Suchergebnisse

An influential strand of Japanese historiography is invested in notions of peculiarity that highlight the deviance of Meiji Japan from Western liberal-democratic patterns. This special path is associated with the rising influence of the German Historical School of Economics. By analyzing the content of that influence and by maintaining a comparative perspective with the United States, Britain, and Germany, it is possible to highlight the worldwide demise of laissez-faire liberalism and the emergence in the 1880s of an international community of social reformers influenced by the Historical School, thus affirming the intellectual plurality and multiple political valence of this tradition of economic thought.

Debates about history have never been strictly confined to the world of scholarship. They have also been at the centre of political controversies in society. 'The problem for professional historians', Eric Hobsbawm once observed, 'is that their subject has important social and political functions'.1 'This duality', he noted, 'is the core of our subject'. This essay offers some reflections on the political role of historians, exploring the relationship between their scholarly work and their involvement in political debates. A closer look at the issue shows that it is not so much a problem as an opportunity for historians to engage with their subject on various levels, from the realm of scholarship to the realm of contemporary politics, which makes their position in society both more complex and more critical.

This article explores how a political economy approach can explicate recent events in the United Kingdom's relation to the European Union. The proposition is that neither critical nor comparative approaches do justice to the extent to which British elites have sought to differentiate the UK from the EU. The UK is here understood as a Eurosceptic political economy, constructed in opposition to European integration and, in particular, Economic and Monetary. The article explores how we have witnessed a hardening of this Eurosceptic political economy in the context of the Eurozone crisis. The most distinctive feature of which, as seen in the referendum campaign, is the extent to which the economic case for withdrawal has been established as part of the mainstream of British political debate.

Typically evaluated for the merits or otherwise of his famous account of 'value pluralism', Isaiah Berlin's more general political thought is less often discussed. However, broader reflection sheds light on three crucial elements necessary for a proper understanding of Berlin's work. First, it shows the importance and context of his analysis of Marx and Marxism in providing the basis for his distinction between pluralism and monism. Secondly, through his criticisms of Marxism, Berlin's political sympathy for a moderate nationalism, something also reflected in his personal considerations regarding Jewish identity, can more easily be gauged. Thirdly, and in conclusion, a combination of this political preference and the 'pluralism–monism' dichotomy offers an explanation as to why Berlin wrote the history of political ideas as he did.