No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Making Capitalism Compatible with Democracy: Tentative Reflections from the ‘East’
... Governments in East-Central Europe offered early retirement and other strategic social policies in response to workers' economic woes. "Embedding neoliberalism" in welfare policies helped consolidate democracy during the transition (Bruszt, 2006;Vanhuysse, 2006). These governments also established corporatist interest mediation channels involving trade unions. ...
The objective of the paper is to discuss the correlations between capitalism and democracy in the context of the main questions of political economy. Both capitalism and democracy belong to the most intensely debated issues among philosophers, thinkers and scholars. They remain in complicated relations determining one another. At the same time the current dynamism of their relations constitutes one of the most challenging research agenda for economists, political scientists and representatives of other disciplines. This paper aims at building bridges between the economic and political perspectives offering refreshed deliberations on the correlations between democratic and capitalist logics.
This article presents and empirically substantiates a theoretical account explaining the making and stabilisation of illiberal hegemony in Hungary. It combines a Polanyian institutionalist framework with a neo-Gramscian analysis of right-wing hegemonic strategy and a relational class analysis inspired by the political economy tradition in anthropology. The article identifies the social actors behind the illiberal transformation, showing how 'neoliberal disembedding' fuelled the rightward shift of constituencies who had erstwhile been brought into the fold of liberal hegemony: blue-collar workers, post-peasants and sections of domestic capital. Finally, the article describes the emergence of a new regime of accumulation and Fidesz's strategy of 'authoritarian re-embedding', which relies on 'institutional authoritarianism' and 'authoritarian populism'. This two-pronged approach has so far allowed the ruling party to stabilise illiberal hegemony, even in the face of reforms that have generated discontents and exacerbated social inequality.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.