Kirjahaku

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. What configuration of institutions and policies is most conducive to human flourishing? The historical and comparative evidence suggests that the answer is social democratic capitalism - a democratic political system, a capitalist economy, good elementary and secondary schooling, a big welfare state, pro-employment public services, and moderate regulation of product and labor markets. In Social Democratic Capitalism, Lane Kenworthy shows that this system improves living standards for the least well-off, enhances economic security, and boosts equality of opportunity. And it does so without sacrificing other things we want in a good society, from liberty to economic growth to health and happiness. Its chief practitioners have been the Nordic nations. The Nordics have gone farther than other rich democratic countries in coupling a big welfare state with public services that promote high employment and modest product- and labor-market regulations. Many believe this system isn't transferable beyond Scandinavia, but Kenworthy shows that social democratic capitalism and its successes can be replicated in other affluent nations, including the United States. Today, the U.S. lags behind other countries in economic security, opportunity, and shared prosperity. If the U.S. were to expand its existing social programs and add some additional ones, many ordinary Americans would have better lives. Kenworthy argues that, despite formidable political obstacles, the U.S. is likely to move toward social democratic capitalism in coming decades. As a country gets richer, he explains, it becomes more willing to spend more in order to safeguard against risk and enhance fairness. With social democratic capitalism as his blueprint, he lays out a detailed policy agenda that could alleviate many of America's problems.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. America is the one of the wealthiest nations on earth. So why do so many Americans struggle to make ends meet? Why is it so difficult for those who start at the bottom to reach the middle class? And why, if a rising economic tide lifts all boats, have middle-class incomes been growing so slowly? Social Democratic America explains how this has happened and how we can do better. Lane Kenworthy convincingly argues that we can improve economic security, expand opportunity, and ensure rising living standards for all by moving toward social democracy. Drawing on his extensive knowledge of social policy in America and other affluent countries, he proposes a set of public social programs, including universal early education, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, wage insurance, the government as employer of last resort, and many others. Kenworthy looks at common objections to social democracy, such as the oft-repeated claim that Americans don't want big government, which he readily debunks. Indeed, we already have in place a host of effective and popular social programs, from Social Security to Medicare to public schooling. Moreover, the available evidence suggests that rich nations can generate the tax revenues needed to pay for generous social programs while maintaining an innovative and growing economy, and without restricting liberty. Can it happen? Kenworthy describes how the US has been progressing slowly but steadily toward a genuine social democracy for nearly a century. Controversial and powerful, Social Democratic America shows that the good society doesn't require a radical break from our past; we just need to continue in the direction we are already heading.

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. Interest in democratic socialism is on the rise, but this wide-ranging comparison of two systems shows that the Nordic model of capitalism achieves virtually everything that contemporary democratic socialists say we should want. Socialism is back in the conversation, and recent polls suggest the share of young Americans who have a favorable impression of socialism is about the same as the share that have a favorable view of capitalism. The case for a modern democratic socialism is that capitalism is bad, or at least not very good, and that socialism would be an improvement. To fully and fairly assess democratic socialism's desirability, Lane Kenworthy argues in Would Democratic Socialism Be Better?, we need to compare it to the best version of capitalism that humans have devised: social democratic capitalism. Kenworthy offers a close look at the evidence about how capitalist economies have performed on an array of outcomes. He finds that social democratic capitalism achieves virtually everything that contemporary democratic socialists say we should want.

A data-rich analysis that will reshape our understanding of how rising income inequality has actually affected societies in the industrialized world. Increasing economic inequality is now one of the most studied subjects in the social sciences. The general view is that while its increase represents a bad social outcome in and of itself, its negative impact extends into numerous other realms of social life: declines in living standards for those in the lower deciles of the income ladder, worse health outcomes, reductions in happiness, and less opportunity for most. In Is Inequality the Problem?, Lane Kenworthy draws from a vast trove of research on the rich democracies to argue that while inequality is normatively a problem and we should therefore work to reduce it, the evidence from wealthier countries does not show that income inequality has contributed much at all to the other social ills it is associated with, like poor health outcomes. The effects vary from society to society, but typically the key contributors to negative trends like this one are factors other than inequality. Instead of trying to improve living standards, democracy, opportunity, health, and happiness indirectly via reduction in income inequality or wealth inequality, policy makers are more likely to make progress by pursuing these goals directly. This contrarian yet balanced account of one of the main social problems of our era will reshape our understanding of how rising economic inequality has affected societies in the industrialized world.

A data-rich analysis that will reshape our understanding of how rising income inequality has actually affected societies in the industrialized world. Increasing economic inequality is now one of the most studied subjects in the social sciences. The general view is that while its increase represents a bad social outcome in and of itself, its negative impact extends into numerous other realms of social life: declines in living standards for those in the lower deciles of the income ladder, worse health outcomes, reductions in happiness, and less opportunity for most. In Is Inequality the Problem?, Lane Kenworthy draws from a vast trove of research on the rich democracies to argue that while inequality is normatively a problem and we should therefore work to reduce it, the evidence from wealthier countries does not show that income inequality has contributed much at all to the other social ills it is associated with, like poor health outcomes. The effects vary from society to society, but typically the key contributors to negative trends like this one are factors other than inequality. Instead of trying to improve living standards, democracy, opportunity, health, and happiness indirectly via reduction in income inequality or wealth inequality, policy makers are more likely to make progress by pursuing these goals directly. This contrarian yet balanced account of one of the main social problems of our era will reshape our understanding of how rising economic inequality has affected societies in the industrialized world.

For decades, scholars and commentators have differentiated the US from Europe by pointing to the relative weakness of the American social welfare state. European social democracies--particularly the Nordic ones--have erected broad and deep social insurance systems to buffer the effects of the capitalist marketplace, and as consequence virtually all citizens have access to housing, health care, and transfer payments that alleviate the effects of unemployment/underemployment. In combination, these policies have made Northern European societies among the most comfortable and egalitarian in human history. In contrast, conventional wisdom holds that America's patchwork welfare state, which only grudgingly redistributes income to the least wealthy, is miserly in comparison, more wedded to free market individualism than social solidarity. In Social Democratic America, the eminent scholar Lane Kenworthy has crafted the most definitive rejoinder yet to champions of American exceptionalism. He shows that in fact, the US is well along the path toward becoming a social democratic society. Certainly, it has moved in fits and starts, and our nation's peculiar federal structure has generated a number of cumbersome solutions for delivering social insurance. But over time it has delivered, and for every step backward, policymakers have crafted and passed policies that have moved the nation two steps forward toward social democracy. Built in bits and pieces, the modern US welfare state, while still less encompassing than European counterparts, is not only massive but expanding its reach. The evidence, which has accumulated over three quarters of a century, is now overwhelming: Social Security, national unemployment insurance, AFDC (later replaced by TANF), Medicare and Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and--most recently--the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). What's more, almost every conservative effort to undo these programs has failed ignominiously. Along with tracing the evolution of the American social welfare state, Kenworthy stresses throughout that America is bending ever further toward a social democratic path. This is a difficult argument to make for two reasons. First, Americans are deeply invested in the idea of American exceptionalism, Second, Republican policy successes in the 1980s and 2000s reinforced the notion that America is at base a center-right nation, inhospitable to European-style social insurance schemes. The combination of Obama's first-term legislative successes and his recent re-election has caused observers to think twice about these arguments, but Kenworthy shows that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Drawing from his unparalleled knowledge of social policy in the advanced industrial world, he shows how the US has been (and continues to be) progressing slowly but steadily toward a clear endpoint: genuine social democracy. Social Democratic America will attract a great deal of criticism, but even the most incorrigible doubters will have to take stock of his powerful and well-substantiated thesis.

Economic and social shifts have led to rising income inequality in the world's affluent countries. This is worrisome for reasons of fairness and because inequality has adverse effects on other socioeconomic goods. Redistribution can help, but government revenues are threatened by globalization and population aging. A way out of this impasse is for countries to increase their employment rate. Increasing employment enlarges the tax base, allowing tax revenues to rise without an increase in tax rates; it also reduces welfare state costs by decreasing the amount of government benefits going to individuals and households. The question is: Can egalitarian institutions and policies be coupled with employment growth? For two decades conventional wisdom has held that the answer is no. In Jobs with Equality, Lane Kenworthy provides a comprehensive and systematic assessment of the experiences of rich nations since the late 1970s. This book examines the impact on employment of six key policies and institutions: wage levels at the low end of the labor market, employment protection regulations, government benefit generosity, taxes, skills, and women-friendly policies. The analysis includes twenty countries, with a focus on Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Kenworthy concludes that there is some indication of tradeoffs, but that they tend to be small in magnitude. There is no parsimonious set of policies and institutions that have been the key to good or bad employment performance. Instead, there are multiple paths to employment success. The comparative experience suggests reason for optimism about possibilities for a high-employment, high-equality society.

One of the principal goals of antipoverty efforts should be to improve the absolute living standards of the least well-off. This book aims to enhance our understanding of how to do that, drawing on the experiences of twenty affluent countries since the 1970s. The book addresses a set of questions at the heart of political economy and public policy: How much does economic growth help the poor? When and why does growth fail to trickle down? How can social policy help? Can a country have a sizeable low-wage sector yet few poor households? Are universal programs better than targeted ones? What role can public services play in antipoverty efforts? What is the best tax mix? Is more social spending better for the poor? If we commit to improvement in the absolute living standards of the least well-off, must we sacrifice other desirable outcomes?

One of the principal goals of antipoverty efforts should be to improve the absolute living standards of the least well-off. This book aims to enhance our understanding of how to do that, drawing on the experiences of twenty affluent countries since the 1970s. The book addresses a set of questions at the heart of political economy and public policy: How much does economic growth help the poor? When and why does growth fail to trickle down? How can social policy help? Can a country have a sizeable low-wage sector yet few poor households? Are universal programs better than targeted ones? What role can public services play in antipoverty efforts? What is the best tax mix? Is more social spending better for the poor? If we commit to improvement in the absolute living standards of the least well-off, must we sacrifice other desirable outcomes?

Recent work in comparative political economy has generated a host of alternative explanations for variation in national economic performance--institutional sclerosis, flexible specialization, governance relations, etc. In each case, these explanations have trouble accounting for more than a handful of instances. In Search of National Economic Success uses detailed case studies with statistical analysis to comparatively assess the "market liberal" belief in free markets, limited government, and the tradeoff between economic efficiency and social justice. Lane Kenworthy argues that the key to economic success lies in combining competition with cooperation. Among advanced industrialized nations, the countries achieving the best economic performance results over the past three decades have been the most committed to combining competition and cooperation. Those faring the worst rely predominantly on atomistic, individualistic competition. In the end, the comparative record strongly supports a focus on cooperation-inducing institutions. This volume will prove invaluable to scholars and students in comparative politics, international political economy, and comparative economics. "[This volume] presents an alternative explanation of the cross-national variation in performance, arguing that national economic success lies in combining competition with cooperation." --Journal of Economic Literature

Recent work in comparative political economy has generated a host of alternative explanations for variation in national economic performance--institutional sclerosis, flexible specialization, governance relations, etc. In each case, these explanations have trouble accounting for more than a handful of instances. In Search of National Economic Success uses detailed case studies with statistical analysis to comparatively assess the "market liberal" belief in free markets, limited government, and the tradeoff between economic efficiency and social justice. Lane Kenworthy argues that the key to economic success lies in combining competition with cooperation. Among advanced industrialized nations, the countries achieving the best economic performance results over the past three decades have been the most committed to combining competition and cooperation. Those faring the worst rely predominantly on atomistic, individualistic competition. In the end, the comparative record strongly supports a focus on cooperation-inducing institutions. This volume will prove invaluable to scholars and students in comparative politics, international political economy, and comparative economics. "[This volume] presents an alternative explanation of the cross-national variation in performance, arguing that national economic success lies in combining competition with cooperation." --Journal of Economic Literature

This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. Interest in democratic socialism is on the rise, but this wide-ranging comparison of two systems shows that the Nordic model of capitalism achieves virtually everything that contemporary democratic socialists say we should want. Socialism is back in the conversation, and recent polls suggest the share of young Americans who have a favorable impression of socialism is about the same as the share that have a favorable view of capitalism. The case for a modern democratic socialism is that capitalism is bad, or at least not very good, and that socialism would be an improvement. To fully and fairly assess democratic socialism's desirability, Lane Kenworthy argues in Would Democratic Socialism Be Better?, we need to compare it to the best version of capitalism that humans have devised: social democratic capitalism. Kenworthy offers a close look at the evidence about how capitalist economies have performed on an array of outcomes. He finds that social democratic capitalism achieves virtually everything that contemporary democratic socialists say we should want.