“管理不可能?”比较各国如何处理达伦多夫困境

H. Anheier, A. Filip
{"title":"“管理不可能?”比较各国如何处理达伦多夫困境","authors":"H. Anheier, A. Filip","doi":"10.1080/13876988.2021.1945418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper examines the policy approaches and measures that developed market economies countries have adopted to “manage” what has become known as the Dahrendorf Quandary, a profound challenge facing globalizing economies: over time, staying economically competitive requires either adopting measures detrimental to the cohesion of society or restricting civil liberties and political participation. Examining a range of countries over time, it is found that their policy choices and subsequent performance are too varied to support the inevitable, almost mechanical, incompatibility the Quandary implies. While balancing the relationship between economic globalization, social cohesion, and democracy continues to be a major challenge for developed market economies, results show they are not helpless in what Dahrendorf feared to be a Herculean task of “squaring the circle” among incompatible trends. In other words, while the tensions the Quandary posits apply, they nonetheless need not lead to similar or negative outcomes.","PeriodicalId":15486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Managing the Impossible?” Comparing How Countries Address the Dahrendorf Quandary\",\"authors\":\"H. Anheier, A. Filip\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13876988.2021.1945418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper examines the policy approaches and measures that developed market economies countries have adopted to “manage” what has become known as the Dahrendorf Quandary, a profound challenge facing globalizing economies: over time, staying economically competitive requires either adopting measures detrimental to the cohesion of society or restricting civil liberties and political participation. Examining a range of countries over time, it is found that their policy choices and subsequent performance are too varied to support the inevitable, almost mechanical, incompatibility the Quandary implies. While balancing the relationship between economic globalization, social cohesion, and democracy continues to be a major challenge for developed market economies, results show they are not helpless in what Dahrendorf feared to be a Herculean task of “squaring the circle” among incompatible trends. In other words, while the tensions the Quandary posits apply, they nonetheless need not lead to similar or negative outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2021.1945418\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2021.1945418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文考察了发达市场经济国家为“管理”所谓的达伦多夫困境所采取的政策方法和措施,达伦多夫困境是全球化经济体面临的一个深刻挑战:随着时间的推移,保持经济竞争力需要采取不利于社会凝聚力或限制公民自由和政治参与的措施。对一系列国家的长期考察发现,它们的政策选择和随后的表现差异太大,无法支持“困境”所暗示的不可避免的、几乎是机械的不相容。虽然平衡经济全球化、社会凝聚力和民主之间的关系仍然是发达市场经济体面临的主要挑战,但结果表明,它们并非无能为力,达伦多夫担心这是一项艰巨的任务,即在不相容的趋势之间“解决问题”。换句话说,尽管“窘境”假设的紧张局势适用,但它们不一定会导致类似的或负面的结果。
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
“Managing the Impossible?” Comparing How Countries Address the Dahrendorf Quandary
Abstract This paper examines the policy approaches and measures that developed market economies countries have adopted to “manage” what has become known as the Dahrendorf Quandary, a profound challenge facing globalizing economies: over time, staying economically competitive requires either adopting measures detrimental to the cohesion of society or restricting civil liberties and political participation. Examining a range of countries over time, it is found that their policy choices and subsequent performance are too varied to support the inevitable, almost mechanical, incompatibility the Quandary implies. While balancing the relationship between economic globalization, social cohesion, and democracy continues to be a major challenge for developed market economies, results show they are not helpless in what Dahrendorf feared to be a Herculean task of “squaring the circle” among incompatible trends. In other words, while the tensions the Quandary posits apply, they nonetheless need not lead to similar or negative outcomes.
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
Lending Overlap in Europe’s Financial Architecture: A Comparative Analysis Comparing Policy Feedback Effects in Federal Systems: The Case of Provincial Indigenous Consultation Policies in Canada Tackling the Digital Divide? A Comparative Policy Analysis of International Organizations’ Varying Approaches to the Digitalization of Education Qualitative Comparative Policy Studies: An Introduction from the Special Section Editors An Indicator-Based Approach to Comparative Policy Analysis: Measuring Regional Governance of Migrant Integration
×
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