Search results

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction: Towards a Typology of Violence against Roma in Central and Eastern Europe -- 2 Liberalism, Multiculturalism and the Principles of Community -- 3 Ethnic Pluralism and the Liberal Virtues -- 4 Liberalism, Nationalism and Identity -- 5 The Discourse of Liberalism in Post-Socialist Europe -- 6 The Republican Alternative to Nationalism: Citizenship as Public Office in America -- 7 National Institutions and Sub-national Separatism: Crimea and Chechnia -- 8 Can the Institutions of the European Community Transcend Liberal Limitations in the Pursuit of Racial Equality? -- 9 Rawls: A Racist Theory of Justice? -- 10 Liberalism Without Universalism? -- 11 Communitarianism and Obedience -- 12 Being Some Body: Choice and Identity in a Liberal Pluralist World -- 13 Recognizing Multiculturalism -- 14 The Philosophy of Cultural Recognition -- Contributors

AbstractThomas Piketty'sCapital and Ideology(2020) offers a powerful critique of ideological justifications for inequality in capitalist societies. Does this mean we should reject capitalist institutions altogether? This paper defends some aspects of capitalism by explaining the epistemic function of market economies and their ability to harness capital to meet the needs of the relatively disadvantaged. We support this classical liberal position with reference to empirical research on historical trends in inequality that challenges some of Piketty's interpretations of the data. Then we discuss the implications of this position in terms of limits on the efficacy of participatory governance within firms and the capacity of the state to levy systematic taxes on wealth.

AbstractThe recent "liberal international order" (LIO) debate has been vague about the institutions and issue areas that constitute the order. This is likely driven by competing views of "liberal" and, perhaps more importantly, by security scholars dominating the debate. From the perspective of scholars who explore the elements of the global monetary order (reserve currencies, international financial institutions, and central banks), the picture is different. Where security scholars point to a decline in US influence, scholars of global monetary politics see continued US dominance. Moreover, monetary prominence has been a precondition for the viability of great power projects of order building more generally. This symposium offers such a counter narrative. While the security challenges are real, the crises of the last decade have actually reinforced the centrality of the US dollar and American financial power in the international system.

A persistent struggle within liberal thought is how to recognise cultural particularity within an ethical system in which toleration does not become indifference. The liberal internationalism espoused by leading US-based authors assumes a single logic of modernity, in which adherence to liberal rules and institutions is both necessary and inevitable. The article finds an echo of this view in earlier English School work on the expansion of international society, and subsequently teases out some lessons from recent revisionist accounts of how international society and its institutions were shaped by the multiplicity of their interactions. Historical and cultural encounters in international society show that liberal internationalists are mistaken in their belief that there is only one pathway to modernity and that re-rising powers, such as India, Russia and China will sustain the liberal order after American hegemonic decline.

The recent "liberal international order" (LIO) debate has been vague about the institutions and issue areas that constitute the order. This is likely driven by competing views of "liberal" and, perhaps more importantly, by security scholars dominating the debate. From the perspective of scholars who explore the elements of the global monetary order (reserve currencies, international financial institutions, and central banks), the picture is different. Where security scholars point to a decline in US influence, scholars of global monetary politics see continued US dominance. Moreover, monetary prominence has been a precondition for the viability of great power projects of order building more generally. This symposium offers such a counter narrative. While the security challenges are real, the crises of the last decade have actually reinforced the centrality of the US dollar and American financial power in the international system.

AbstractThe recent "liberal international order" (LIO) debate has been vague about the institutions and issue areas that constitute the order. This is likely driven by competing views of "liberal" and, perhaps more importantly, by security scholars dominating the debate. From the perspective of scholars who explore the elements of the global monetary order (reserve currencies, international financial institutions, and central banks), the picture is different. Where security scholars point to a decline in US influence, scholars of global monetary politics see continued US dominance. Moreover, monetary prominence has been a precondition for the viability of great power projects of order building more generally. This symposium offers such a counter narrative. While the security challenges are real, the crises of the last decade have actually reinforced the centrality of the US dollar and American financial power in the international system.

This book brings together some of the finest minds of social science to answer the great questions about the future of the liberal order. With contributions from the world of economics, sociology, political science, management, international relations and the humanities, this book provides a unique series of insights. Chapters explore the great questions of our time as they relate to the future of the liberal international and domestic order. Contemporary issues such as populisms, authoritarianism, trust and social cohesion, the future of global governance, finance, religion, and citizenship are addressed along with geopolitical implications and with a balance between expert authority and open-minded critique. It will be essential reading for students, scholars, and reflective practitioners across the human and social sciences.