Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Re‐Stating Politics, Re‐Politicising the State: Neo‐liberalism, Economic Imperatives and the Rise of the Competition State

2004; Wiley; Volume: 75; Issue: s1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1467-923x.2004.621_1.x

1467-923X

Colin Hay,

Economic Theory and Institutions

The Political QuarterlyVolume 75, Issue s1 p. 38-50 Re-Stating Politics, Re-Politicising the State: Neo-liberalism, Economic Imperatives and the Rise of the Competition State COLIN HAY, COLIN HAY University of BirminghamSearch for more papers by this author COLIN HAY, COLIN HAY University of BirminghamSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 November 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2004.621_1.xCitations: 34AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Notes 1 Philip G. Cerny, ' Globalisation and the changing logic of collective action,'International Organization, 1995, pp. 595–625; 'Paradoxes of the competition state: the dynamics of political globalisation,'Government and Opposition, 1997, pp. 251–74; Bob Jessop, 'Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on post-Fordist political economy,'Studies in Political Economy, 1993, pp. 7–39; The Future of the Capitalist State, Cambridge Polity, 2002. Google Scholar 2 Cerny, ' Paradoxes of the competition state,'pp. 258, 259. Google Scholar 3 Cerny, ibid., p. 251. Google Scholar 4 Cerny, ' Globalisation and the changing logic of collective action,'pp. 598, 612–13; 'Paradoxes of the competition state,' p. 260. Google Scholar 5 There is, in fact, only one exception to this. Cerny points briefly, and in passing, to the 'new and potentially undemocratic role' that the state must increasingly perform in satisfying economic (rather than political) imperatives. Yet sadly this potentially highly significant comment is never developed—presumably because political priorities and democratic demands to economic imperatives. Cerny, 'Paradoxes of the competition state,' p. 258. Google Scholar 6 Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist State, p. 132. Google Scholar 7 Jessop, ibid., pp. 58 ff. Google Scholar 8 Though see Cerny, ' Paradoxes of the competition state,'pp. 263–8. Here Cerny does acknowledge that the dominant form of the competition state is ht 'neoliberal state' (p. 265). Google Scholar 9 Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist Sate, p. 142. Google Scholar 10 Ibid., pp. 259–67. Google Scholar 11 Ibid., p. 142. Google Scholar 12 On the structure–agency relationship, see especially Cerny, The Changing Architecture of the State, London, Sage, 1990; Jessop, The Capitalist State: Putting Capitalist States on Their Place, Cambridge, Polity, 1990. Google Scholar 13 Jessop, The Future of the Capitalist State, p. 247. Google Scholar 14 Ibid., p. 248. Google Scholar 15 Ibid., p. 268. Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume75, Issues1August 2004Pages 38-50 ReferencesRelatedInformation