Rawls emphasizes in his later writings that his theory of justice as fairness is not a defense of welfare-state capitalism. He argues that welfare-state capitalism cannot be an acceptable regime for justice as fairness because its ideal institutional description fails to satisfy the two principles of justice in various ways. Against Rawls, I argue in this thesis that his rejection of welfare-state capitalism is not justified. I begin by clarifying an ambiguity regarding what arrangements and policies according to Rawls are essential to satisfy the two principles of justice through closely studying the institutional arrangements of property-owning democracy and liberal socialism—the two regimes thought by Rawls as capable of fully satisfying the two principles of justice. After that, I show that the fundamental reason behind Rawls’s rejection of welfare-state capitalism is his assumption that welfare-state capitalism does not aim to realize justice as fairness. I argue that this assumption held by Rawls is not justified because the essential institutional features of welfare-state capitalism can be compatible with the arrangements and policies necessary to satisfy the principles of justice. I also argue that if Rawls’s assumption regarding the aim of welfare-state capitalism cannot stand, he should not rule out welfare-state capitalism as an acceptable regime for justice as fairness. Finally, I examine different arguments that provide alternative reasons to justify Rawls’s rejection of welfare-state capitalism. I argue that all of them are unsuccessful because they either are based on problematic interpretations of the two principles of justice or fail to conclusively rule out welfare-state capitalism. By showing that welfare-state capitalism can be an acceptable regime for justice as fairness, this thesis proves that a just society does not need to be the one that entitles every citizen to a substantive right to own real capital. Also, in the process of arguing for welfare-state capitalism, this thesis also indirectly contributes to the recent debates between Rawlsians on the left and right over the proper interpretations of the first principle of justice and the Difference Principle. / published_or_final_version / Politics and Public Administration / Master / Master of Philosophy

Not available / text

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-95). / iv, 95 leaves, bound 29 cm

The present study proposes a model, termed the hybrid model, to explain fiscal-policy responses to financial crises. Although it is applied throughout the present study to the Eurozone, the model’s geographic and substantive scope apply more broadly. Combining and building upon past approaches, the hybrid model proposes three independent variables: partisanship, political capacity, and external actors. The model builds on the literature’s three dominant approaches: partisan, domestic approaches; approaches that emphasize convergence; and approaches that emphasize divergence, represented here primarily by the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) literature. The hybrid model integrates the domestic emphasis of the partisan approach with the international emphases of the convergence and, to some extent, VoC approaches. The hybrid model builds on the domestic politics of the partisan approach by integrating coalition logic and the tension between coalition partners into the partisan approach’s political landscape. The model also advances the convergence and VoC approaches by providing an explanation for variation in the pressure of financial markets, both over time and across countries, which mediates the influence of external actors in the domestic affairs of sample countries. In addition, with respect to the dependent variable, the present study develops a disaggregated measure that accounts for the diverse distributional implications of fiscal policies’ various dimensions. With respect to empirics, the present study employs a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Broadly, the large-N results provide support for the hybrid model, particularly as it pertains to partisanship. Event analyses and case studies support the role of external actors; the empirics show the degree to which financial-market pressure mediates the influence of external actors. Combined, the quantitative and qualitative approaches indicate problems with consonance, the particular dimension of political capacity considered in the present study. Both quantitative and qualitative results reveal that consonance, i.e., between-party tensions in coalition governments, provides an incomplete characterization of the factors influencing the political capacity of single-party and coalition governments. The case studies suggest that within-party tensions and party-system strength, as additional measures of political capacity, play key roles in shaping fiscal-policy responses. The empirics also confirm the importance of disaggregating fiscal policy, the dependent variable, beyond the broad measures of fiscal deficit, expenditure, and revenue adopted in the present literature.

Until a few years ago, it was widely held that, ‘apartheid cannot be reformed, it can only be destroyed’. Today, all participants in the negotiation process are agreed that one fundamental characteristic of the social order must be preserved: the new South Africa is to be a capitalist society; the productive wealth of the country will be the private property of a small number of capitalists, and the vast majority will try to sell their labour for a wage to capitalists who will buy it only when that labour can contribute to their profits. There is still disagreement about how small or large the number of capitalists will be; about the colour of their skins; about who they will appoint to manage their mines, banks, factories and farms for them; about the rules that will govern disputes over wages; and above all about the use that the state will make of the taxes paid from their profits. There is also disagreement about the extent to which capitalism can afford to meet popular needs. But all of these disagreements take place within the framework of a common belief that the future is capitalist. The aim of this seminar series, held by the Marxist Theory Seminar at the University of the Western Cape in April/May 1993, was to pose the question: What are the limits of social reform in a capitalist South Africa? Can the fundamental needs and aspirations of the vast majority of South Africans be met within a capitalist framework? Very often these questions are brushed aside with the argument that, given the present balance of local and international forces, there is no alternative to capitalism in SA today. Even if this argument is correct, it still remains necessary to ask what can be achieved within the framework of the capitalist society to which there is no alternative. If that question is not posed in the most rigorous way, all kinds of illusions will be created about what the future holds in store for us. The question of the limits of capitalist reform in SA is posed as it concerns five different areas; democracy, education, economic growth and employment, land and the oppression of women. What will democracy mean in a new SA which depends on foreign investment and capitalist profitability? Can the education crisis be resolved while meeting the needs of capitalist growth? Will economic growth take place in a capitalist SA, and will this lead to the creation of jobs and a higher standard of living for the majority? Can land be restored to the dispossessed, the virtual slavery of millions of farm workers ended, and land used in a way that produces food for all? What are the prospects of ending the oppression of women in a capitalist South Africa? MTS does not believe that there are simple answers to these questions. Certainly, these questions cannot be answered by a general condemnation of the inequality and inhumanity of capitalism. In each case, it is necessary to give clear answers to such questions as: Has capitalism served historically to support the struggle for democracy or to oppose it? How has it affected education in SA? What are the present interests of the capitalists in solving the land question, or giving women control of their lives? To what extent can capitalism be forced to make concessions - to provide jobs, for example - by the struggles of the oppressed? In the past, capitalism has shown itself to be much more flexible than its critics have supposed. That does not mean that capitalism can do anything it likes, nor that the working class can force it to meet whatever demands it has. One of the indispensable insights of Marxism is that processes of social change are not determined by the intentions or integrity of political leaders, but rather by the fundamental relationships of society and the ability of the major classes to pursue their interests created by these relationships. We hope that the publication of this seminar series contributes to making this insight available to a wider audience. / Marxist theory seminar

Thesis (MA (Political Science))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study explores the claim that Great Power Wars are a necessary condition for successful hegemonic ascent in the modern world-system, primarily from the standpoint of World- Systems Analysis. This study advances the conception of hegemony primarily in economic and state terms, and it was investigated, by way of a historical case study, how the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) impacted the economic domains of agro-industrial production, commerce, and finance of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and its main rival for systemic leadership, Hapsburg Spain. The variables utilised in the study were Great Power War, and the ‘material base’ of the state involved (both independent), the three abovementioned economic domains (intervening), and hegemony or defeat (dependent). The case study was primarily descriptive and explanatory, with the use of process-tracing in its compilation, and a method of within-case structured, focused comparison was utilised with the aim of tentatively producing standardised, generalised knowledge concerning the wider link between Great Power War and hegemony beyond the Dutch case. The findings of the study, although derived from only one historical case of hegemonic ascent in the modern world-system, strongly support the argument that Great Power War is necessary to secure the hegemony of the leading insular core state, which is physically removed from the fighting during the conflict, since the full mobilisation of its economy is effected, while the economies of most other core states are impaired, especially the main continental rival for hegemony. However, the ascending hegemon must also possess the requisite favourable ‘material base’. Further research on this topic is called for, given the potential destructiveness of a future Great Power War, and its role in establishing hegemony in the modern world-system. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie studie ondersoek die bewering dat Groot Moontheid Oorloë ‘n noodsaaklike vereiste is vir suksesvolle hegemoniese bestyging in die moderne wêreld-sisteem, hoofsaaklik vanaf die standpunt van Wêreld-Sisteem Analise. Hierdie studie bevorder die konsepsie van hegemonie hoofsaaklik in ekonomiese en staat terme, en dit het ondersoek, deur middel van ‘n historiese gevallestudie, hoe die Dertig Jaar Oorlog (1618-1648) ingewerk het op die ekonomiese arenas van agri-industriële produksie, handel, and finansies van die Verenigde Provinsies van Nederland, en hul mededinger vir sistemiese leierskap, Spanje. Die veranderlikes wat in die studie ingespan was, was Groot Moontheid Oorlog, en die ‘materiële basis’ van die state in kwessie (onafhanlik), die drie bogenoemde ekonomiese arenas (albei tussenkomend), en hegemonie of nederlaag (afhanklik). Die gevallestudie was hoofsaaklik beskrywend en verduidelikend, en proses-nasporing (oftewel ‘process-tracing’) is in die samestelling daarvan benut, en ‘n metode van gestruktureerde, gefokusde vergelyking (oftewel ‘structured, focused comparison’) is gebruik binne die gevallestudie met die doel om tentatiewe gestandardiseerde en veralgemeende kennis te genereer wat bydra tot die verduideliking van die wyer skakel tussen Groot Moontheid Oorlog en hegemonie buite die geval van die Verenigde Provinsies. Die bevindinge van die studie, hoewel gegenereer aan die hand van slegs een historiese geval van hegemoniese bestyging in the moderne wêreld-sisteem, het sterk steun verleen aan die argument dat Groot Moontheid Oorloë nodig is om die hegemonie van die vernaamste insulêre kern staat te bewerkstellig, wat fisies verwyderd van die gevegte is tydends die oorlog, aangesien die volle mobilisasie van die ekonomie van hierdie staat bewerkstellig word, terwyl die ekonomieë van die meerderheid van die ander kernstate benadeel word, veral die vernaamste kontinentale mededinger om hegemonie. Die opkomende hegemoon moet egter ook oor die vereiste gunstige ‘materiële basis’ beskik. Verdere navorsing in hierdie veld word benodig, gegewe die waarskynlike vernietiging wat gesaai kan word deur ‘n toekomstige Groot Moontheid Oorlog, en die rol daarvan in die daarstelling van hegemonie in die moderne wêreld-sisteem.