反思美国工业政策辩论:一个失败理念的政治意义

IF 0.4 4区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Policy History Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1017/s0898030623000362
TOM WRAIGHT
{"title":"反思美国工业政策辩论:一个失败理念的政治意义","authors":"TOM WRAIGHT","doi":"10.1017/s0898030623000362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the early 1980s “industrial policy” seemed to be emerging as the American left’s answer to supply-side economics. Yet soon after, supply-side economics was triumphant and industrial policy back in the political wilderness. This article investigates why the American left rejected industrial policy in the 1980s but appears to be reembracing it under the Biden administration. Via reviewing the history of the industrial policy debate, I argue that the American left rejected industrial policy proposals for several reasons including disunity within the Democratic party coalition, the growing strength of the venture capital industry, and the perceived incompatibility of industrial policy with American political institutions. Despite the defeat of industrial policy movement in the 1980s, however, I argue that a process of adaptation and reworking during the Clinton administration allowed industrial policy ideas to survive in “hibernation,” ultimately reemerging in the changed policy environment which followed the 2008 financial crisis.","PeriodicalId":44803,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking the American Industrial Policy Debate: The Political Significance of a Losing Idea\",\"authors\":\"TOM WRAIGHT\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0898030623000362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the early 1980s “industrial policy” seemed to be emerging as the American left’s answer to supply-side economics. Yet soon after, supply-side economics was triumphant and industrial policy back in the political wilderness. This article investigates why the American left rejected industrial policy in the 1980s but appears to be reembracing it under the Biden administration. Via reviewing the history of the industrial policy debate, I argue that the American left rejected industrial policy proposals for several reasons including disunity within the Democratic party coalition, the growing strength of the venture capital industry, and the perceived incompatibility of industrial policy with American political institutions. Despite the defeat of industrial policy movement in the 1980s, however, I argue that a process of adaptation and reworking during the Clinton administration allowed industrial policy ideas to survive in “hibernation,” ultimately reemerging in the changed policy environment which followed the 2008 financial crisis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44803,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Policy History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Policy History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898030623000362\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898030623000362","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

20 世纪 80 年代初,"产业政策 "似乎成为美国左翼对供给侧经济学的回应。然而不久之后,供给侧经济学大获全胜,产业政策又回到了政治荒野。本文探讨了为什么美国左翼在 20 世纪 80 年代摒弃了产业政策,但在拜登政府的领导下似乎又重新拥抱了它。通过回顾产业政策辩论的历史,我认为美国左翼拒绝产业政策建议有几个原因,包括民主党联盟内部不团结、风险投资行业日益壮大以及认为产业政策与美国政治体制不相容。尽管产业政策运动在 20 世纪 80 年代遭到失败,但我认为,克林顿政府期间的调整和再创作过程使产业政策理念得以 "冬眠",最终在 2008 年金融危机后政策环境发生变化时重新出现。
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
Rethinking the American Industrial Policy Debate: The Political Significance of a Losing Idea
In the early 1980s “industrial policy” seemed to be emerging as the American left’s answer to supply-side economics. Yet soon after, supply-side economics was triumphant and industrial policy back in the political wilderness. This article investigates why the American left rejected industrial policy in the 1980s but appears to be reembracing it under the Biden administration. Via reviewing the history of the industrial policy debate, I argue that the American left rejected industrial policy proposals for several reasons including disunity within the Democratic party coalition, the growing strength of the venture capital industry, and the perceived incompatibility of industrial policy with American political institutions. Despite the defeat of industrial policy movement in the 1980s, however, I argue that a process of adaptation and reworking during the Clinton administration allowed industrial policy ideas to survive in “hibernation,” ultimately reemerging in the changed policy environment which followed the 2008 financial crisis.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
A New Deal for Wine The Most Iniquitous Lobby: The Committee for Constitutional Government and the Shaping of American Politics, 1937–1955 “Granting” Justice, Debating Delinquency: The Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act and the UNC Training Center on Delinquency and Youth Crime, 1961–1967 Identity Politics within Kentucky’s Civil Service and the Growth of the Bureaucratic State Mobilizing for the Mind: Veteran Activism and the National Mental Health Act of 1946
×
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