A groundbreaking new historical analysis of how global capitalism and advanced democracies mutually support each other
It is a widespread view that democracy and the advanced nation-state are in crisis, weakened by globalization and undermined by global capitalism, in turn explaining rising inequality and mounting populism. This book, written by two of the world’s leading political economists, argues this view is wrong: advanced democracies are resilient, and their enduring historical relationship with capitalism has been mutually beneficial.
For all the chaos and upheaval over the past century―major wars, economic crises, massive social change, and technological revolutions―Torben Iversen and David Soskice show how democratic states continuously reinvent their economies through massive public investment in research and education, by imposing competitive product markets and cooperation in the workplace, and by securing macroeconomic discipline as the preconditions for innovation and the promotion of the advanced sectors of the economy. Critically, this investment has generated vast numbers of well-paying jobs for the middle classes and their children, focusing the aims of aspirational families, and in turn providing electoral support for parties. Gains at the top have also been shared with the middle (though not the bottom) through a large welfare state.
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom on globalization, advanced capitalism is neither footloose nor unconstrained: it thrives under democracy precisely because it cannot subvert it. Populism, inequality, and poverty are indeed great scourges of our time, but these are failures of democracy and must be solved by democracy.
0 有用 Antony Zhou 2023-03-16 17:43:06 加拿大
我是真不喜欢Poli Sci的写书风格,全书真的就是model、和学界辩论、顺带谈谈自己的框架多么牛逼,甚至都不愿意承认一下它大概在简化中会犯错。强民族国家和知识型人才在从福特主义过度来的“知识经济”中相互作用,该社会背景则突出国际生产经济分工和单产业人才趋同。虽说总会觉得书中的论述逻辑有点“ahistorical”,但我还是很喜欢第二章对西式民主政治发展史的概括,至于别的章节就更多是看着了解下。... 我是真不喜欢Poli Sci的写书风格,全书真的就是model、和学界辩论、顺带谈谈自己的框架多么牛逼,甚至都不愿意承认一下它大概在简化中会犯错。强民族国家和知识型人才在从福特主义过度来的“知识经济”中相互作用,该社会背景则突出国际生产经济分工和单产业人才趋同。虽说总会觉得书中的论述逻辑有点“ahistorical”,但我还是很喜欢第二章对西式民主政治发展史的概括,至于别的章节就更多是看着了解下。我很惊讶作者破除了大众迷信,论述说ACD仅仅和社会中流的逐利心态挂钩;此外每章的model图表都很优秀、下了功夫。可惜的是,1、这一破除行为背后定量或定性分析都缺位了,显得干瘪,2、作者把ACD系统设想为空中楼阁,完全杜绝了外在非ACD对其由内而外的影响,3、同上,作者对全球经济交互也过于理想化。 (展开)
0 有用 huizhoumeng 2019-06-29 21:28:04
关于当代资本主义变迁的总体解释
0 有用 Antony Zhou 2023-03-16 17:43:06 加拿大
我是真不喜欢Poli Sci的写书风格,全书真的就是model、和学界辩论、顺带谈谈自己的框架多么牛逼,甚至都不愿意承认一下它大概在简化中会犯错。强民族国家和知识型人才在从福特主义过度来的“知识经济”中相互作用,该社会背景则突出国际生产经济分工和单产业人才趋同。虽说总会觉得书中的论述逻辑有点“ahistorical”,但我还是很喜欢第二章对西式民主政治发展史的概括,至于别的章节就更多是看着了解下。... 我是真不喜欢Poli Sci的写书风格,全书真的就是model、和学界辩论、顺带谈谈自己的框架多么牛逼,甚至都不愿意承认一下它大概在简化中会犯错。强民族国家和知识型人才在从福特主义过度来的“知识经济”中相互作用,该社会背景则突出国际生产经济分工和单产业人才趋同。虽说总会觉得书中的论述逻辑有点“ahistorical”,但我还是很喜欢第二章对西式民主政治发展史的概括,至于别的章节就更多是看着了解下。我很惊讶作者破除了大众迷信,论述说ACD仅仅和社会中流的逐利心态挂钩;此外每章的model图表都很优秀、下了功夫。可惜的是,1、这一破除行为背后定量或定性分析都缺位了,显得干瘪,2、作者把ACD系统设想为空中楼阁,完全杜绝了外在非ACD对其由内而外的影响,3、同上,作者对全球经济交互也过于理想化。 (展开)
0 有用 huizhoumeng 2019-06-29 21:28:04
关于当代资本主义变迁的总体解释