List of Boxes. List of Tables and Figure. Preface. Abbreviations. Introduction. 1. Capitalism and the Capitalist Type of State. 2. The Keynesian Welfare National State. 3. The Schumpeterian Competition State. 4. Social Reproduction and the Workfare State. 5. The Political Economy of State Rescaling. 6. From Mixed Economy to Metagovernance. 7. Towards Schumpeterian Workfare Postnational Regimes?. Notes. References. Index.

The Future of the Capitalist State.

His ethical framework needs more fine-tuning for at least two reasons. First, this ethical framework seems to be disconnected from the issues discussed in the book. Instead of showing how the ethical framework can guide us to better cope with issues such as authenticity, privacy, surveillance, and digital divide, the author indulges in a rather abstract philosophical discussion for its own sake in the final chapter. And second, although the pleasure of mapping cannot be denied, it is a stretch to elevate ‘‘pleasure’’ to be a guiding ethical principle directing our mapping practices in the real world. In weaving his argument about the pleasure principle applied to mapping, Crampton draws heavily on McWhorter’s (1999) work on societal pressure for sexual normalization. The political parallel between mapping versus sexual practices is tenuous at best, or may not even exist. If our future mapping effort is indeed guided by the pleasure principle, those with power and privilege may well indulge themselves to meet their own idiosyncratic psychological needs for the sake of pleasures, which will result in the perpetuation of inequity and divide what the framework aims to eradicate. Therefore, the proposed ethical framework has perhaps created a new set of problematics (if I can borrow from the Foucauldian vocabulary). However, we are reminded by Crampton that ‘‘as long as cyberspace is a problem, we will always have something to do’’ (p. 15), which is indeed a comforting thought for all of us in academia.

New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood

This article analyzes the rise and diffusion of the new order of regulatory capitalism. It offers an analytical and historical analysis of relations between capitalism and regulation and suggests that change in the governance of capitalist economy is best captured by reference to (1) a new division of labor between state and society (e.g., privatization), (2) an increase in delegation, (3) proliferation of new technologies of regulation, (4) formalization of interinstitutional and intrainstitutional arrangements of regulation, and (5) growth in the influence of experts in general, and of international networks of experts in particular. Regulation, though not necessarily directly by the state, seems to be on the increase despite efforts to redraw the boundaries between state and society.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/25046077.pdf

The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Capitalism

The Future of the Capitalist State

This paper argues that the alleged process of globalisation should be recast as a process of ‘glocalisation’. ‘Glocalisation’ refers to the twin process whereby, firstly, institutional/regulatory arrangements shift from the national scale both upwards to supra‐national or global scales and downwards to the scale of the individual body or to local, urban or regional configurations and, secondly, economic activities and inter‐firm networks are becoming simultaneously more localised/regionalised and transnational. In particular, attention will be paid to the political and economic dynamics of this geographical rescaling and its implications. The scales of economic networks and institutional arrangements are recast in ways that alter social power geometries in important ways. This contribution, therefore, argues, first, that an important discursive shift took place over the last decade or so which is an integral part of an intensifying ideological, political, socioeconomic and cultural struggle over the organ...

Globalisation or Glocalisation? Networks, Territories and Rescaling

Karl Polanyi's Political and Economic Thought: A Critical Guide

The present article discusses a fundamental argument of a series of regulation approaches. Although regulation approaches are heterogeneous, both in their premises and in their analytical instruments, this relatively common argument describes a shift at the level of the economy, the state and the organization of work: from Fordism to post-Fordism and from Keynesianism to neoliberalism. Despite the influence of this argument in economic and social theory and despite its contribution to recent debates about neoliberalization and the crisis of the welfare state, this transition also sets some methodological limitations presented in this article.

/pdf/the-ideal-typical-transition-from-fordism-to-post-fordism-a-4alyvm38qm.pdf

The ideal-typical transition from fordism to post-fordism : a neopositivist problem setting

The chapter discusses the influence on political participation of a number of processes reflecting the shift from the Keynesian welfare nation-state to the neoliberal regime of globalization: the shrinking of welfare provisions over the last decades, the managerialization of administration and social policy, the internationalization of decision making processes, and the localization and informalization of policy making.

The Post-Welfare State and Changing Forms of Political Participation

The paper compares the League of Nations’ program of “Financial Reconstruction of Austria” (1922) and the austerity program for Greece since 2010 (“Memorandum of Understanding”) by drawing on Polanyi’s analysis on interwar Austria. Sect. 1 and 2 look at the similarities between the two economic programs. Similarities are found in the policies implemented (austerity, liberalization, public sector shrinking), the outcomes (economic deterioration, unemployment, weakening of social services) and the political methods (foreign interventions combined with law and order politics internally). Sect. 3 discusses the differences in the two cases. While Austria had stepped out of the Habsburg Empire’s common currency zone in the period concerned, Greece still remains into the Eurozone. In the case of the Greek bailout program, there was no urgent geopolitical expediency, as in the case of the League of Nations’ intervention (to prevent an Anschluss with Germany). Despite these differences and the fact that economic interdependence is deeper today, what makes the two cases comparable, is the “authoritarian interventionism” of the liberal actors involved. It is argued that Polanyi’s concept of “authoritarian interventionism” and his related analysis on fascism have a particularly “Austrian” background (i. e. one relating to the Austrian program), but they are also crucial for the analysis of the Greek austerity politics and the crisis management in the Eurozone.

Maria Markantonatou

Papers

The Future of the Capitalist State

Karl Polanyi's Political and Economic Thought: A Critical Guide

The ideal-typical transition from fordism to post-fordism : a neopositivist problem setting

The Post-Welfare State and Changing Forms of Political Participation

"Conservative 1920s" and Conservative 2010s? Austerity Politics in Interwar Austria and Present-day Greece