Suchergebnisse

Introduction: Crime and the state through the ages -- Crime's ever-expanding universe -- Crime before the state -- Crime as a social problem -- The state as victim : treason -- Parallel justice -- Why punish? -- How to punish -- Moderating punishment -- Crimes of thought -- Obliged to be good -- From retribution to prevention -- The state as enforcer : from Polizei to police -- Conclusion: Still present after all these years.

COVID-19 is the biggest public health and economic disaster of our time. It has posed the same threat across the globe, yet countries have responded very differently and some have clearly fared much better than others. Peter Baldwin uncovers the reasons why in this definitive account of the global politics of pandemic. He shows that how nations responded depended above all on the political tools available - how firmly could the authorities order citizens' lives and how willingly would they be obeyed? In Asia, nations quarantined the infected and their contacts. In the Americas and Europe they shut down their economies, hoping to squelch the virus's spread. Others, above all Sweden, responded with a light touch, putting their faith in social consensus over coercion. Whether citizens would follow their leaders' requests and how soon they would tire of their demands were crucial to hopes of taming the pandemic.

There is much heated rhetoric about the widening gulf between Europe and America. According to the American right, Europeans are lazy, defeatist and irreligious, while Americans are entrepreneurial, optimistic, and pious. And according to Europeans, America is harsh, dominated by the market, crime-ridden, violent, and sharp-elbowed. But are the US and Europe so different? Peter Baldwin, one of the world's leading historians of comparative social policy, thinks not, and in this bracingly argued but remarkably informed polemic, he lays out how similar the two continents really are.

Disease and Democracy is the first comparative analysis of how Western democratic nations have coped with AIDS. Peter Baldwin's exploration of divergent approaches to the epidemic in the United States and several European nations is a springboard for a wide-ranging and sophisticated historical analysis of public health practices and policies. In addition to his comprehensive presentation of information on approaches to AIDS, Baldwin's authoritative book provides a new perspective on our most enduring political dilemma: how to reconcile individual liberty with the safety of the community. Baldwin finds that Western democratic nations have adopted much more varied approaches to AIDS than is commonly recognized. He situates the range of responses to AIDS within the span of past attempts to control contagious disease and discovers the crucial role that history has played in developing these various approaches. Baldwin finds that the various tactics adopted to fight AIDS have sprung largely from those adopted against the classic epidemic diseases of the nineteenth century—especially cholera—and that they reflect the long institutional memories embodied in public health institutions

This book examines the social bases of the European welfare state, and the interests developed in or against social policy by various classes of society, during the period 1875-1975 in Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden. By analyzing the competing concerns of different social "actors" that lie behind the evolution of social policy, it explains why some nations had an easy time in developing a generous and solidaristic welfare state while others fought long and entrenched battles. In particular, the book examines the period after the Second World War and looks in detail at the state developed by the bourgeoisie in welfare policies. By casting its net across five nations and a whole century, the book attempts to establish a broad logic of interest behind the welfare state based on a very extensive range of archival material.

This book examines the social bases of the European welfare state, and the interests developed in or against social policy by various classes of society, during the period 1875–1975 in Britain, France, Germany, Denmark and Sweden. By analysing the competing concerns of different social factors that lie behind the evolution of social policy, it explains why some nations have had an easy time in developing a generous and solidaristic welfare state while others fought long and entrenched battles. In particular, the book examines the period after the Second World War and looks in detail at the stake developed by the bourgeoisie in welfare policies. By casting its net across five nations and virtually a whole century, the book attempts to establish a broad logic of interest behind the welfare state on the basis of a very extensive range of archival material

Because my article was not a review of Richard J. Evans's book, but a thought piece on broader topics prompted by his work, it does not stick only to issues discussed by him. What a shame that Cosmopolitan Islanders was largely ignored, as Evans reports, for he raises important questions. Part of the reason for the book's stillbirth is exemplified in Evans' response here: the self-isolation of the historical profession that is met by increasing indifference from the rest of the thinking world. Evans's concern to draw fine distinctions and quarantine history apart from all other social science is telling. Yes, Myrdal was a sociologist (well actually an economist, but no matter). And, yes, some of the foreign scholars I mention who write about the Anglosphere work on literature, not history as such. Why such vigorous policing of the disciplinary boundaries when larger issues are at stake? No wonder historians now have their largest audiences among the military history buffs while the more adventurous social sciences cash in on our work in ways we spurn. What William McNeill used to do has become the province of Francis Fukuyama.