Suchergebnisse

"Much of the research on institutional change shows how systems shift slowly and incrementally. Yet, in the case of former President Donald Trump, change was rapid and radical. In Institutions Under Siege, leading political sociologist John L. Campbell offers new insights for understanding the legacy of the Trump presidency. The book examines Trump's attack on the "deep state" through the lens of institutional change theory, and demonstrates how he capitalized on tipping points and distinct leadership tactics to inspire, make deals with, and threaten people to get what he wanted. The book also assesses where the damage caused by the Trump administration is most likely to endure and where long-lasting damage was prevented. Sharp and insightful, Institutions Under Siege contrasts existing social science literature to draw attention to the unique significance of tipping points and the characteristics of particular leaders. John L. Campbell is Class of 1925 Professor and Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Dartmouth College. He is a leading scholar on how institutions and politics affect policymaking and economic performance in advanced capitalist countries. He is the author of several books including American Discontent: The Rise of Donald Trump and Decline of the Golden Age (2018) and What Capitalism Needs: Forgotten Lessons of Great Economists (2021)"--

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Preface -- CHAPTER ONE Problems of Institutional Analysis -- CHAPTER TWO The Problem of Change -- CHAPTER THREE The Problem of Mechanisms -- CHAPTER FOUR The Problem of Ideas -- CHAPTER FIVE The Problem of Globalization -- CHAPTER SIX Where Do We Go from Here? -- APPENDIX Analysis of Tax Levels and Structures for Country Subgroups -- References -- Index

This volume is about how Donald Trump, who had no prior public service, became president of the United States. It argues that Trump capitalized on a wave of increasing public discontent that stemmed from the demise of the country's Golden Age of prosperity. This involved decades-long trends in the American economy, race relations, ideology, and political polarization, all of which fueled rising discontent across America

Contributors include Peter Abrahamson (University of Copenhagen), Peter A. Hall (Harvard), Ulf Hedetoft (University of Aalborg), Lars Bo Kaspersen (Copenhagen Business School), Peter J. Katzenstein (Cornell University), Morten Kelstrup (University of Copenhagen), Ove Korsgaard (Danish University of Education), Peer Hull Kristensen (Copenhagen Business School), Per Kongshøj Madsen (University of Aalborg), Cathie Jo Martin (Boston University), Kevin H. O'Rourke (Trinity College Dublin), Uffe Østergård (University of Aarhus), and Hjalte Rasmussen (University of Copenhagen).

The rise of self-responsibility as practiced in many public policy areas was part of the more general rise of neoliberalism. A case in point is the corporate social responsibility movement. This led in the world of finance to the 2008 financial crisis thanks to various deregulatory moves beginning in the early 1980s. As such, the crisis was the product of a series of incremental institutional changes that enabled corporate self-responsibility in finance to go terribly wrong. Once the crisis hit, a number of more radical institutional changes were pursued in order to reverse the movement toward self-responsibility. This was an institutional rebalancing. This article offers some ideas about how to think about institutional change in the context of this particular corporate self-responsibility movement. It focuses first on the institutional changes that caused the crisis and then on the institutional changes that followed in an effort to minimize the severity of the crisis and reduce the possibility that another one might happen again. The basic argument is that self-responsibility is not a phenomenon that can be reduced to individual action; it cannot work properly without that action being embedded in an appropriate institutional environment. This is an argument at odds with neoliberal theory.