赢者通吃的欧洲政治?德国和瑞典不平等加剧的政治经济学

K. Anderson, Anke Hassel
{"title":"赢者通吃的欧洲政治?德国和瑞典不平等加剧的政治经济学","authors":"K. Anderson, Anke Hassel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2610653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Is there a \"winner-take-all\" politics in the affluent democracies of Northern Europe? We explore this question through a comparison of two cases of \"regulated capitalism,\" Sweden and Germany, asking whether these institutions continue to produce equitable outcomes in the face of globalization and financial crisis. Both countries have experienced significant increases in income inequality since 1990, and their labor markets have begun to display signs of dualism, demonstrating the weakened capacity of regulated capitalism to secure equality. Despite these broad similarities, inequality and labor market dualism have increased more in Germany than in Sweden. We argue that the shift to the right, even among social democratic parties, is an important cause of increased inequality in both countries. Our analysis also emphasizes the political effects of decades of welfare state building in both countries: the popularity of the welfare state and other institutions of regulated capitalism among the electorate constrain the ability of governments to pursue a radical liberalization agenda. We attribute Sweden’s superior performance relative to Germany in protecting low income groups to the interaction of industrial relations institutions and the electoral system. Swedish corporatism has retained much of its encompassingness compared to Germany, and proportional representation in Sweden creates incentives for the Center-Left to include the interests of low-income groups in their electoral and governing strategies. In contrast, German industrial relations are increasingly marked by segmentalism, and the electoral system generates few incentives for the Center-Left to include low income groups in their electoral coalition.","PeriodicalId":132360,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Political Economy: National","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Winner-Take-All Politics in Europe? The Political Economy of Rising Inequality in Germany and Sweden\",\"authors\":\"K. Anderson, Anke Hassel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2610653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Is there a \\\"winner-take-all\\\" politics in the affluent democracies of Northern Europe? We explore this question through a comparison of two cases of \\\"regulated capitalism,\\\" Sweden and Germany, asking whether these institutions continue to produce equitable outcomes in the face of globalization and financial crisis. Both countries have experienced significant increases in income inequality since 1990, and their labor markets have begun to display signs of dualism, demonstrating the weakened capacity of regulated capitalism to secure equality. Despite these broad similarities, inequality and labor market dualism have increased more in Germany than in Sweden. We argue that the shift to the right, even among social democratic parties, is an important cause of increased inequality in both countries. Our analysis also emphasizes the political effects of decades of welfare state building in both countries: the popularity of the welfare state and other institutions of regulated capitalism among the electorate constrain the ability of governments to pursue a radical liberalization agenda. We attribute Sweden’s superior performance relative to Germany in protecting low income groups to the interaction of industrial relations institutions and the electoral system. Swedish corporatism has retained much of its encompassingness compared to Germany, and proportional representation in Sweden creates incentives for the Center-Left to include the interests of low-income groups in their electoral and governing strategies. In contrast, German industrial relations are increasingly marked by segmentalism, and the electoral system generates few incentives for the Center-Left to include low income groups in their electoral coalition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":132360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Other Political Economy: National\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Other Political Economy: National\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2610653\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Other Political Economy: National","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2610653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

北欧富裕的民主国家是否存在“赢者通吃”的政治?我们通过比较瑞典和德国这两个“受监管资本主义”的案例来探讨这个问题,询问这些机构在面对全球化和金融危机时是否继续产生公平的结果。自1990年以来,两国都经历了收入不平等的显著加剧,两国的劳动力市场开始显示出二元论的迹象,表明受监管的资本主义保障平等的能力减弱。尽管有这些广泛的相似之处,不平等和劳动力市场二元论在德国比在瑞典更严重。我们认为,右倾(甚至在社会民主党派中)是两国不平等加剧的重要原因。我们的分析还强调了两国几十年来福利国家建设的政治影响:福利国家和其他监管资本主义制度在选民中的普及限制了政府追求激进自由化议程的能力。我们将瑞典在保护低收入群体方面优于德国的表现归因于劳资关系机构和选举制度的相互作用。与德国相比,瑞典的社团主义保留了很大程度上的包容性,瑞典的比例代表制激励了中左翼在选举和执政战略中纳入低收入群体的利益。相比之下,德国的劳资关系越来越多地以分裂主义为特征,而选举制度几乎没有激励中左翼将低收入群体纳入其选举联盟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Winner-Take-All Politics in Europe? The Political Economy of Rising Inequality in Germany and Sweden
Is there a "winner-take-all" politics in the affluent democracies of Northern Europe? We explore this question through a comparison of two cases of "regulated capitalism," Sweden and Germany, asking whether these institutions continue to produce equitable outcomes in the face of globalization and financial crisis. Both countries have experienced significant increases in income inequality since 1990, and their labor markets have begun to display signs of dualism, demonstrating the weakened capacity of regulated capitalism to secure equality. Despite these broad similarities, inequality and labor market dualism have increased more in Germany than in Sweden. We argue that the shift to the right, even among social democratic parties, is an important cause of increased inequality in both countries. Our analysis also emphasizes the political effects of decades of welfare state building in both countries: the popularity of the welfare state and other institutions of regulated capitalism among the electorate constrain the ability of governments to pursue a radical liberalization agenda. We attribute Sweden’s superior performance relative to Germany in protecting low income groups to the interaction of industrial relations institutions and the electoral system. Swedish corporatism has retained much of its encompassingness compared to Germany, and proportional representation in Sweden creates incentives for the Center-Left to include the interests of low-income groups in their electoral and governing strategies. In contrast, German industrial relations are increasingly marked by segmentalism, and the electoral system generates few incentives for the Center-Left to include low income groups in their electoral coalition.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does the Stick Make the Carrot More Attractive? State Mandates and Uptake of Renewable Heating Technologies Strategic Inefficient Decentralization: Local and Regional Devolution as Substitutes The COVID-19 Pandemic and Small Business in Illinois: A Preliminary Comparison of Neighboring States The Blemish of Voter Apathy in Sustaining Democratic Governance in Nigeria: The Role of Political Parties How Local Leadership Rotation Breaks State-Business Ties in China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1