Cox, G. Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. The cost of intraparty competition: the single, non-transferable vote and money politics in Japan. Crepaz, M. Inclusion versus exclusion: political institutions and welfare expenditures. Comparative Politics , 61— Cusack, T. Partisan politics and public finance: changes in public spending in the industrialized democracies, — Public Choice , — Specific interests and the origins of electoral systems. Dixit, A.
The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics , — Ideology, tactics, and efficiency in redistributive politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics , — Esping-Andersen, G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Estevez-Abe, M. Comparative political economy of female labor participation.
Social protection and the formation of skills: a reinterpretation of the welfare state. Hall and D. Franzese, R. Macroeconomics of Developed Democracies. Invested intersts: the politics of national economc policies in a world of global finance. International Organization , — Garrett, G. Partisan Politics in the Global Economy. Goldthorpe, J. Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism. Grofman, B. Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science , 7: 25— Hall, P.
An introduction to varieties of capitalism. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies , — Hibbs, D.
Political parties and macroeconomic policy. Hicks, A. Politics, institutions, and welfare spending in industrialized democracies, — Huber, E. Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure and the welfare state.
American Journal of Sociology , — Iversen, T. Power, flexibility and the breakdown of centralized wage bargaining: the cases of Denmark and Sweden in comparative perspective. Comparative Politics , — Equality, employment, and budgetary restraint: the trilemma of the service economy. World Politics , — Capitalism, Democracy and Welfare. The political economy of gender: explaining cross-national variation in the gender division of labor and the gender voting gap.
American Journal of Political Science , 1— An asset theory of social policy preferences. Electoral institutions, parties, and the politics of class: why some democracies redistribute more than others. Why governments diverge from the preferences of the median legislator. Manuscript, Dept. Katzenstein, P. Small States in World Markets. Kelly, N.
Political choice, public policy, and distributional outcomes. Kitschelt, H. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Korpi, W. The Democratic Class Struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Power, politics, and state autonomy in the development of social citizenship: social rights during sickness in 18 OECD countries since American Sociological Review , — Kwon, H. The zone of partisanship: parties, unions and welfare spending in OECD countries, — Unpublished manuscript, Dept.
Lange, P. The politics of growth: strategic interaction and economic performance, — Laver, M. Lindert, P. What limits social spending? Explorations in Economic History , 1— Lowi, T. American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. McGann, A. The advantages of ideological cohesion: a model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multiparty democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics , 37— Manow, P. Amesterdam: Amesterdam University Press.
Mares, I. Martin, C. Nature of Nuture? Source of firm preferences for national health reform. Meltzer, A. A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy , — Moene, K. Inequality, social insurance and redistribution. Moore, B. Boston: Beacon Press. Neto, O. Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. North, D. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Constitutions and commitment: the evolution of institutions governing public choice in the 17th-century England. Journal of Economic History , — Ordeshook, P. Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. Osborne, M. A Course in Game Theory. A model of political competition with citizen-candidates. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 65— Perotti, R. Growth, income distribution and democracy: what the data say.
Journal of Economic Growth , 1: — Persson, T. The size and scope of government: comparative politics with rational politicians. European Economic Review , — Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. The Economic Effects of Constitutions.
Pierson, P. Fragmented welfare states: federal institutions and the development of social policy. Governance , 8: — Path dependence, increasing returns, and the study of politics. Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart. Pontusson, J. Labor markets, production strategies, and wage bargaining institutions: the Swedish employer offensive in comparative perspective.
Powell, B. PR, the median voter, and economic policy: an exploration. Przeworski, A. Structural dependence of the state on capital. American Political Science Review , 11— Riker, W. Implications for the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions.
The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, Conn. Rodden, J. As governments around the world increasingly liberalized trade and opened their capital markets, policy converged and consensus grew across parties about the value of openness and to some extent deregulation as well as austerity. Differences among left and right centrist parties on their platforms diminished, and publics began to view all mainstream parties as very similar Sen and Barry ; Ward et al.
This convergence has created an opening for extreme right and populist parties to generate support. And lack of partisan competition among centrist parties may enable more extreme parties to gain support.
The third element is that globalization has also raised pressure on governments to coordinate their polices to eliminate externalities Milner A more open economy implies a greater need to cooperate and coordinate with other countries. The past 30 years have seen many international regimes and institutions created to deal with global problems, all of which have constrained governments even more. The IMF, World Bank, OECD, EU, WTO, regional development banks, and many preferential trade agreements are the major examples of these multilateral economic institutions; each of which produces norms, rules, and procedures that members are expected to follow.
They constrain government policy choices domestically; they appear to impose decisions from unelected international elites on the public; and they push all parties who might be in government to adopt similar policies. Many of these have generated popular dissatisfaction and resentment, being seen as undemocratic and as undermining democracy and its legitimacy at home.
Brexit as a vote against international cooperation and extensive coordination is a reflection of this public perception of the EU. The nationalist backlash that has animated populist parties recently builds off of this anxiety over and distaste toward global governance.
The cosmopolitan elites that supposedly direct international institutions are seen as having made bad decisions e. Populist leaders thus call for a return to national priorities and a rejection of global cooperation, as the quote from Marine Le Pen at the start of this article illustrates. Taking as a starting date the end of the Second World War we can, with a nod to national variations, pick out four elements that have characterised the domestic politics of Western Europe in the ensuing four decades: social democracy, corporatism, the welfare state and Keynesianism.
It is on the fertile ground of the foundering of these four pillars that the new populist parties have taken root. I have identified three areas where globalization and democracy may conflict and if globalization is left unchecked may lead to the erosion of democracy.
What can be done about inequality, insecurity, and interdependence so that they do not hurt democracy? I briefly discuss a few ideas below, but unfortunately there are no simple solutions. Is economic inequality really a problem? There is some evidence that the public does not understand the extent of inequality and that they may not care that much even if they do know it Alesina and La Ferrara ; Bartels ; McCall Some scholars think people are and should be more focused on economic growth and their personal situation rather than relative gains and interpersonal comparisons.
Belief in upward social mobility and equality of opportunity as well as a focus on non-economic issues may dull any interest in fixing inequality. If inequality is seen as a problem, can we fix it? One attempt to reduce inequality was tried during the post World War II period with government intervention in the economy using taxes and social transfers to redistribute income. Numerous scholars and politicians are now calling for new taxes on the wealthy Piketty ; Scheve and Stasavage Closing the open economy is another option, but one that is very costly and will probably not reduce inequality if it is structural to capitalism Piketty ; Boushey, DeLong, and Steinbaum Others doubt the efficacy of government policy and find that the only solutions have involved large-scale violence Scheve and Stasavage ; Scheidel Without major war, revolution, or a devastating pandemic, they claim there is little evidence that any policy can reduce substantial inequality, especially once it has increased greatly.
The problem in this condition of deep inequality becomes a political one where taking away substantial amounts from the rich becomes difficult without violence. Global capitalism fosters faster technological change and this is one important factor driving insecurity among voters.
How are we going to deal politically with rapid technological change and innovation? Skill-biased technological change, particularly in the form of automation and artificial intelligence AI , is going to have increasingly large distributive effects on societies. Many occupations will disappear, and hopefully new ones will arise in their place, as in the past.
But the transition is likely to be difficult and long. Calls for policies that make education less costly and enable job training and transitions are widespread, although there is less evidence that these are effective. The research on technological change points out that government policy is very important for innovation and adoption.
Governments can be a brake on or a spur to change through a wide variety of policies, such as taxes, subsidies, and anti-trust. Mazzucato even argues that governments have been the primary driver of technological progress lately. In addition, interest groups and existing firms may have strong effects as well, usually in slowing down change Taylor Controlling the rate of technological change then is possible, and government policy may be able to shape the impact to some extent through its policies.
We do not want to shut down technological progress since it may be central to solving large problems like climate change. But the key is that leaders must be aware of the possible effects and willing to intervene to enhance job and income security for their citizens. Focusing policy on reducing individual insecurity should be paramount.
Having an open economy creates more constraints on domestic leaders and more demand for international cooperation and coordination. In turn, these processes appear to generate dissatisfaction with incumbent governments and democracy generally.
There seem to be two ways to alleviate these problems. One is to try to reduce interdependence and close the national economy. The trade wars, greater scrutiny of FDI, and immigration crackdowns of the Trump administration leaned in this direction, as the UK may also tend toward after Brexit. At what cost? Rodrik argues for rolling back globalization to save democracy by creating more space for national policy choices and differences.
Indeed, race to the bottom pressures may grow stronger with more closure, as the UK after Brexit is starting to realize. Regional blocs may form, and if, as in the interwar period, these are closed and driven by political competition may result in fiercer pressures on governments. A second way forward may be to try to make international cooperation and institutions more friendly to voters and democratic publics. Delivering greater benefits and making the public aware of them are one path.
Another is to try to democratize these institutions more. The EU has tried to do this by passing more power to the European Parliament. It is not clear this has helped, however.
The main problem is that global institutions are by nature very far removed from local politics and will always be seen as a distant force that sometimes institutes policies that are not preferred locally. But redesigning international institutions may be our best hope here. The topics that I consider most important for future study revolve around capitalism on a global scale and democracy.
In particular, they concern the three issues above. How does globalization contribute to inequality? Can we make global capitalism produce less unequal outcomes, and do we need to change it? Are there policies that would make economic outcomes less unequal? What does inequality do to politics? A second topic is technological change and democratic politics. Globalization fosters rapid technological change, and recently this change has been high skill-biased.
This has contributed to rising inequality and insecurity. Many scholars and political leaders are now focused on how further automation and AI will affect politics.
Third, research should focus on how international institutions and governance are affecting domestic politics. Does more international cooperation generate less trust and legitimacy for democracy at home?
How can we make sure cooperation at the global level does not undermine support for democracy domestically? As problems grow more global in scope, we must find solutions that leave people feeling better off and willing to trust in international institutions as well as domestic ones.
A retreat to nationalism and unilateralism will make solving our many transnational problems, like climate change, pandemics, and terrorism, ever harder. Concerns about the relationship between capitalism and democracy have long been part of scholarly debate.
My claim here is that global capitalism and the new technologies of today are making the tension between them even greater than in the past. Globalization seems to heighten the impact of markets. It brings faster and more widespread technological change, more intense distributional consequences, wider financial crises, and more problems having a global scale.
Capitalism has always fostered change, which has had political implications. The development of social welfare states to channel and moderate that change was important after World War II. But today the inequality, insecurity, and interdependence it is breeding are creating serious political problems for democracies.
Maintaining democratic systems with constitutional checks and balances and rule of law seems paramount. Will rolling back globalization help this? It is not clear. Economies may perform less well when closed; technological change driving inequality and insecurity is likely to continue; and national solutions to global problems are likely to be insufficient, if possible.
Will public support for constitutional democracy be any stronger in such conditions? A better way forward seems to be using government and international institutions to direct technological change and reduce insecurity for individuals within their societies.
As many have noted, real progress in human well-being has occurred over the past two centuries Pinker ; Deaton ; Rosling Navigating the right balance between capitalism and democracy remains a critical task. See the International Organization 75th anniversary special issue Finnemore et al. Will responses to the coronavirus accelerate these challenges? A key concern is with the lingering effects on privacy that tracking the virus may entail, as well as the use of executive orders and emergency powers in shutting down social interaction.
Brazil also fell down but remains an electoral democracy. Botswana, Mauritius, Poland, and Slovenia have fallen from the designation of liberal democracy to electoral democracy. And the United States, still designated a liberal democracy, has scored lower lately as well.
See Dahl for a list of such rights and the basic requirements for a democracy to exist. Classical democracy viewed sortition or selection by lot, or randomly , not election by voting, as central for democracy. They saw elections and voting as autocratic. So it may not be necessary for democracy to have and be defined by having competitive elections.
Manin ; Smith There was a long debate over the relative autonomy of the state in capitalist democracies in the s and s; see Nordlinger , Skocpol , Miliband , Poulantzas , and Block Along with private property as a shield, privacy is also an important element for many conservatives. The increasing challenges to privacy from social media and digital firms may also threaten democracy.
See Zuboff on surveillance capitalism. In addition to trade and immigration flows, the two biggest sources identified by scholars as causes of rising inequality are skill-biased technological change and government policy, including tax cuts and social benefits reductions. Some scholars such as Scheve and Stasavage find less of a relationship between the two. A common theme in the literature is that this pushes parties to turn to non-economic issues—i. This has also played into the hands of populist parties who use extreme positions on these issues to polarize the public.
Moreover, we use survey data to show that the economic shocks diminished trust in government, of which the established left parties form part following Algan et al.
Thus, in an environment of diminished trust, disgruntled voters turn to candidates who share their economic traits and fates. It is likely that most international institutions will be redesigned anyway in the near future. Helen V. Milner is the B. She is currently working on issues related to globalization and populism, foreign aid and taxes, and technological change and international politics. She is the president of the International Studies Association — Acemoglu Daron , Robinson James A.
Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York : Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar. Google Preview. Aldrich John Herbert. Why Parties? Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Alesina Alberto , La Ferrara Eliana. Autocratization Turns Viral: Democracy Report University of Gothenburg : V-Dem Institute. Almond Gabriel A. Accessed May 26, Baldwin Richard. London : Oxford University Press.
Baldwin Richard , Martin Philippe. Accessed May 25, Bartels Larry M. Bartik Alexander W. Bates Robert H. Evidence from Distributional National Accounts, Accessed July 6, Block Fred L. The Origins of International Economic Disorder. Blyth Mark. Austerity : The History of a Dangerous Idea. Boix Carles. Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Bollen Kenneth A. Boswell Terry, Christopher K. Bourguignon Francois. The Globalization of Inequality.
Broz, J. Lawrence , Frieden Jeffry A. Burgoon Brian. Buzan Barry , Lawson George. Christian Tom. Fall edition. Chwieroth Jeffrey M. November Citrin Jack , Stoker Laura. Claassen Christopher. Cohen Benjamin J. New York : Basic Books. Colantone Italo , Stanig Piero. Dahl Robert A. On Democracy. Dahl Robert Alan. Polyarchy; Participation and Opposition. Born in in Vienna, Karl Polanyi grew up in Budapest, in an assimilated, highly cultured Jewish family.
But he remained enough of a traditionalist to enlist as a cavalry officer shortly after the First World War broke out. After the war, the Radical Citizens took power, but they fumbled it.
When the Communists fell, pogroms broke out, and Polanyi fled to Vienna. Duczynska was a Communist engineer, ten years younger than he was.
She and Polanyi married in and soon had a daughter. Polanyi held informal seminars on socialist economics at home. He started writing for The Austrian Economist in , and he was promoted to editor-in-chief a few months before the right-wing takeover sent him into exile. Duczynska remained in Vienna, going underground with a militia, but, in , she, too, emigrated, taking a job as a cook in a London boarding house. In , Bennington College offered Polanyi a lectureship, and he left for Vermont, where his family soon joined him and he began to turn his lecture notes into a book.
This both harmonized trade between countries and stabilized relative currency values. If a nation started to sell more goods than it bought, gold streamed in, expanding the money supply, heating up the economy, and raising prices high enough to discourage foreign buyers—at which point, in a correction so smooth it almost seemed natural, exports sank back down to pre-boom levels.
The trouble was that the system could be gratuitously cruel. If a country went into a recession or its currency weakened, the only remedy was to attract foreign money by forcing prices down, cutting government spending, or raising interest rates—which, in effect, meant throwing people out of work. But, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the right to vote spread.
In Vienna, Polanyi had heard socialism dismissed as utopian, on the ground that no central authority could efficiently manage millions of different wishes, resources, and capabilities. For most of human history, he observed, money and the exchange of goods had been embedded within culture, religion, and politics. He pointed to the motley of late-nineteenth-century measures—inspecting food and drink, subsidizing irrigation, regulating coal-mine ventilation, requiring vaccinations, protecting juvenile chimney sweeps, and so on—that were instituted to housebreak capitalism.
Once the laissez-faire machine started running, it cheerfully annihilated the people and the natural environment that it made use of, unless it was restrained. Polanyi offered the example of the enclosure movement in sixteenth-century England, when landowners tore down villages and turned common lands into private pastures.
Enclosure was a good thing, in other words; the numbers said so. It made enclosure so gradual that, even three centuries later, the poet John Clare was lamenting its advance in his sonnets.
In hard times, economies tend to retrench, just when stimulus is most needed; the richer they get, the less likely they are to invest enough to sustain their wealth. During the Depression, Keynes made the case that governments should deficit-spend their way out of recessions. The memory of the financial chaos of the thirties, and of the fascism that it gave rise to, was still vivid, and the Soviet Union loomed as an alternative, should the Western democracies fail to treat their workers well.
In terms of international monetary systems, too, Keynesianism held sway. In , at the Bretton Woods Conference, Keynes helped to negotiate a way of harmonizing exchange rates that gave national governments enough elbow room to boost their domestic economies when necessary.
Only America continued to redeem its currency with gold. Most people are of two minds: As consumers and investors, we want the bargains and high returns that the global economy provides. They come from workers forced to settle for lower wages and benefits. They come from companies that shed their loyalties to communities and morph into global supply chains. They come from CEOs who take home exorbitant paychecks.
And they come from industries that often wreak havoc on the environment. Unfortunately, in the United States, the debate about economic change tends to occur between two extremist camps: those who want the market to rule unimpeded, and those who want to protect jobs and preserve communities as they are.
Instead of finding ways to soften the blows of globalization, compensate the losers, or slow the pace of change, we go to battle. Consumers and investors nearly always win the day, but citizens lash out occasionally in symbolic fashion, by attempting to block a new trade agreement or protesting the sale of U. It is a sign of the inner conflict Americans feel — between the consumer in us and the citizen in us — that the reactions are often so schizophrenic. Such conflicting sentiments are hardly limited to the United States.
Take, for instance, the auto industry. In , DaimlerChrysler faced mounting financial losses as European car buyers abandoned the company in favor of cheaper competitors. Even profitable companies are feeling the pressure to become ever more efficient. In , Deutsche Bank simultaneously announced an 87 percent increase in net profits and a plan to cut 6, jobs, nearly half of them in Germany and Britain.
Twelve-hundred of the jobs were then moved to low-wage nations. Today, European consumers and investors are doing better than ever, but job insecurity and inequality are rising, even in social democracies that were established to counter the injustices of the market. In Japan, many companies have abandoned lifetime employment, cut workforces, and closed down unprofitable lines. Surely some Japanese consumers and investors benefit from such corporate downsizing: By , the Japanese stock market had reached a year high.
But many Japanese workers have been left behind. A nation that once prided itself on being an "all middle-class society" is beginning to show sharp disparities in income and wealth. Between and , the share of Japanese households without savings doubled, from 12 percent to 24 percent. And citizens there routinely express a sense of powerlessness. On the other end of the political spectrum sits China, which is surging toward capitalism without democracy at all.
Income inequality has widened enormously. And those who are affected most have little political recourse to change the situation, beyond riots that are routinely put down by force.
They have the ability to alter the rules of the game so that the cost to society need not be so great. But they have no responsibility to address inequality or protect the environment on their own. We forget that they are simply duty bound to protect the bottom line.
0コメント