B. Jessop
{"title":"Offes paradox in the light of neoliberalism and its paradoxes: Schumpeterian workfare and Ricardian austerity","authors":"B. Jessop","doi":"10.4337/9781788976589.00014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The chapter revises the author’s earlier work on the restructuring and strategic reorientation of welfare regimes in advanced capitalist social formations in the post-war period. It does so in five ways. First, it grounds the analysis in the contradictions of the capital relation, some of which can be displaced and deferred within given spatio-temporal horizons but nonetheless provide generic mechanisms that recurrently destabilize capital accumulation and social reproduction and generate crises. Second, it considers two exit routes from Atlantic Fordism in the heartlands of capitalism and suggests two forms of welfare regime compatible with these routes. These are the knowledge-based economy and finance-led accumulation, each of which has a corresponding ideal-typical welfare regime. Third, it suggests that, whereas the form of welfare regime associated with the knowledge-based economy may pursue conjunctural austerity policies and even a contingent politics of intermittent austerity, finance-led accumulation is associated with the emergence of an enduring austerity state. Fourth, it addresses the crisis-tendencies of financialized neoliberalism and its capacities for renewal in response to the North Atlantic and Eurozone financial crises and related crisis forms. Fifth, it considers this analysis in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for austerity. © Pauli Kettunen, Saara Pellander and Miika Tervonen 2022.","PeriodicalId":364700,"journal":{"name":"Nationalism and Democracy in the Welfare State","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nationalism and Democracy in the Welfare State","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788976589.00014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
新自由主义及其悖论:熊彼特的劳动福利和李嘉图的紧缩
本章修订了作者早期关于战后先进资本主义社会形态中福利制度的重组和战略重新定位的工作。它通过五种方式做到了这一点。首先,它以资本关系的矛盾为基础进行分析,其中一些矛盾可以在给定的时空范围内被取代和推迟,但仍然提供了反复破坏资本积累和社会再生产稳定并产生危机的一般机制。其次,它考虑了大西洋福特主义在资本主义中心地带的两条退出路线,并提出了与这些路线相容的两种形式的福利制度。它们是知识经济和金融主导的积累,每一种都有相应的理想-典型的福利制度。第三,它表明,与知识经济相关的福利制度形式可能会追求偶然性的紧缩政策,甚至是间歇性紧缩的偶然性政治,而金融主导的积累与持久紧缩状态的出现有关。第四,探讨金融化新自由主义的危机倾向及其应对北大西洋和欧元区金融危机及相关危机形式的更新能力。第五,根据2019冠状病毒病大流行及其对紧缩政策的影响来考虑这一分析。©Pauli Kettunen, Saara Pellander和Miika Tervonen 2022。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。