Social Democracy’s Last Rounds

Jacobin online, February 25, 2016

Interview with Jonah Birch and George Souvlis

You’ve argued in recent years that the trajectory of “democratic capitalism” in Europe has increasingly been in the direction of a social and economic model that prioritizes the imperatives of the market and of business profitability over the requirements of democratic equality and social solidarity. Can you talk a little about how that process has unfolded, and how the eurozone crisis that broke out after 2008 fits into this picture?

Democracy under capitalism is democracy to the extent that it corrects the outcomes of markets in an egalitarian direction. Economic liberalization disconnects democracy from the economy — makes it run dry, as it were. The result is what is called post-democracy: democratic politics as a mass spectacle, as part of the entertainment industry. One way democracy is decoupled from the economy is by a transfer of economic policy out of the hands of national parliaments and governments to “independent” institutions such as central banks, summit meetings like the European Council, and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The euro, as instituted by the Maastricht Treaty, has in this way de-democratized (although by no means depoliticized) monetary and economic policy-making in its member states. Substantively, it has imposed a hard-currency policy on the whole of Euroland, one under which some countries, like Germany, can prosper while many others cannot. Weiterlesen

Can there be peace in Europe?

Interview for Liberal Culture, January 12, 2016. Polish version here.

Has Chancellor Merkel made a mistake when she opened the door for migrants without first consulting it with other European countries? Can this decision cost her the role of the European leader?

Like all other European leaders Merkel thinks first and foremost about her own domestic politics. Most of the migrants that had become stuck in the central station of Budapest wanted to go to Germany. The German public had been outraged about the French and the British leaving thousands of migrants stranded in Calais, at the entrance of the Channel tunnel. After Merkel had invited the Budapest migrants to Germany, perhaps also to clear the way for a coalition with the Greens in two years, it turned out there were millions more that wanted to come. At this point the German government began to look for a “European solution”. No European government consults with other European governments when it sees its own vital political interests at stake. Weiterlesen

Politics in the interregnum

Appeared in ROAR Magazine, December 23, 2015

Professor Streeck, to begin with, could you briefly explain why you believe that capitalism and democracy are in conflict with one another? Is this tension an inherent one, or do you consider it to be a more recent phenomenon?

Democracy: one person, one vote; capitalism: one dollar, one vote. The order of equality vs. the order of egoism (John Dunn). Capitalists as a permanent minority in a majoritarian democratic polity — and democracy ending “at the factory gates”. Social justice vs. the justice of markets. It’s an old story with unending permutations, discussed again and again since the nineteenth century, by legions of scholars and political leaders. Weiterlesen

Conversation on States and Markets (with Marion Fourcade)

ASA Economic Sociology Section Newsletter, Fall 2015, pp. 10-16

A perennial question in economic sociology is the relationship between the state and economy, which most economic sociologists conceptualize as co-constitutive. How would you characterize your own take on the relationship between the state and economy, and states and markets? What are some unexplored questions or problems we should be discussing/studying? Where should future research turn?

Wolfgang Streeck: I prefer to speak of either “the state and the market” or “the state and capitalism”. “The market” is shorthand for a mode of governance (free contracts at prices set by supply and demand) while “capitalism” refers to a particular power structure in society (private ownership of the means of production, private accumulation of capital). ”The state and the market” refers to the multifaceted relationship between two modes of allocation (distribution), whereas “the state and capitalism” refers to the equally multifaceted relationship between two different kinds of power (political and economic), or between citizenship and property rights, etc. (…)

Download [PDF]

„Barely disguised oligarchies“

Appeared, in Italian, in L’Eco di Bergamo, May 15, 2015

How do you interpret the current economic-financial crisis in part of the western world?

It is a return to the normal condition of capitalism: instability, uncertainty, unpredictability, a permanent conflict between social justice and the justice of the market. The return began in the 1970s with the breakdown of the postwar order. The three decades after the war were an exceptional period. Since then, a crisis sequence has begun brought inflation, public debt, private debt, secular stagnation and anarchic money production. The financial crisis of 2008 was the high point up now. More such high points are coming. Weiterlesen

„Alles kommt einmal zum Ende“

Gespräch mit Mathias Greffrath im Deutschlandfunk, 12. April 2015

Wolfgang Streeck, Sie sind emeritierter Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung in Köln. Vor zwei Jahren haben Sie ein Buch geschrieben, „Gekaufte Zeit: Die vertagte Krise des demokratischen Kapitalismus“. Und vor einem Jahr erschien ein Aufsatz mit dem Titel „Wie wird der Kapitalismus enden?“ Nicht, ob er enden wird, ist da die Frage, sondern wie er enden wird. Das ist ja eigentlich eine starke Aussage. Sie sind Soziologe. Was unterscheidet eigentlich den Blick eines Soziologen auf die Krise und auf den Kapitalismus vom Blick eines Ökonomen?

Also zunächst mal würde ich sagen: Was der Soziologe kann und der Ökonom können sollte, ist, seine Beobachtung in einen historischen Kontext zu setzen. Das anscheinend Sensationelle des Gedankens über das Ende des Kapitalismus ist ja eigentlich nur, dass man sich klar macht, dass diese Gesellschaftsformation irgendwann Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts in Europa und Amerika angefangen hat, und alles, was geschichtlich anfängt, steht in dem Verdacht, dass es irgendwann auch mal zum Ende kommt. Und ich denke, dass auch die Ökonomen eigentlich – und die klassische Ökonomie hat das ja gewusst. Die klassische Ökonomie hat ja immer auch über den Übergang zu einer neuen Gesellschaftsformation in einer dynamischen, modernen Gesellschaft spekuliert, das beginnt mit Ricardo, Marx, Sombart, was weiß ich alles. Und insofern ist das gar nicht dramatisch. Dass man heute Gründe hat, darüber verschärft nachzudenken, darüber werden wir uns ja noch unterhalten. (…)

Audio-Mitschnitt hier

Afraid of the Capitalist Victory

Klassekampen, Oslo, January 15, 2015 (in Norwegian)

As I understand it one of the main arguments in your book, „Gekaufte Zeit“, is that we now experience a rise of a new form of capitalism in the western world. A form of capitalism which evades democratic procedures. What is the main problem with western democracies? And is it possible to restore the balance between democracy and capitalism?

The so-called postwar settlement in Western capitalist democracies involved a state capable of correcting the distributional outcomes of markets. In exchange for its reinstatement after the disasters of the first half of the century, capitalism had to produce public benefits such as full employment, a growing welfare state, social security, steadily rising incomes, and a gradual reduction of inequality. For several decades now, Western capitalist economies have no longer been able to deliver on these promises. Growth is declining, inequality increasing, public and private debt is rising, so are economic risks, and crises are becoming more severe and disruptive. The new doctrine of economic policy is higher rewards for the winners and greater punishments for the losers – redistribution from bottom to top – rather than growth by stabilizing and expanding aggregate demand through steady increases in mass incomes: from Keynesianism to neoliberalism. For this purpose economic decision-making has to be taken away from democratically elected parliaments and accountable governments, to be relocated in international organizations and institutions as well as in “independent” central banks. As I said, these are trends that have been going on for decades. I cannot see how they could easily be reversed in the near future. Weiterlesen

„Das kann nicht gutgehen mit dem Kapitalismus“

Wirtschaftswoche Online, 8. Januar 2015

Herr Streeck, Sie kündigen das nahende Ende des Kapitalismus an. Wie kann ein Gesellschaftssystem enden, das den meisten Menschen auf der Welt alternativlos scheint und das kaum jemand abschaffen will?

Zunächst habe ich einfach darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass auch der Kapitalismus ein historisches Phänomen ist. Als Gesellschaftsordnung ist er nicht älter als rund zwei Jahrhunderte. Was einen Anfang hat, hat auch ein Ende. Allerdings müssen wir uns frei machen von dem Fortschrittsglauben, der noch aus dem 19. Jahrhundert stammt. Dieser besagt, dass eine Gesellschaft nur enden kann, wenn sie von einer besseren abgelöst wird. Ich glaube, dass es gute Gründe dafür gibt, anzunehmen, dass der Kapitalismus nicht durch eine Revolution abgeschafft oder überwunden wird, sondern von selbst verendet. Es gibt viele Symptome des Niedergangs, aber am wichtigsten sind drei langfristige Trends in den hochentwickelten, kapitalistischen Ländern. Weiterlesen