Suchergebnisse

This book serves as a sequel to two distinguished volumes on capitalism: Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 1999) and Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism (1985). Both volumes took stock of major economic challenges advanced industrial democracies faced, as well as the ways political and economic elites dealt with them. However, during the last decades, the structural environment of advanced capitalist democracies has undergone profound changes: sweeping deindustrialization, tertiarization of the employment structure, and demographic developments. This book provides a synthetic view, allowing the reader to grasp the nature of these structural transformations and their consequences in terms of the politics of change, policy outputs, and outcomes. In contrast to functionalist and structuralist approaches, the book advocates and contributes to a 'return of electoral and coalitional politics' to political economy research.

Experiments should be designed to facilitate the detection of experimental measurement error. To this end, we advocate the implementation of identical experimental protocols employing diverse experimental modes. We suggest iterative nonparametric estimation techniques for assessing the magnitude of heterogeneous treatment effects across these modes. And we propose two diagnostic strategies—measurement metrics embedded in experiments, and measurement experiments—that help assess whether any observed heterogeneity reflects experimental measurement error. To illustrate our argument, first we conduct and analyze results from four identical interactive experiments: in the lab; online with subjects from the CESS lab subject pool; online with an online subject pool; and online with MTurk workers. Second, we implement a measurement experiment in India with CESS Online subjects and MTurk workers.

"This paper analyzes the evolution of inequality and its determinants across different forms of income. A number of results emerge from this effort. First, OECD countries have been and continue to be much more diverse in their distributions of earnings and disposable income than they are in their distributions of market income. Second, the larger cross-national variation in the distributions of earnings and disposable income can be attributed to the role of political actors (such as unions and, more importantly, political parties) and economic institutions that allow actors to coordinate their activities. Third, the transmission of cross-national differences in wage inequality into market-based inequality appears to be muted relative to economic and demographic transformations that have gone on within the OECD countries. Fourth, the way in which political parties are able to pursue their goals varies across forms of income. Political parties' capacity to shape the distribution of earnings is contingent on the degree of wage bargaining coordination. Absent coordination between labor and capital, right-wing policy works to modestly increase inequality. Alternatively, the egalitarian efforts of left-wing parties have the undesired effect of raising earnings inequality. In contrast, when labor market actors are able to coordinate, left-wing policy reinforces the egalitarian effects of coordination whereas the impact of right-wing policy is institutionally constrained. In turn, political parties affect directly the distribution of disposable income through their choices about fiscal redistribution." (author's abstract)

"In diesem Beitrag wird die Entwicklung der Steuersysteme in OECD-Ländern über die letzten Jahrzehnte des 20. Jahrhunderts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Steuern auf Arbeitseinkommen untersucht. Folgende Resultate können festgehalten werden. Erstens besteht nicht nur der Großteil der Abgabenbelastung für private Haushalte aus Steuern auf Arbeitseinkommen, sie sind vor allem der Grundstock der öffentlichen Finanzen in den betrachteten Ländern. Zweitens scheinen diese Steuern auf Arbeitseinkommen und nicht etwa Kapitalertragssteuern das bevorzugte Finanzierungsinstrument gerade der politischen und ökonomischen Interessenvertreter zu sein, die sich für einen starken und somit teuren Wohlfahrtsstaat aussprechen. Dabei existiert in den Wohlfahrtsstaaten kein sog. 'free lunch', vielmehr scheint der 'Sozialismus in einer Gesellschaftsklasse' an der Tagesordnung zu sein. Drittens lässt sich feststellen, dass diese Art der Finanzierung des Wohlfahrtsstaates Kosten in Form von Arbeitslosigkeit mit sich bringt, deren Höhe sich allerdings invers zum Grad der Koordination auf dem Arbeitsmarkt verhält." (Autorenreferat)