Economic cybercrime is one of the unwelcomed consequences of unprecedented intrusion of the Internet in our daily lives. Academic interest in understanding the causes and adverse impacts of cybercrime is growing. Opportunity perspective, which perceives individuals’ daily routines and lifestyles as the primary facilitator of victimization, has been widely applied as a theoretical and conceptual framework in cybercrime victimization research. However, this approach put the responsibility of the victimization on victims explicitly, which hampers the application of crime prevention and reduction efforts. This book presents the Contextual Vulnerabilities approach based on the significant findings of a doctoral study conducted at Durham University in the United Kingdom. Contextual vulnerabilities approach posits that cybercrime victimization is the outcome of the confluence of contextual factors that are mostly beyond victims’ control. This approach presumes that controlling individual (micro-level), macro-level and socio-cultural vulnerabilities may prevent cybercrime victimization. Though the preliminary goal of this book is to provide a new theoretical perspective to scholars researching victimization in cyberspace, I hope the wider audience would find it informative.

In this book, we attempt to make a comparative evaluation of modern macroeconomic schools: Monetarism and New Classical School based on the Classical System that envisage automatic full employment or natural rate of unemployment (NRU) equilibrium (AFNE or ANRUE) vs. New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian Economics based on the Keynesian System which gives unemployment equilibrium (UNE) or non-automatic NRU equilibrium (NANRUE) due to insufficiency of aggregate demand.

In order to determine which school is relevant, first the basic assumptions of these systems are compared: i) rational vs. adjusted vs. heterogeneous expectations, ii) existence of perfect competition in all markets leading to flexibility of prices and wages vs. imperfect competition giving rise to rigidities, and iii) presence or lack of coordination between markets.

In the final phase of our evaluations the performance of the developed economies are surveyed to establish whether we meet with AFNE or ANRUE or else UNE or NANRUE; and whether policy prescriptions devised by respective schools solve or alleviate the problem at hand when implemented.

Our investigations point out that New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian schools are more relevant compared to Monetarism and New Classical School. The choice between New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian Economics, however, is more difficult to make although New Keynesian Economics seems more widespread than Post-Keynesian Economics. Objectively, Post-Keynesian assumptions seem more realistic; normatively, however, New Keynesian stands seems more fit to the present day move towards globalization.