SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 46

Debates on the transformation of welfare state to competition state

Refah devletinden rekabet devletine dönüşüm tartışmaları

Ertuğrul KIZILKAYA
Mehmet Akif İÇKE
Cem ENGİN
Pages
1–24
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, Bob Jessop s economically competitive, technologically innovative and contractually flexible Schumpeterian workfare state supersedes the macroeconomic policy oriented Keynesian welfare state that was deadlocked by stagflation problem of 1970 s.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Contrary to Classical economists, John M.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Keynes, who designed the economic policies to heal the economic downturn that was experienced in 1929, advocates the active role of government in the process of efficient resource distribution, full employment, development, equality in income distribution and in this respect he becomes the person who paves the theoretical background of the welfare state approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, Bob Jessop s economically competitive, technologically innovative and contractually flexible Schumpeterian workfare state supersedes the macroeconomic policy oriented Keynesian welfare state that was deadlocked by stagflation problem of 1970 s.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Contrary to Classical economists, John M. Keynes, who designed the economic policies to heal the economic downturn that was experienced in 1929, advocates the active role of government in the process of efficient resource distribution, full employment, development, equality in income distribution and in this respect he becomes the person who paves the theoretical background of the welfare state approach. However, Bob Jessop s economically competitive, technologically innovative and contractually flexible Schumpeterian workfare state supersedes the macroeconomic policy oriented Keynesian welfare state that was deadlocked by stagflation problem of 1970 s.

Özet

Klasik iktisatçıların aksine devletin kaynak dağılımında etkinlik, tam istihdam, kalkınma ve gelir dağılımında adaletin sağlanması gibi konularda etkin rol oynaması gerektiğini öne süren ve iktisadi liberalizm anlayışının 1929 yılında aldığı yaraya deva bulan John M. Keynesin; refah devleti yaklaşımının kuramsal temellerinin oluşumundaki katkısı göz ardı edilemez. Ne var ki; makroekonomik politikalarla yöneten ve talep odaklı Keynesci Refah Devleti anlayışı, 1970li yıllarda patlak veren stagflasyon olgusu ile çıkmaza girmiş, yerini Bob Jessopun kurguladığı bir tipoloji olan ekonomik açıdan rekabetçi, teknolojik düzeyde inovasyonları yapabilen ve sözleşme hukukunda esnek Schumpeterci Rekabet Devletinin yükselişine bırakmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIZILKAYA, E., İÇKE, M. A., ENGİN, C. (2022). Debates on the transformation of welfare state to competition state. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 46, 1–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/554783

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Aktan C. (2009), http://www.canaktan.org/ ekonomi/ kamu_maliyesi/ maliye-iflas/ lord-keynes.htm, Erişim tarihi: 07.07.2011.
  2. Ataç B. (2006),
  3. Maliye Politikası, Genişletilmiş 7.Baskı,
  4. Ocak, ETAM AŞ Matbaa, Eskişehir. Atzmüller R.(2009),
  5. Innovation, Arbeit und autoritärer Staat – Überlegungen zur Staatstheorie im Postfordismus, www.ihs.ac.at/powi04/papers/AG%20gesellschaft staatlichkeit/Atzm%FCller_Roland.pdf. Erişim tarihi:10.09.2009.
  6. Atzmüller R. (2004), “Arbeit an der Veränderung: Überlegungen zur Staatstheorie im Postfordismus”, Grundrisse, Nr. 12, s. 13-26.
  7. Beckert J. (2009), Die Anspruchsinflation des Wirtschaftssystems, Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, MPIfG Working Paper: Köln, Nr. 09 /10. Bosch G. (1997), “Gegen den Trend: Flexibilität und Gleichheit im Norwegischen Arbeitsmarkt”, Arbeit: Zeitschrift für Arbeitsforschung, Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitspolitik, Heft 1, Jg. 6, s. 7-32.
  8. Cerny P. G. (1997), “Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political Globalization”, Government and Opposition, Vol. 32, No. 2, s. 251-274.
  9. Crouch C. (2010), Postdemokratie und die Krise des privatisierten Keynesianismus, Kurswechsel für Deutschland: Die Lehren aus der Krise, (Hrsg.) Berthold Huber, Campus Verlag: Frankfurt am Main. Dingeldey I. (2007), Wohlfahrtsstaatlicher Wandel zwischen „Arbeitszwang“ und „Befähigung“,Berliner Journal für Soziologie, Heft 2, s. 189-209.
  10. Dörre K., Elk-Anders R., Speidel F. (1997), Globalisierung als Option: Internationalisierungspfade von Unternehmen, Standortpolitik und industrielle Beziehungen, SOFI-Mitteilungen, Nr. 25, s. 43-71.
  11. Dulupçu M. A. (2006), Bölgesel Politikalar Kopyalanabilir mi? Bölgeselleşme Karşısında Bölgeselcilik, Bölgesel Kalkınma ve Yönetişim Sempozyumu, 7-8 Eylül 2006,
  12. ODTÜ. Gill S. (2000), Teoretische Grundlagen einer neo-gramscianischen Analyse der europäischen Integration, Die Konfiguration Europas, (Hrsg.) Hans-Jürgen Bieling ve Jochen Steinhilber, Westfälisches Dampfboot: Münster, s. 23-50.
  13. Grande E. (2008), Reflexive Modernisierung des Staates, der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, Heft 1, s. 7-28.
  14. Harvey J., Johnson M. (1971), An Introduction to Macro-Economics, 1.baskı The Macmillan Pres, Great Britain. Hassel A., Lütz S. (2010), Durch die Krise aus der Krise? Die neue Stärke des Staates, dms: der moderne staat, Heft: 2, s. 251-271.
  15. Heise A. (2003), Gewerkschaften und ihre neoliberale Herausforderung, Nr. 10, Standpunkte zur Staatswissenschaft