Titel: The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis
Herausgegeben von John L. Campbell, Ove K. Pedersen
Princeton University Press
12. August 2001 - kartoniert - 306 Seiten
The last quarter century has been marked by the ascension of neoliberalism--market deregulation, state decentralization, and reduced political intervention in national economies. Not coincidentally, this period of dramatic institutional change has also seen the emergence of several schools of institutional analysis. Though these schools cut across disciplines, they have remained isolated from and critical of each other. This volume brings together four--rational choice, organizational, historical, and discursive institutionalism--to examine the rise of neoliberalism. In doing so, it makes tremendous methodological strides while substantively enlarging our knowledge about neoliberalism.
The book comprises original empirical studies by top scholars from each school of analysis. They examine neoliberalism's rise on three continents and explore changes in macroeconomic policy, labor markets, taxation, banking, and health care. Neoliberalism appears as much more complex, diverse, and contested than is often appreciated. The authors find that there is no convergence toward a common set of neoliberal institutions; that neoliberalism does not incapacitate states; and that neoliberal reform does not necessarily yield greater efficiency than other institutional arrangements. Beyond these important empirical contributions, this book is a methodological milestone in that it compares different schools of institutionalist analysis by seeing how they tackle a common problem. It reveals a second movement within institutionalism--one toward rapprochement and cross-fertilization among paradigms--and explains how this might be furthered with benefits throughout the social sciences.
In addition to the editors, the contributors are Sarah L. Babb, Ellen M. Bradburn, Bruce G. Carruthers, Terence C. Halliday, Colin Hay, Edgar Kiser, Peter Kjaer, Jack Knight, Aaron Matthew Laing, David Strang, and Bruce Western.
List of Tables vii List of Figures ix Preface xi List of Contributors xiii Introduction 1. The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis by John L. Campbell and Ove K. Pedersen 1 PART I: RATIONAL CHOICE INSTITUTIONALISM 25 2. Explaining the Rise of Neoliberalism: The Mechanisms of Institutional Change by Jack Knight 27 3. Have We Overestimated the Effects of Neoliberalism and Globalization? Some Speculations on the Anomalous Stability of Taxes on Business by Edgar Kiser and Aaron Matthew Laing 51 PART II: HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM 69 4. Institutions, Investment, and the Rise in Unemployment by Bruce Western 71 5. Institutionalizing Markets, or the Market for Institutions? Central Banks, Bankruptcy Law, and the Globalization of Financial Markets by Bruce G. Carruthers, Sarah L. Babb, and Terence C. Halliday 94 PART III: ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM 127 6. Theorizing Legitimacy or Legitimating Theory? Neoliberal Discourse and HMO Policy, 1970-1989 by David Strang and Ellen M. Bradburn 129 7. Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy by John L. Campbell 159 PART IV: DISCURSIVE INSTITUTIONALISM 191 8. The "Crisis" of Keynesianism and the Rise of Neoliberalism in Britain: An Ideational Institutionalist Approach by Colin Hay 193 9. Translating Liberalization: Neoliberalism in the Danish Negotiated Economy by Peter Kjcer and Ove K. Pedersen 219 Conclusion 10. The Second Movement in Institutional Analysis by John L. Campbell and Ove K. Pedersen 249 Index 283
John L. Campbell is Professor and Chair of Sociology at Dartmouth, Adjunct Professor in the University of Copenhagen's Institute of Political Science, and author of Collapse of an Industry. Ove K. Pedersen is Professor of Comparative Politics in the University of Copenhagen's Institute of Political Science. The author of several books, he is coeditor, with John Campbell, of Legacies of Change.
This is an original book in two ways. First, it brings together scholars who really have different theoretical orientations. Second, it has them consider the same empirical object. It is likely to be well received by all of the institutionalist communities.