Social Economy Policies as Flanking Mechanisms for Neo-Liberalism: Trans-national Policy Solutions, Emergent Contradictions, Local Alternatives

  • Peter Graefe

While early assessments of neo-liberalism stressed its destructiveness in rolling back the institutions of the Keynesian welfare state, recent analyses have begun to assess how its consolidation involves creating new institutions and patterns of governance to extend market relations to new spheres of social life, and to stabilize emergent contradictions. Jessop has crafted the expression ‘flanking mechanism’ to describe attempts at shoring up neo-liberalism in the Anglo-American countries through various Third Way policies. These mechanisms may prove unsuccessful in their task should confusion persist over the proper form of support: is the solution to prop up neo-liberalism with institutions based on other logics, or is it to deepen the spread of market metrics ever more broadly over the social world? Moreover, what happens when both flanking strategies are employed at once?

Keywords

Europe Coherence Expense Nism Wharf 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. P. Alcock and D. Scott (2002), ‘Partnerships with the voluntary sector: Can Compacts work?’, in C. Glendinning, M. Powell and K. Rummery (eds.), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare (Bristol: The Policy Press).Google Scholar
  2. A. Amin, A. Cameron and R. Hudson (1999), ‘Welfare as work? The potential of the UK social economy’, Environment and Planning A, 31, 11, 2033–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Amin, A. Cameron and R. Hudson (2002), Placing the Social Economy (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  4. U. Ascoli and C. Ranci (2002), ‘Changes in the welfare mix: The European path’, in U. Ascoli and C. Ranci (eds.), Dilemmas of the Welfare Mix: The New Structure of Welfare in an Era of Privatization (New York: Kluwer Academic).Google Scholar
  5. J. Belleau (1996), ‘Exposé de Josée Belleau de l’R des Centres de femmes du Québec’, in Les Actes du Séminaire International sur l’Éconmie Sociale Tenu les 6 et 7 Juin 1995 (Montreal: Relais-femmes).Google Scholar
  6. H. Bohémier (1992), L’aide Sociale au Féminin: Pauvreté, Contrôleet Humiliatio (Montreal: Relais-femmes).Google Scholar
  7. C. Borzaga and A. Santuari (2003), ‘New trends in the non-profit sector in Europe: The emergence of social entrepreneurship’, in OECD, The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  8. D. Côté (2001), ‘Le débat québécois sur l’économie sociale: « mais que sont nos politiques devenues »?’, in M. Tremblay and D. Masson (eds.), Les Transformations des Politiques Publiques au Canada: Quels Enjeux pour les Femmes à l’Aube du 21 e Siècle? (Ottawa: Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa).Google Scholar
  9. M. D’Amours (1993), Tous les Moyens du Bord. Les Centres de Femmes: des Chantiers Économiques (Montreal: L’R des centres de femmes du Québec).Google Scholar
  10. M. D’Amours (2001), ‘Économie sociale au Québec: Vers un clivage entre entreprise collective et action communautaire’ (The Social Economy in Québec: Towards a Division between Collective Businesses and Collective Action), mimeo, 25 May.Google Scholar
  11. F. David and L. Marcoux (1995), Du Pain et des Roses: Cahier de Revendications et Guide d’Animation (Montreal: Marche des femmes contre la pauvreté).Google Scholar
  12. Department of Trade and Industry (2002), Social Enterprise: A Strategy for Success (London: Department of Trade and Industry).Google Scholar
  13. D. Dolowitz and D. Marsh (1996), ‘Who learns what from whom? A review of the policy transfer literature’, Political Studies, 44, 3, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ECOTEC (2001), Evaluation of the Third System and Employment Pilot Action: Final Report (Birmingham: ECOTEC Research and Consulting Limited).Google Scholar
  15. G. Esping-Andersen (2002), ‘A child–centred social investment strategy’, in G. Esping-Andersen (ed.), Why We Need a New Welfare State, G. Esping-Andersen (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (1998), The Era of Tailor-Made Jobs: Second Report on Local Development and Employment Initiatives (Brussels: The European Commission).Google Scholar
  17. A. Evers (1996), ‘Institutionalising a new pluralism–lessons from the area of care and personal social services’, in OECD, Reconciling Economy and Society: Towards a Plural Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  18. R. Gass (1996), ‘The next stage of structural change: towards a decentralized economy and an active society’, in OECD, Reconciling Economy and Society: Towards a Plural Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  19. M. Howlett (2000), ‘Beyond legalism? Policy ideas, implementation styles and emulation-based convergence in Canadian and U.S. environmental policy’, Journal of Public Policy, 20, 3, 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O. James and M. Lodge (2003), ‘The limitations of “policy transfer” and “lesson drawing” for public policy research’, Political Studies Review, 1, 2, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Jenson and D. Saint-Martin (2003), ‘New routes to social cohesion? Citizenship and the Social Investment State’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28, 1, 77–99.Google Scholar
  22. B. Jessop (2000), ‘The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the tendential ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 2, 323–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. B. Jessop (2002), ‘Liberalism, neo-liberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective’, Antipode, 34, 3, 452–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. T. Jones and T. Newburn (2002), ‘Learning from Uncle Sam? Exploring U.S. influences on British crime control policy’, Governance, 15, 2, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Jouen (1996), ‘Proposals for a new policy package’, in OECD, Reconciling Economy and Society: Towards a Plural Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  26. M. Jouen (2000), European Union Action to Promote Local Employment Initiatives (Paris: Notre Europe).Google Scholar
  27. W. Larner (2000), ‘Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology, governmentality’, Studies in Political Economy, 63, 5–25.Google Scholar
  28. D. Masson (2002), ‘Engendering regional development policy in Québec (Canada)’, Mimeo, Institute of Women’s Studies, Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
  29. S. McBride and R. Williams (2001), ‘Globalization, the restructuring of labour markets and policy convergence: The OECD “Jobs Strategy”’, Global Social Policy, 1, 3, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. C. McDonald and G. Marston (2002), ‘Patterns of governance: The curious case of non-profit community services in Australia’, Social Policy and Administration, 36, 4, 376–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. C. Murphy (1999), ‘Inequality, turmoil and democracy: Global political-economic visions at the end of the century’, New Political Economy, 4, 2, 284–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. J. Novak (2003), ‘New trends in the non-profit sector in Australia: A greater involvement in employment and social policies’, in OECD, The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  33. M. Nyssens (1996), ‘Popular economy in the South, third sector in the North: Seeds of a mutually supportive sector?’ in OECD, Reconciling Economy and Society: Towards a Plural Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  34. OECD (1996), Reconciling Economy and Society: Towards a Plural Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  35. OECD (1998), Fostering Entrepreneurship (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. OECD (1999), Social Enterprises (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  37. OECD (2003), The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. J. Peck (2002), ‘Political economies of scale: fast policy, inter-scalar relations and neo-liberal workfare’, Economic Geography, 78, 3, 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. J. Peck and N. Theodore (2001), ‘Exporting workfare/importing welfare-to-work: Exploring the politics of Third Way policy transfer’, Political Geography, 20, 4, 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Québec (2003), Plan d’Action Pour le Développement des Entreprises de l’Économie Sociale (Québec: Ministère des Finances).Google Scholar
  41. C. Ranci (2002), ‘The mixed economy of care in Europe’, in U. Ascoli and C. Ranci (eds.), Dilemmas of the Welfare Mix: The New Structure of Welfare in an Era of Privatization (New York: Kluwer Academic).Google Scholar
  42. J.-F. René, D. Fournier, M. Duval and S. Garon (2001), Les Organismes Communautaires au Québec: Des Pratiques à la Croisée des Chemins (Montréal: Relais-femmes).Google Scholar
  43. N. Rose (1999), ‘Inventiveness in politics’, Economy and Society, 28, 3, 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. P. Sauvage (1996), ‘Summary’, in OECD, Reconciling Economy and Society: Towards a Plural Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar
  45. K. Scott (2003), Funding Matters: The Impact of Canada’s New Funding Regime on Non-profit and Voluntary Organizations (Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development).Google Scholar
  46. E. Shragge and J.-M. Fontan (2000), ‘Debating the social economy/third sector in Québec’, Canadian Review of Social Policy, 45–46, 229–235.Google Scholar
  47. E. Shragge, P. Graefe and J.-M. Fontan (2001), ‘The Citizenship-building consequences of Quebec’s social economy’, in J. Jenson (ed.), Building Citizenship: Governance and Service Provision in Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network).Google Scholar
  48. R. Silverman (2004), ‘Social capital and community development’, in R.Silverman (ed.), Community-Based Organizations: The Intersection of Social Capital and Local Context in Contemporary Urban Society (Detroit: Wayne State University Press).Google Scholar
  49. S. Smith (2002), ‘Privatization, devolution, and the Welfare State: Rethinking the prevailing wisdom’, in B. Rothstein and S. Steinmo (eds.), Restructuring the Welfare State: Political Institutions and Policy Change (New York: Palgrave MacMillan).Google Scholar
  50. A. Tickell and J. Peck (2003), ‘Making global rules: Globalization or neoliberalization?’, in J. Peck and H. Yeung (eds.), Remaking the Global Economy: Economic–Geographic Perspectives (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  51. L. Toupin (2001), Social and Community Indicators for Evaluating Women’s Work in Communities (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada).Google Scholar
  52. Y. Vaillancourt (1999), ‘Tiers secteur et reconfiguration des politiques sociales: introduction au dossier’, Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 11, 2, 21–39.Google Scholar
  53. D. White (1997), ‘Contradictory participation: reflections on community action in Quebec’, in B. Wharf and M. Clague (eds.), Community Organizing: Canadian Experiences (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  54. D. Young (2003), ‘New trends in the US non-profit sector: Towards market integration?’, in OECD, The Non-profit Sector in a Changing Economy (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Graefe

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations