Explore the vast range of titles available.

Against the current consensus among comparative political economists, we argue that inequality matters for redistributive politics in advanced capitalist societies, but it is the structure of inequality, not the level of inequality, that matters. Our theory posits that middle-income voters will be inclined to ally with low-income voters and support redistributive policies when the distance between the middle and the poor is small relative to the distance between the middle and the rich. We test this proposition with data from 15 to 18 advanced democracies and find that both redistribution and nonelderly social spending increase as the dispersion of earnings in the upper half of the distribution increases relative to the dispersion of earnings in the lower half of the distribution. In addition, we present survey evidence on preferences for redistribution among middle-income voters that is consistent with our theory and regression results indicating that left parties are more likely to participate in government when the structure of inequality is characterized by skew.

The paper argues that contemporary capitalism must be studied as a society rather than an economy, and contemporary society as capitalist society. Capitalism is defined as a specific institutionalization of economic action in the form of a specifically dynamic system of social action, with a tendency to expand into, impose itself on and consume its non-economic and non-capitalist social and institutional context, unless contained by political resistance and regulation. The paper illustrates its perspective by four brief sketches, depicting contemporary capitalism as a historically dynamic social order, a culture, a polity, and a way of life. All four examples, it is claimed, demonstrate the superiority of a longitudinal-historical approach over static cross-sectional comparisons, and of focusing on the commonalities of national versions of capitalisms rather than their \"varieties\". L'argument est que le capitalisme contemporain relève d'une étude de société, non d'économie que la société contemporaine est une société capitaliste. Le capitalisme se définit comme une institutionnalisation spécifique de l'action économique qui prend la forme d'un système dynamique particulier de l'action sociale qui envahit et absorbe son environnement social non économique et non capitaliste aussi longtemps qu'il ne se heurte pas à une résistance politique imposant régulation. La position défendue s'appuie sur quatre courtes séquences qui décrivent le capitalisme contemporain comme ordre social en mouvement, comme culture, comme système politique et comme mode de vie. Ces quatre séquences sont censées montrer qu'une approche historique longitudinale est supérieure aux comparaisons ponctuelles et qu'il est plus profitable de se focaliser sur les traits communs entre formes nationales de capitalisme que sur leurs différences. Die Hauptthese des Aufsatzes ist, dass der Kapitalismus der Gegenwart als Gesellschaft und nicht bloß als Wirtschaft analysiert werden muss, und die Gesellschaft der Gegenwart als kapitalistische Gesellschaft. Kapitalismus wird als eine spezifische Institutionalisierung wirtschaftlichen Handelns in Form eines spezifisch dynamischen Systems sozialen Handelns definiert, das dazu tendiert, in seinen nichtwirtschaftlichen und nicht-kapitalistischen gesellschaftlichen Kontext zu expandieren, ihn sich unterzuordnen und ihn zu konsumieren, sofern es nicht durch politische Regulierung daran gehindert wird. Die vorgeschlagene Perspektive wird in vier kurzen Skizzen illustriert, in denen der gegenwärtige Kapitalismus als dynamische soziale Ordnung, als Kultur, als politisches System und als Lebensform behandelt wird. Aile vier Skizzen zeigen, so die These, die Überlegenheit einer historischen Längsschnittperspektive über einen statischen Vergleich und einer Betonung der Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen verschiedenen nationalen Kapitalismusformen anstelle ihrer Unterschiede.

Philanthrocapitalism is promoted as a form of development funding that infuses philanthropy with the dynamism and innovation of capitalist enterprise. Millennium Promise is a philanthrocapitalist organisation based in New York, which finances the Millennium Villages Project (mvp) across 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At the level of its discursive articulation Millennium Promise appears as a Foucauldian 'anti-politics machine': a mechanism of transnational governmentality devoted to the biopolitical production of entrepreneurial subjects organised in self-disciplining communities. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory and field research conducted in Uganda, I argue that philanthrocapitalism is better understood as an ideological formation, which mobilises a disavowed enjoyment of global inequality. In the case of Millennium Promise this enjoyment is structured by specific social fantasies: cause-related marketing campaigns invite Western consumers to enjoy their imagined distance from 'African' suffering; the mvp functions as a narcissistic mirror, which offers a reflection of capitalist society cleansed of its class antagonism; and, through the staging of messianic rituals, the mvp mobilises a shared enjoyment of pseudo-colonial relations of domination. I conclude that philanthrocapitalism is not an anti-politics machine but a fantasy machine, which demonstrates the limitations of Foucauldian critique, and forces us to confront our own relations to enjoyment.

This study aimed to examine the depression risk factors for knowledge workers aged 20–64 in the post-capitalist society of Taiwan. Interview data from 2014 and 2019 were adopted for quantitative analysis of the depression risk by demographic and individual characteristics. The results showed that the depression risks of knowledge workers were not affected by demographic variables in a single period. From 2014 to 2019, the prevalence of high depression risk in knowledge workers aged 20–64 years increased over time. The more attention is paid to gender equality in society, the less the change in the gender depression index gap may be seen. Positive psychological state and family relationships are both depression risk factors and depression protective factors. Being male, married, religious, and aged 45–49 years old were found to be critical risk factors. Variables of individual characteristics could effectively predict depression risk.

An enduring criticism of public choice theory is that it does not adequately address the question of power in contemporary capitalist societies. In particular it is argued that the exchange paradigm and the principle of unanimity lead to a conservative defence of the unequal and unjust status quo of such societies. These criticisms are often presented as unanswered and unanswerable. Indeed, public choice scholars have tended to pursue their own research agendas rather than engage such criticisms. This article seeks to make good this lacuna by providing a defence of the public choice account of power. It is shown that within the public choice approach the exchange paradigm and the unanimity principle serve as idealized models against which to judge real world institutional arrangements. As such, these models serve as a basis for critique of contemporary capitalist societies in which all individuals may be subject to predation as a matter of routine. It is shown that the public choice account of power addresses the legitimization and limitation of power, whereas the critics of public choice in effect propose to allocate power to those deemed deserving. Hence, the public choice approach provides a basis for a genuinely consensual politics and exposes the fact that alternative conceptions of politics are fundamentally non-consensual. On this basis it is concluded that the public choice account of power in contemporary capitalist societies is superior to that offered by its critics.

The planetary boundaries concept has profoundly changed the vocabulary and representation of global environmental issues. We bring a critical social science perspective to this framework through the notion of societal boundaries and aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of the social nature of thresholds. We start by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of planetary boundaries from a social science perspective. We then focus on capitalist societies as a heuristic for discussing the expansionary dynamics, power relations, and lock-ins of modern societies that impel highly unsustainable societal relations with nature. While formulating societal boundaries implies a controversial process ‒ based on normative judgments, ethical concerns, and socio-political struggles ‒ it has the potential to offer guidelines for a just, social-ecological transformation. Collective autonomy and the politics of self-limitation are key elements of societal boundaries and are linked to important proposals and pluriverse experiences to integrate well-being and boundaries. The role of the state and propositions for radical alternative approaches to well-being have particular importance. We conclude with reflections on social freedom, defined as the right not to live at others' expense. Toward the aim of defining boundaries through transdisciplinary and democratic processes, we seek to open a dialogue on these issues.

A series of studies have suggested that changes in others' income may be perceived differently in post-transition and capitalist societies. This paper draws on the German Socio-economic Panel Study (SOEP) matched with micro-marketing indicators of population characteristics in very tightly drawn neighbourhoods to investigate whether reactions to changes in their neighbours' income divide the German nation. We find that the neighbourhood income effect for West Germany is negative (which is in line with the 'relative income' hypothesis) and slightly more marked in neighbourhoods that may be assumed to be places where social interactions between neighbours take place. In contrast, the coefficients on neighbourhood income in East Germany are positive (which is consistent with the 'signalling' hypothesis), but statistically not significant. This suggests not only that there is a divide between East and West Germany, but also that neighbours may not be a relevant comparison group in societies that have comparatively low levels of neighbouring.

This paper draws a distinction between 'right Maclntyreans' who are relatively optimistic that Maclntyre's vision of ethics can be realised in capitalist society, and 'left MacIntyreans' who are sceptical about this possibility, and aims to show that the 'left MacIntyrean' position is a promising perspective available to business ethicists. It does so by arguing for a distinction between 'community-focused' practices and 'excellence-focused' practices. The latter concept fulfils the promise of practices to provide us with an understanding of the best work for humankind and highlights the affinities between MacIntyre's concept of a practice and Marx's conception of good work as free, creative activity. The paper concludes with a suggestion that we reflect on the best forms of work so that we can strive to ensure the very best activities, those most consonant with our flourishing, one day become available to all.

Patrimonialism, until fairly recently, seemed an archaic social form, largely replaced by bureaucratic rationalism. That confident view of modernity, in the histories that Max Weber and his followers wrote, deserves to be challenged as patrimonial regimes reappear in states and firms throughout the world. This article is my attempt to mount that challenge. I first revisit Weber's conception of patrimonialism and discuss how gendered and elitist studies of early modern. Europe require a reevaluation of patrimonialism's dynamics and resilience. I then present an overview of evidence for the return of patrimonialism and of ideological justifications for its legitimacy, focusing on the US. Since Weber and his successors all see patrimonialism and bureaucracy as incompatible, it is necessary to develop a theory of how the dynamics of elite conflict within bureaucratic, capitalist societies can generate patrimonialism. I do so in the penultimate section of this article, and I then explore the implications of that theory for predicting the future course of patrimonialism in the 21st century. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Is financialization contributing to the slow decline of union density that is occurring across most advanced capitalist countries? Combining insights from literatures on financialization, corporate governance, and comparative political economy, we argue that the growing dominance of finance within advanced capitalism weakens unions through several channels, and plays an important but underappreciated role in the deunionization of national workforces. Using data from 18 advanced capitalist countries over several decades, this assertion is tested against the literature’s existing explanations for declining union density. Results from panel regression models suggest that financialization is an important cause of union decline, but that its particular effects vary between different types of advanced capitalism. The study concludes by arguing that financialization creates new interconnections between firms and finance capital, resulting in business practices that ultimately put downward pressure on union densities across advanced capitalist countries.