Introduction 1 Freedom's Just Another Word  2 The Construction of Consent 3 The Neoliberal State 4 Uneven Geographical Developments 5 Neoliberalism with 'Chinese Characteristics' 6 Neoliberalism on Trial 7 Freedom's Prospect Notes Bibliography Index

/pdf/a-brief-history-of-neoliberalism-1sbwc7l6am.pdf

A Brief History of Neoliberalism

A growing number of sociologists, political scientists, economists, and organizational theorists have invoked the concept of social capital in the search for answers to a broadening range of questions being confronted in their own fields. Seeking to clarify the concept and help assess its utility for organizational theory, we synthesize the theoretical research undertaken in these various disciplines and develop a common conceptual framework that identifies the sources, benefits, risks, and contingencies of social capital.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4134367.pdf

Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept

This article discusses: the doctrinal content of the group of ideas known as ‘new public management’(NPM); the intellectual provenance of those ideas; explanations for their apparent persuasiveness in the 1980 s; and criticisms which have been made of the new doctrines. Particular attention is paid to the claim that NPM offers an all-purpose key to better provision of public services. This article argues that NFM has been most commonly criticized in terms of a claimed contradiction between ‘equity’ and ‘efficiency’ values, but that any critique which is to survive NPM's claim to ‘infinite reprogrammability’ must be couched in terms of possible conflicts between administrative values. The conclusion is that the ESRC'S Management in Government’ research initiative has been more valuable in helping to identify rather than to definitively answer, the key conceptual questions raised by NPM.

A public management for all seasons

Varieties of capitalism : the institutional foundations ofcomparative advantage

Postmodernism has been particularly important in acknowledging 'the multiple forms of otherness as they emerge from differences in subjectivity, gender and sexuality, race and class, temporal and spatial geographic locations and dislocations'. Postmodernism also ought to be looked at as mimetic of the social, economic, and political practices in society. The meta-narratives that the postmodernists decry were much more open, nuanced, and sophisticated than the critics admit. The rhetoric of postmodernism is dangerous for it avoids confronting the realities of political economy and the circumstances of global power. The sharp categorical distinction between modernism and postmodernism disappears, to be replaced by an examination of the flux of internal relations within capitalism as a whole. The reproduction of the social and symbolic order through the exploration of difference and 'otherness' is all too evident in the climate of postmodernism.

The condition of postmodernity

Two MacArthur Prize Fellows argue that to get out of its current economic crisis industry should abandon its attachment to standardized mass production for a system of flexible specialization

The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity

This is a book unlikely to be read by historians. Or rather, they may read it, but in their capacity as citizens concerned as the book's subtitle puts it about "Possibilities for Prosperity." The Second Industrial Divide is indeed a work of contemporary analysis. Like other books this publishing season, it is intended to give us the lowdown about the economic crisis of the 1980s. But this one is also very much a work of history. The book is remarkable in general for its intellectual breadth, but in particular for its reliance on recent scholarship in American social and economic history. More than that, it is deeply historical in perspective and sensitive to the contingent, complex nature of industrial change. Historians are accustomed to draw on the social sciences. In this book, the terms of trade have shifted. Historical scholarship contributes crucially to the making of The Second Industrial Divide. What it offers in return are not the standard commodities of socialscience industry not conceptual and methodological tools that can be appropriated for the historian's use but lessons in the art of sweeping historical analysis and conclusions about the nature of industrial change worth pondering by historians. Michael Piore is a labor economist, well known for his work on labormarket segmentation and labor migration. Charles Sabel, the younger of the two, is the author of Work and Politics: The Division of Labor in Industry (1982), a highly original comparative analysis of shop-floor relations in modern industrial systems. Both are MacArthur Fellows and members of a notable assemblage of MIT social scientists working on industrial relations and technological change. Piore and Sabel can perhaps best be characterized as modern-day institutionalists and, like John R. Commons in his time, contemporary empirical analysis has led them to a serious engagement with history. The key concept of their book is that of "industrial divides" the moments at which choices are made that fix the future course of industrial develop-

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2702598.pdf

The Second Industrial Divide

The understandings of individuality and sociability characteristic of modern liberal and sociological social theory are fatalistic about the potential for the creation of trust in economic relations. These understandings are reconsidered in light of the recent evolution of state-level industrial policy in the United States, focusing on the experience of the state of Pennsylvania where the state's efforts have shown early success in breaking down barriers of mistrust that block economic adjustment in the state's traditional manufacturing industries. Arguing that the sort of cooperation-in-the-making that characterizes the Pennsylvania case is ill-captured by mainstream theory, the paper proffers a notion of studied or vigilant trust based on the core conclusions of 20th century analytic philosophy as a way of squaring theory and stylized facts. Government-instigated discussion among key economic actors has the potential to spur reformulations of collective identities and common histories, resulting in the ...

Studied Trust: Building New Forms of Cooperation in a Volatile Economy

This article argues that current widespread characterisations of EU governance as multi-level and networked overlook the emergent architecture of the EU's public rule making. In this architecture, framework goals (such as full employment, social inclusion, 'good water status', a unified energy grid) and measures for gauging their achievement are established by joint action of the Member States and EU institutions. Lower-level units (such as national ministries or regulatory authorities and the actors with whom they collaborate) are given the freedom to advance these ends as they see fit. But in return for this autonomy, they must report regularly on their performance and participate in a peer review in which their results are compared with those pursuing other means to the same general ends. Finally, the framework goals, performance measures, and decision-making procedures themselves are periodically revised by the actors, including new participants whose views come to be seen as indispensable to full and fair deliberation. Although this architecture cannot be read off from either Treaty provisions or textbook accounts of the formal competences of EU institutions, the article traces its emergence and diffusion across a wide range of policy domains, including telecommunications, energy, drug authorisation, occupational health and safety, employment promotion, social inclusion, pensions, health care, environmental protection, food safety, maritime safety, financial services, competition policy, state aid, anti-discrimination policy and fundamental rights.

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/sabel/papers/learning%20from%20difference%20ELJ%202008.pdf

Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU

In this Article, Professors Dorf and Sabel identify a new form of government, democratic experimentalism, in which power is decentralized to enable citizens and other actors to utilize their local knowledge to fit solutions to their individual circumstances, but in which regional and national coordinating bodies require actors to share their knowledge with others facing similar problems. This information pooling, informed by the example of novel kinds of coordination within and among private firms, both increases the efficiency of public administration by encouraging mutual learning among its parts and heightens its accountability through participation of citizens in the decisions that affect them.In democratic experimentalism, subnational units of government are broadly free to set goals and to choose the means to attain them. Regulatory agencies set and ensure compliance with national objectives by means of bestpractice performance standards based on information that regulated entities provide in return for the freedom to experiment with solutions they prefer. The authors argue that this type of self-government is currently emerging in settings as diverse as the regulation of nuclear power plants, community policing, procurement of sophisticated military hardware, environmental regulation, and child-protective services.The Article claims further that a shift towards democratic experimentalism holds out the promise of reducing the distance between, on the one hand, the Madisonian ideal of a limited government assured by a complex division of powers and, on the other hand, the governmental reality characteristic of the New Deal synthesis, in which an all-powerful Congress delegates much of its authority to expert agencies that are checked by the courts when they infringe individual rights, but are otherwise assumed to act in the public interest. Professors Dorf and Sabel argue that the combination of decentralization and mutual monitoring intrinsic to democratic experimentalism better protects the constitutional ideal than do doctrines offederalism and the separation of powers, so at odds with current circumstances, that courts recognize the futility of applying them consistently in practice by limiting themselves to fitful declarations of their validity in principle.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2221985_code1992470.pdf?abstractid=2221985&mirid=1

Charles F. Sabel

Papers

The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity

The Second Industrial Divide

Studied Trust: Building New Forms of Cooperation in a Volatile Economy

Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU

A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism