Books by Antonino Palumbo
Thirty years of developments in deliberative democracy (DD) have consolidated another subfield of... more Thirty years of developments in deliberative democracy (DD) have consolidated another subfield of democratic theory. Building on the conceptual innovations introduced by the academic debate in DD, a growing number of deliberative experiments have been carried out around world, yielding a flourishing empirical literature. The acquired disciplinary prestige has made theorists and practitioners very confident about the ability of DD to address the legitimacy crisis currently affecting liberal democracies the world over. This book advances a critical analysis of these developments, and casts doubts on this confidence. It claims that current theoretical debates are reproposing old methodological divisions, and struggle to overcome the minimalist conception of democracy employed in the second postwar period. Moreover, deliberative experiments at the micro level seem to have no impact at the macro level, and remain sets of isolated experiences with controversial political value. The book indicates that those defects are mainly due to the liberal frame of reference within which reflection in democratic theory and practice takes place within the deliberative camp. Consequently, it suggests the need to move beyond liberal understandings of democracy as a series of disjointed games for which external rules have to be devised in advance. By contrast, it advocates a vision of democracy as a self-correcting ‘metagame’ capable of establishing and revising its own criteria of validity. An outline of this alternative vision of democracy as a metagame is proposed in chapter 6, setting the research framework for my future work in the field.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
ECPR Press, 2015
Globalization and the development of new modes of governance have deeply transformed the institut... more Globalization and the development of new modes of governance have deeply transformed the institutions of the welfare state built in the post second war period and set the ground for a distinct body politic and style of government. According to the narratives developed in governance studies, the post-war welfare state is in the process of being superseded by a polity where authority is progressively devolved to task-specific institutions with unlimited jurisdictions and intersecting memberships operating at sub- and sovra-national levels. For this polity, the goal of government is not that of homogenizing the political and social space enclosed within clear-cut and permanent national boundaries, but that of enabling individuals and local communities to operate autonomously in an increasing open world, thus promoting sustainable forms of development. The aim of the book is twofold. First, it aims at supplying better analytical tools for conceptualising and understanding recent social and political change. Second, it aims at explicating the relevance that the change analysed by governance theorists has for traditional themes in political theory related to state authority, democratic legitimacy and political accountability. The book is divided in three main parts composed of three chapters each having as their main aim the clarification of respectively: (i) the context in which change has taken place; (ii) the nature of the policy innovations brought about by this change; (iii) the side-effects produced by the dynamic of change. An introductory chapter setting the arguments of the book, and a concluding chapter summarising its findings and suggesting some alternative courses of action complete the volume.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Since its inception in the 1980s, the deliberative turn has over the years promoted several other... more Since its inception in the 1980s, the deliberative turn has over the years promoted several other small turnings, yielding a highly complex and disorienting theoretical spaghetti junction. Following the main deliberative turn, we can also count: an 'epistemic turn', and an 'empirical turn', a 'systemic turn' and even a 'democratic turn'. The end result of these twists and turns is a plurality of deliberative democratic models re-proposing many analytical features which used to characterise those of the past deliberative theorists wanted to replace. The deliberative turn has thus made the theoretical landscape extremely intricate and impervious, making even those acquainted with it likely to lose their way. The present volume aims to be a rough guide to deliberative democracy (DD) for those who are keen on exploring this uneven terrain on their own. Its goal is twofold: to single out some land marks to follow along the way; and to indicate which dwelling stations to use in order to make the journey worthwhile. The volume starts by proposing a simple map that identifies four main models of DD. The aim of this epistemic map is not to reproduce the theoretical terrain accurately, but rather to improve its readability and help the reader find his/her way more easily. Accordingly, the volume will be divided into four parts collecting works epitomising these ideal types, giving the reader the flavour of the kinds of arguments and visions of DD supporting each of the four models identified.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Neoliberalism has been one of the most hotly contested themes in academic and political debate ov... more Neoliberalism has been one of the most hotly contested themes in academic and political debate over the last thirty years. Given the global and pervasive influence of neoliberal ideas on contemporary styles of governance, social-service provision, and public policy this intensive interest is understandable. At the same time, the use of the term has become loose, vague, and over-extended, particularly in the extensive critical literature. Rather than engage in further critique, or in the reconstruction of the history of neoliberalism, this volume seeks to bring analytical clarity to the ongoing debate.
Much of the critique of neo-liberalism takes its cue from radical – which usually means neo-Marxist – political economy. In contrast, we adopt a political reading that draws inspiration from the work of the Hungarian economic historian Karl Polanyi. Reading Polanyi as one of the last representatives of classical, modernist social theory, we seek to counter both political-economic and postmodernist accounts of contemporary market societies. The reforms proposed by advocates of neoliberalism and implemented by governments follow a modernist logic of increased rationalization and the centralization of power rather than a market or network logic. One implication of this analysis is that far from reducing the power of state and bureaucracy – as is commonly assumed – markets have increasingly become the instruments of choice for states seeking to reduce costs and responsibility while maintaining – or increasing – control.
These arguments are developed via (i) an analytical framework which identifies the key instruments of neoliberal governance (privatization, marketization, and liberalization) and the agents caught in a ‘three-level game’; (ii) case studies that examine the development of neoliberal instruments (reform of the British civil service); their refinement (reform of higher education in England and Wales); their dissemination across national borders (EU integration policies). Rather than look back nostalgically on the post-war welfare-state settlement, in the final chapter we ask why the coalitions that supported that settlement broke down in the face of the neoliberal reform movement.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Il libro discute lo sviluppo dei regimi di governance emersi negli ultimi tre decenni e analizza ... more Il libro discute lo sviluppo dei regimi di governance emersi negli ultimi tre decenni e analizza potenzialità e limiti delle innovazioni promosse a livello decisionale, nella definizione della policy e nei meccanismi di attuazione. I primi tre capitoli discutono gli elementi concettuali fondamentali che compongono il nucleo della governance, intesa come programma di ricerca impegnato nella razionalizzazione delle innovazioni politiche portate avanti in questo periodo. La discussione contrappone e valuta due analytical frameworks principali: quello derivato dalla Nuova Politica Economica, che viene qui associato alla nozione di 'stato regolatore', e quello influenzato da prospettive sociologiche, qui connesse all'idea di 'polity reticolare'. Viene inoltre analizza la distinzione interna alle teorie della 'polity reticolare' tra approcci neoistituzionali, che percepiscono la governance come modello organizzativo, e gli approcci sistemici, che la interpretano come processo dinamico autopoietico. Le restanti parti del libro propongono diverse critiche della governance sia come analytical framework sia come justificatory framework. Queste riguardano la presunta superiorità della governance rispetto al governo. I sistemi eterarchici autopoietici sono davvero più efficienti di quelli gerarchici? I regimi di governance emersi a livello locale, nazionale e transnazionale sono stati in grado di evitare i problemi che hanno messo in crisi i welfare states? Le procedure deliberative promosse dalla 'polity reticolare' hanno una legittimità superiore a quelle aggregative dello 'stato keynesiano'? I meccanismi di accountability manageriale prodotti dalla governance hanno reso i sistemi politici più reattivi alle richieste di stakeholders e società civile?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Il volume discute problematiche connesse alla convivenza tra culture distinte che operano all'int... more Il volume discute problematiche connesse alla convivenza tra culture distinte che operano all'interno di stati nazionali sempre più interconnessi e attraversati da crescenti flussi migratori. Anche se molti dei contributi provengono da filosofi politici, queste problematiche sono indagate da una prospettiva multidisciplinare. La riflessione spazia dall'ambito normativo alla discussione di casi empirici; dalla giustificazione di specifiche soluzioni e sistemi di valore all'analisi critica delle concezioni e delle politiche multiculturali dominanti; dal confronto diretto con i dibattiti attuali allo studio genealogico delle categorie concettuali ricorrenti in questi dibattiti. I fili conduttori attorno ai quali si articola la conversazione sono tre. Il primo riguarda gli obiettivi conseguiti, e i limiti evidenziati, dal multiculturalismo liberale come il paradigma dominante: quello cioè che ha orientato la riflessione e influenzato le legislazioni nazionali, transnazionali e internazionali. La percezione dell'esistenza di tensioni crescenti all'interno delle società globalizzate e gli affanni con cui si confronta la governance di queste ultime promuovono critiche sempre più serrate a tale paradigma. I saggi contenuti nel volume danno una ricostruzione precisa dei termini della discussione in corso e contribuiscono al suo sviluppo in modo originale. Un secondo tema che emerge dal testo riguarda la complessità dei problemi che il multiculturalismo solleva e le difficoltà cui vanno incontro tutti i tentativi di elaborare un paradigma alternativo. I processi di globalizzazione promuovono una molteplicità di mutamenti (disomogenei e contraddittori) che rende estremamente difficoltoso definire un quadro di insieme e individuare strumenti di governance appropriate. Risulta perciò comprensibile l'atteggiamento di quanti attribuiscono maggiore rilevanza ai tentativi di comprendere il mondo piuttosto che di regolarlo. Il volume propone riflessioni che cercano di avanzare la discussione senza avere l'ambizione di risolverla. A ciò contribuisce significativamente il terzo tema indagato nel testo: le pratiche educative. L'interculturalismo richiede una riflessione di natura pedagogica sui modi in cui rappresentare e rapportarsi con l'altro. I sistemi e le pratiche educative dei paesi occidentali hanno spesso negato dignità all'altro e percepito come una minaccia. Le soluzioni liberali basate sul principio di tolleranza o avanzano solo un riconoscimento parziale o si dimostrano deboli verso prospettive e tradizioni di pensiero intolleranti. La risoluzione del dilemma ha occupato generazioni di pensatori. I saggi contenuti nel volume vagliano se si tratta davvero di un dilemma che richiede una soluzione e se la soluzione deve essere di natura teorica o meramente pratica.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Il passaggio dal 'governo alla governance' implica sia la ridefizione delle concezioni democratic... more Il passaggio dal 'governo alla governance' implica sia la ridefizione delle concezioni democratiche sulle quali si basava il primo, sia la revisione dei criteri di legittimità delle istituzioni a questo associate. Ma su quali concezioni democratiche alternative deve poggiare la governance? Ed in che modo possiamo sostenere la legittimità delle istituzioni che questa promuove? La letteratura sul tema sembra essere ancora incerta. Per un verso ritroviamo infatti appelli a concezioni della democrazia che si oppongono a visioni proceduraliste e regole maggioritarie ed auspicano l'adozione di criteri di legittimità consensuali e sostanziali. Per altro verso abbiamo invece la richiesta di superare le ristrettezze imposte dai sistemi rappresentativi ed aprire i processi politici alla partecipazione diretta dei cittadini e delle associazioni della società civile. Il volume affronta queste problematiche e cerca di mettere in luce le novità e i limiti delle proposte al centro dei dibattiti correnti su governance e democrazia. Nel procedere in questa chiarificazione concettuale, il volume cerca inoltre di andare oltre la riflessione politologica ed adotta prospettive critiche e filosofiche che mettono in evidenza le tensioni esistenti tra diritti umani e principi di cittadinanza, globalizzazione e giustizia sociale, technologie del potere e pratiche consensuali, come anche le aporie tra criteri legittimità e processi di legittimazione.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Il termine governance, di difficile resa in italiano, è entrato prepotentemente nel dibattito teo... more Il termine governance, di difficile resa in italiano, è entrato prepotentemente nel dibattito teorico e politico internazionale da alcuni decenni. Si tratta di una pratica vasta e polivalente, che nasce principalmente nell’ambito delle ristrutturazioni dello stato liberale e democratico e della sua pubblica amministrazione negli anni Ottanta e Novanta del XX secolo, parallelamente alle ingiunzioni di politica economica che le istituzioni finanziarie internazionali – World Bank e International Monetary Fund sopra tutte – dettavano come condizioni per la concessioni di aiuti ai paesi bisognosi. Lo sconvolgimento della geopolitica globale a cavallo di millennio ha rilanciato le pratiche di governance, affiancando ai legittimi detentori dell’esercizio dell’autorità politica, ossia i governi degli stati, ulteriori attori quali, ad esempio, le imprese transnazionali o le associazioni dei cittadini mobilitatisi a vario titolo nella società civile locale e globale, in grado di esercitare un potere di orientamento e di indirizzo alle istituzioni internazionali e nazionali non sempre all’altezza delle funzioni ad esse tradizionalmente specifiche. I saggi raccolti in questo volume presentano per la prima volta in forma organica al lettore italiano un panorama indicativo delle trasformazioni intercorse nello spazio della politica tanto nazionale, quanto globale, con l’emergere di difficoltà teoriche e empiriche che offrono altresì una sfida alle istituzioni deputate a inquadrare e risolvere gli annosi problemi di una convivenza planetaria sempre più in tensione.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The normative appraisal of public policy – both the process of policy-making and the substance of... more The normative appraisal of public policy – both the process of policy-making and the substance of the policies themselves – is becoming ever more salient for politicians, public officials, citizens and the academics who study them. On the one hand, the wider population is better informed than ever before of the activities of those that govern them and the consequences of their decisions. As societies have become more wealthy, so the expectations of citizens have grown and with it their tendency to criticise those who work on their behalf. On the other hand, though committed to the ideal of democracy, these same citizens have become ever more disillusioned with its actual working as a means for holding politicians and bureaucrats to account. In part, that disillusionment reflects the shift from government to governance both within and beyond the state, which has weakened or dispersed in complex ways the responsibility of politicians for many key areas of public policy. In part, it also reflects the desire for citizens for more individually tailored and particularistic forms of accountability that address their specific concerns rather than those of the collective welfare. As a result, a whole new machinery for standard setting and monitoring political behaviour has developed. The purpose of this series is to explore and assess the normative implications of this development, appraising the efficacy and legitimacy of the procedures and mechanisms used, and the outcomes they aim to achieve
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
La filosofia politica contemporanea nasce come riflessione normativa sui principi di giustizia ch... more La filosofia politica contemporanea nasce come riflessione normativa sui principi di giustizia che debbono caratterizzare una società bene ordinata. L’identificazione di tali principi ideali rappresenta il primo passo per l’analisi critica delle istituzioni esistenti e per la loro eventuale riforma. Un approccio di questo genere ha non solo aspirazioni genuinamente normative, ma una innegabile valenza pratica; vede la riflessione filosofica non solo come una attività speculativa, ma anche e soprattutto come uno strumento di governance delle moderne società pluraliste e multiculturali. Il saggio ricostruisce il processo evolutivo che ha portato all’emergere dell’etica pubblica e di quelle applicate. La prima parte discute il contributo seminale di John Rawls, i modelli neo-hobbesiani che hanno perseguito l’ideale rawlsiano della filosofia morale come teoria della scelta razionale e gli approcci genealogici humeani che hanno invece tentato di riportare la riflessione filosofica in un ambito eminentemente epistemologico. Nella seconda parte sono ricostruiti i dibatti filosofici che hanno accompagnato la nascita dell’etica degli affari e dell’etica della pubblica amministrazione. Queste etiche sono quindi discusse in relazione ad un caso concreto, la mafia, per vedere se e in che modo possono servire come strumenti di governance
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Following Hume and Hayek, a variety of contemporary theorists have used evolutionary models of so... more Following Hume and Hayek, a variety of contemporary theorists have used evolutionary models of social interaction to assert the idea of an inevitable trade off between State and Society. On my interpretation this amounts to the definition of an ideal-type model of constitutional order that I label the Humean project. The objective of this work is to evaluate whether the conventional theory of justice supplied by the Humean project can explain the emergence of norms and moral sentiments that compose the ‘Constitutional Order’ of a a well-ordered society. The initial questions that I shall address belong, therefore, to the epistemology of social action: has the tradition of spontaneous order been able to work out an answer to collective action problems? Can a social contract be signed by an invisible hand? The answer to those questions would take us up to the first step in assessing the soundness of the Humean project as an analytical theory of ‘Constitutional Order’. Since this epistemology supports a deterministic link between descriptive and normative domains, I shall endeavour to verify whether the theory of spontaneous order proposed by Humeans has indeed the normative implications that its supporters affirm it has. Is the Humean genealogy of morals useful for the justification of principles, values and institutions? Assuming that it is so, does this justification coincide with the defence of Liberal order? In other words, I shall make clear whether the contribution brought about by the Humean project does indeed represent a convincing evolutionary social philosophy that can supply a normative analysis of the state which fits the liberal outlook
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Antonino Palumbo
Following the introduction of the new public management in the British civil service, a sustained... more Following the introduction of the new public management in the British civil service, a sustained attempt to reform the English university system by using the same template has been carried out since the late 1980s by governments of diverse complexion. The paper reconstructs the whole reform process across three full decades in order to detect the rationale behind this attempt and evaluate the plausibility of the readings proposed to date. Against cultural explanations which attributes causal power to neoliberal ideas and functional-types of explanations which view the reform process as driven by an efficientist logic, the paper supports the thesis that the aim of the reform is eminently political and that its real objective has been to centralise decision making power while shifting managerial and administrative responsibilities down along hierarchical lines. Thus, central government uses financial instruments and complex systems of performance management to reduce the autonomy of university and impose upon them a corporate business model. At the same time, universities' boards and vice-chancellors try to employ a similar approach to undermine traditional forms of collegiality and micromanage research and teaching activities which were previously beyond their reach, restricting academic freedom in the process. An identical logic of political control explains the diffusion of the new public management template across Europe at community and state levels in what is a joint effort to establish a common European educational area and make the EU a leading knowledge economy. By using a revised version of Polanyi's double movement, the paper tries to show that the changes that are affecting European higher education systems are the outcome of longer trends concerned with the commodification of intellectual labour and the turning of knowledge into a new fictitious commodity.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The paper discusses the Regulatory State as a rationalisation of recent political and institution... more The paper discusses the Regulatory State as a rationalisation of recent political and institutional change. Proposed originally by perspectives derived from the New Political Economy, the Regulatory State was later adopted by social scientists concerned about the negative side-effects of neo-liberal reforms undertaken since the 1980s. Throughout this shift, the label has however remained an epistemic black box the inner working of which is seldom analysed properly. The paper endeavours to look inside this black box stressing the double role played by the state as regulator (when playing by the rule) and meta-regulator (when playing the game of the rules). In disagreement with the theories of state retreat, the Regulatory State here is presented as engaged in the attempt to reaffirm the control of central government upon parts of the public sector that post-war developments had unwittingly emancipated or left outside its remit. In the process, central government has shed past social and political responsibilities that made it responsive to Parliament and public opinion. The paper further discusses the normative claims underpinning the Regulatory State. The latter endorse economic solutions committed to establishing mechanisms of 'exit' which would allow people to 'vote with their feet'. The theoretical and practical weaknesses of the justificatory framework employed to do so are thus highlighted. First, it is pointed out that output-oriented modes of legitimacy overlook questions of social justice that impact negatively on the feasibility of the Regulatory State. Second, it is claimed that the multiple attempts to 'play by the rule' and play 'the game of rules' have simultaneously undermined the independency of regulatory agencies and failed to cut red tape. The upshot is the promotion of regulatory hypertrophy that is draining the already feeble legitimacy of real existing liberal democracies and turning the Regulatory State into a political black hole.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The paper confronts two distinct debates in which social theory has attempted to show both the li... more The paper confronts two distinct debates in which social theory has attempted to show both the limitations of the accounts of social change supplied by classical political economy and the superiority of its institutionalist approach to social and political issues. Here we use Polanyi's work as a remarkable synthesis of social theoretical analysis on change and his influence upon later social theory. Polanyi’s notion of crisis, however, remains bound to a Marxist reading that views it as the outcome of an inherent contradiction, rather than part of a dynamics allowing both consolidation and renewal. In attempting to cast doubts on his faith on the ability of a welfarist embedded liberalism, the paper highlights the limitations of the rights-based notions of social citizenship pursued in the post-war. The upshot of this assessment of the welfare state along Polanyian lines is that, to solve the dilemmas posed by market society, a more radical model of citizenship is required. The paper closes therefore stressing the elective affinities between Polanyi's political ideals and the normative models of citizenship supplied by Hannah Arendt and Onora O'Neill.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The aim of the paper is to summarize and reassess the innovations brought about by governance the... more The aim of the paper is to summarize and reassess the innovations brought about by governance theory. It is argued that the notion of governance is a conceptual device that could help rationalise and articulate the changes undertaken by liberal democracies since the late 1970s. After presenting the novel policy instruments brought about by those changes, a better analytical distinction between 'network governance' and 'multilevel governance' is proposed and defended. Recalling the debates on the hollowing out of the state and on policy implementation, the paper take issues with some of the narratives advanced to explain the passage from 'government' to 'governance'. It suggests the need to distinguish between at least two distinct research programmes composing governance studies, which are influenced by alternative epistemic traditions—political economy and economic sociology. Rationalizations of change influenced by political economy support the idea that the outcome of recent political change is a market-oriented 'regulatory state', while those influenced by economic sociology see governance as supporting the rising of a 'networked polity'. Since these research programmes blend together descriptive and prescriptive elements, the paper advances a twin type of evaluation that tries to assess both their relative heuristic power and ability to justify the normative ideals they seek to engender. The main claim advanced in the paper is that, while the 'regulatory state' is a better heuristic category for understanding recent political change than that of the 'networked polity', the reverse happens when these two entities are considered as normative ideals to engender.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In this paper I propose a critical reconstruction of the game theoretic reading of Hobbes. The fi... more In this paper I propose a critical reconstruction of the game theoretic reading of Hobbes. The first aim of this reconstruction concerns Hobbes' individualism. I discuss Hobbes' radical individualism, whether or not his theory is committed to psychological egoism (PE), and his conception of rationality. My second object here is to present the state of nature account and the rationality of pre-emptive strikes. Following Hampton and Kavka, I argue that Hobbes' account of the state of nature supports several interpretations, and that some of them are inconsistent with his own premises. Finally, I assess which account of the state of nature makes sense within the Hobbesian framework. First, I follow Hampton’s and Kavka's claim that instituting a sovereign is not a PD game but a co-operation game and that selection procedures for this game can be worked out. Secondly, I survey Hampton's solution to the problem of the empowerment of the sovereign. My last object is to discuss Hampton's rejection of Hobbes' absolute sovereign. After summarizing Hampton's position, I try to show that within her game theoretic framework Hobbes' absolute sovereign is not refuted at all.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Articles & Book chapters - English by Antonino Palumbo
The aim of the article is to summarize and reassess the innovations brought about by governance t... more The aim of the article is to summarize and reassess the innovations brought about by governance theory. It is argued that the notion of governance is a conceptual device that could help rationalise and articulate the changes undertaken by liberal democracies since the late 1970s. The article suggests the need to distinguish between two distinct research programmes composing governance studies, which are influenced by alternative epistemic traditions—political economy and economic sociology. Rationalizations of change influenced by political economy support the idea that the outcome of recent political change is a market-oriented " Regulatory State " , while those influence by economic sociology see governance as supporting the rising of a " Networked Polity ". Since these research programmes blend together descriptive and prescriptive elements, what is required is a twin type of evaluation that could assess both their relative heuristic power and ability to justify the normative ideals they seek to engender. The main claim advanced in the paper is that, while the Regulatory State is a better heuristic category for understanding recent political change than that of the Networked Polity, the reverse happens when these two entities are considered as normative ideals to engender.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In questo articolo mi propongo di discutere il problema della compatibilità tra scelta razionale ... more In questo articolo mi propongo di discutere il problema della compatibilità tra scelta razionale e scelta dell’autorità assoluta nei modelli contrattualistici neohobbesiani. La tesi che sostengo è che non esiste una contraddizione di base fra le motivazioni prudenziali che guidano gli agenti hobbesiani nel sottoscrivere il contratto sociale e la scelta di un’autorità cosiffatta. Le implicazioni derivabili da questa conclusione vanno in diverse direzioni. Prima di tutto viene rigettata una vecchia posizione liberale che ritiene la soluzione politica hobbesiana internamente contraddittoria. In secondo luogo, la tesi può essere utilizzata come base per riconciliare le preoccupazioni liberali riguardanti i diritti dei singoli e le esigenze politiche concernenti la produzione di beni pubblici.. Infine, l’analisi proposta rende possibile la ricostruzione analitica del processo che ha portato all’evoluzione dei contemporanei stati costituzionali: processo, questo, che può essere descritto come il simultaneo emergere di autorità politiche assolute e di sistemi di garanzia individuale per i cittadini.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The New Right attempt to “roll back the frontiers of the state” is underpinned by an analysis der... more The New Right attempt to “roll back the frontiers of the state” is underpinned by an analysis derived from neoclassic economics and rational choice theory: New Political Economy (NPE). As an analysis of the state, it is inadequate: it is too simplistic when applied to agents operating in structured, complex institutions; it is unsuitable for application outside the context of the competitive market; and, ideologically driven, it supports a stark opposition between market and state that actually produces accounts at odds with its individualistic premises. In practice, public policies based on NPE have resulted in greater inefficiencies that, ironically, provide fresh empirical evidence of the government failures they are supposed to correct.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Understanding democratic politics: an …, Jan 1, 2003
Historically, liberalism and democracy are two movements of thought that share similar concerns a... more Historically, liberalism and democracy are two movements of thought that share similar concerns about individual rights and political participation and have promoted constitutional arrangements that embody and foster those values. Theoretically, the relationship between liberalism and democracy is more complex and conflictual. Liberal thought has systematically attempted to define external constraints on collective decision-making, whereas democratic theory has attributed to it both moral and political value. Also, liberals have purported to show the inherent shortcomings of political intervention, whereas democrats have championed it as a means for achieving social justice and/or social efficiency. The chapter supports the claim that liberalism is only compatible with procedural and aggregative, rather than substantive, models of democracy.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Antonino Palumbo
Much of the critique of neo-liberalism takes its cue from radical – which usually means neo-Marxist – political economy. In contrast, we adopt a political reading that draws inspiration from the work of the Hungarian economic historian Karl Polanyi. Reading Polanyi as one of the last representatives of classical, modernist social theory, we seek to counter both political-economic and postmodernist accounts of contemporary market societies. The reforms proposed by advocates of neoliberalism and implemented by governments follow a modernist logic of increased rationalization and the centralization of power rather than a market or network logic. One implication of this analysis is that far from reducing the power of state and bureaucracy – as is commonly assumed – markets have increasingly become the instruments of choice for states seeking to reduce costs and responsibility while maintaining – or increasing – control.
These arguments are developed via (i) an analytical framework which identifies the key instruments of neoliberal governance (privatization, marketization, and liberalization) and the agents caught in a ‘three-level game’; (ii) case studies that examine the development of neoliberal instruments (reform of the British civil service); their refinement (reform of higher education in England and Wales); their dissemination across national borders (EU integration policies). Rather than look back nostalgically on the post-war welfare-state settlement, in the final chapter we ask why the coalitions that supported that settlement broke down in the face of the neoliberal reform movement.
Papers by Antonino Palumbo
Articles & Book chapters - English by Antonino Palumbo
Much of the critique of neo-liberalism takes its cue from radical – which usually means neo-Marxist – political economy. In contrast, we adopt a political reading that draws inspiration from the work of the Hungarian economic historian Karl Polanyi. Reading Polanyi as one of the last representatives of classical, modernist social theory, we seek to counter both political-economic and postmodernist accounts of contemporary market societies. The reforms proposed by advocates of neoliberalism and implemented by governments follow a modernist logic of increased rationalization and the centralization of power rather than a market or network logic. One implication of this analysis is that far from reducing the power of state and bureaucracy – as is commonly assumed – markets have increasingly become the instruments of choice for states seeking to reduce costs and responsibility while maintaining – or increasing – control.
These arguments are developed via (i) an analytical framework which identifies the key instruments of neoliberal governance (privatization, marketization, and liberalization) and the agents caught in a ‘three-level game’; (ii) case studies that examine the development of neoliberal instruments (reform of the British civil service); their refinement (reform of higher education in England and Wales); their dissemination across national borders (EU integration policies). Rather than look back nostalgically on the post-war welfare-state settlement, in the final chapter we ask why the coalitions that supported that settlement broke down in the face of the neoliberal reform movement.
lo spirito democratico. Il saggio distingue tra quattro principali tipi ideali di democrazia deliberativa: epistemica, guardiana, radicale e integrativa. Per ciascuno di questi tipi sono presentate le caratteristiche essenziali e le maggiori debolezze teoriche. La tesi del saggio è duplice: le letture epistemiche sono non solo particolarmente controverse, ma finiscono per minare la legittimità delle forme di sperimentazione democratica promosse dalla svolta deliberativa nel frattempo; meno controverse sono le letture integrative,
anche se queste non sono affatto in grado di supportare le richieste di partecipazione auspicate dalle frange radicali né risultano congruenti con le giustificazioni avanzate da queste ultime.