
de la economía política clásica. México: F. C. E.
McCarthy, E. J. (1960). Basic marketing:
a managerial approach. Homewood, Illinois: R. D. Irwin.
Moyer, R. (1972). Macromarketing:
a social perspective. New York: John Wiley & Son.
Phillips, C. F. & Duncan, D. J. (1968). Marketing, principles and methods. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin.
Popper, K. (1957). The poverty of
historicism. London: Routledge and Paul.
Popper, K. (1967). El desarrollo del conocimiento científico. Conjeturas y refutaciones. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Porter, M. E. (1979). The structure within industries and companies
performance. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 61, 214-227.
Porter, M. E. (1982). Estrategia competitiva. Técnicas para el análisis de los sectores industriales y de la competencia. Madrid: CECSA.
Porter, M. E. (1990). Ventaja competitiva: crear y mantener un desempeño superior. Madrid: CECSA.
Quintanilla, I. (2002). Psicología del consumidor. Madrid: Prentice Hall.
Ries A. & Ries, L. (2000). El nuevo
posicionamiento. Bogotá:
McGraw-Hill.
Ries, A. y Trout, J. (1990). Posicionamiento: el concepto que ha
revolucionado la comunicación publicitaria y la mercadotecnia. México: McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, J. (1959). Ensayos de
economía poskeynesiana. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Robinson, J. (1973). Economía de la competencia
imperfecta. Barcelona: Martínez Roca.
Sallenave, J.P. (1995). La teoría L:
manual de antigerencia. Bogotá: Tercer Mundo.
Sarabia, F. (Coord.). (1999). Metodología
para la investigación en marketing y dirección de empresas. Madrid: Pirámide.
Say, J.-B. (1803). Traité d'économie
politique, ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent
ou se consomment les richesses. Paris: Pub. Horace Say.
Say, J.-B. (1972). Traité d'économie
politique, ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent
ou se consomment les richesses. Paris:
Calmann-Lévy Éditeur, Collection Perspectives de l'économique-Les fondateurs.
572 p. Recuperado de http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/say_jean_baptiste/traite_eco_pol/traite_eco_pol.html
Skidelsky, R. (2009). El regreso de Keynes. Barcelona: Crítica.
Spencer, H. & Moinpour, R. (1972). Fear appeals in marketing. A social perspective, J. of Market., 36, 39-43.
Stanton, W. J. (1964). Fundamentals
of Marketing. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1996). Whither
Socialism? Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). El malestar
en la globalización. Madrid: Taurus.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Los felices
90: la semilla de la destrucción. Bogotá: Taurus.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2006). Cómo hacer
que funcione la globalización. Madrid: Taurus.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Caída libre.
El libre mercado y el hundimiento de la economía mundial. Madrid: Taurus.
Wallerstein, I. (2007). La crisis estructural del capitalismo. Bogotá: Ediciones Desde Abajo.
Webster, F. E. (Jr.) (1981). Top management's concerns about marketing issues for the 1980's. Journal
of Marketing, 45, 9-16.
Webster, F. E. (Jr.) (1988). The rediscovery of the marketing concept. Business
Horizons, 31, 9-16.
Webster, F. E. (Jr.) (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. J.
of Marketing, 56, 1-17.
Webster, F. E. (Jr.) (1994). Market-driven
management: using the new marketing concept to create a customer-oriented
company. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Weintraub, E. R. (1985). Microfundamentos: la compatiblidad entre la micro y la macroeconomía. Madrid: Alianza.