patterns of democracy 書評

8/13/2019 Patterns of Democracy

1/12

This article was downloaded by: [National Taiwan University]On: 09 February 2014, At: 21:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

West European PoliticsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fwep20

Book reviews

Gianfranco Pasquino

a

, Philip G. Cerny

a

, MartinLodge

b, Alistair Cole

c, Mark Donovan

d, Franz

Fallende& Rosa Mul

f

aBologna Center of the Johns Hopkins University ,

University of Bologna ,bUniversity of Manchester ,

cUniversity of Ulster , Jordanstown

dCardiff University ,

eUniversity of Salzburg ,

fUniversity of Warwick ,Published online: 03 Dec 2007.

To cite this article:Gianfranco Pasquino , Philip G. Cerny , Martin Lodge , AlistairCole , Mark Donovan , Franz Fallend & Rosa Mul (2000) Book reviews, WestEuropean Politics, 23:3, 231-240, DOI: 10.1080/01402380008425395

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402380008425395

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the Content) contained in the publications on our

platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402380008425395http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402380008425395http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01402380008425395http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fwep20


2/12

independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study

purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Downloadedby[NationalTaiwanU

niversity]at21:1309Feb

ruary2014
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/12

Book ReviewsPatterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-SixCountries.By AREND LIJPHART. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,1999.Pp.351,biblio., index. 26 (cloth); 10.95 (paper) ISBN 0-300-07893 -5.Fifteen years after the publication of his influential analysisDem ocracies Lijphart hasproceeded to a thorough rew riting of his book. The countries taken into considerationhave increased from 21 to 36 and two new institutional variables, interest groups andcentral banks, have been added. What has not changed, indeed, what appears to bestrengthened by the new operationalisation of some variables, is the overall thesis.According to Lijphart, consensual democracies perform better than majoritariandemocracies on practically all indicators. Consensual democracies are preferable notonly for their performance on quantitative indicators, that is, macroeconomicmanagement (economic growth and the control of inflation and unemployment) andthe level of violence, but also on qualitative indicators (women's representation,equality, voter participation rates, welfare policies, environmental protection, criminaljustice, aid to developing countries). Therefore, they are highly recommended - albeitnot growing in num ber, an issue Lijphart does not confront.I believe that the central thesis is not convincing , but first I should like to point outsome curious and also serious mistakes. First, it is not true that in France 'the secondballot contest is usually between two principal candidates so that, in practice, there isno big difference between the majority-plurality formula and the majority run-off(p .146). On the contrary, the extraordinary defeat of the centre-right in the 1997elections w as due to many three-way contests where Le P en's candidates did not standdown. Second, it is absolutely wrong to state that the German electoral system is a'mixed mem ber propo rtional' system of a type similar to the post-reform New Zealandand Italian electoral systems (p. 148). The Germ an electoral system is fullyproportional with two alternative thresholds for access to the allocation of seats.Moreover, the Italian electoral system, mis-classified as PR in Table 8.2 (p.162),allocates three-quarters of the seats according to a plurality formula in single-memberdistricts. Finally, it is not true, as Lijphart writes, quoting Duverger, that the electoralsystem of the Fifth French Republic is 'the same electoral system' as that of the ThirdRepublic (p . 156). On the contrary, while both systems are run-off majority systems,the big difference is that in the Third Republic not only was there no threshold foraccess to the second ballot but new candidates could even enter the race between thefirst and the second ballot. Since minor details may have a big impact, the presence ofa high threshold for access to the second ballot in the Fifth Republic helps tounderstand, together w ith the direct popular election of the President of the Repub lic,why the party systems of the Third and the Fifth Rep ublic are significantly different intheir format as well as in their dynamics.

Returning to the overall thesis that consensual democracies perform better thanmajoritarian ones, I first stress that the terminology used by the author remainsunsatisfactory and misleading. Many majoritarian democracies are endowed withtremendous elite-m ass consensus on both the rules of the game and on the outcomes.My objections are of three types. First, for several of the new democracies added byLijphart to the original group, the time span for which data have been collected is tooshort to be convincing. Second, even for some of the 'old' democracies, the time span,

Downloadedby

[NationalTaiwanUniversity]at21:1309Febru

ary2014


4/12

23 2 WEST EUROPEAN POLITICSfluctuating between 13 and 25 years, is still not sufficient to warrant unchallengeableconclusions. Even the author recognises this in several cases, notably that 'thecorrelations are so weak that they do not allow any substantive conclusions in favourof one or the other type of democracy' (p.272). When it comes to Italy, until 1994 a'consensual' democracy of the best kind according to almost all the characteristicsformulated by Lijphart, the reader will discover that my country proves to be an'outlier' on almost all the indicators: high inflation, high unemployment, low growthrate. Not surprisingly, then, when the degree of satisfaction with the democraticperform ance of their country, supposedly consensual and allegedly working better thana majoritarian democracy, is evaluated, Italians are second in their dissatisfaction onlyto the Colombians (incidentally, allegedly another 'con sensua l' dem ocracy).Let m e confess that I am am ong those 81 per cent of Italians w ho are dissatisfiedwith the quality and the performance of their democracy. No wonder, then, that, eventhough encountering many obstacles, the majority of Italian voters have struggled topush their political system through a sequence of electoral referendums consistently inthe direction of a majoritarian democracy. Perhaps, Lijphart might want to explainwhy, if consensual democracies are so demonstrably better than majoritariandemocracies, the latter persist and are not challenged. Other questions badly needexplanation too. First, why, with the exception of New Zealand, whose dynamics haveremained 'bipolar' even after the electoral reform, have old majoritarian democraciesnot moved into the 'consensual' mould? Second, why have some relatively newdemocracies, such as all the Latin American ones after their military interlude,reconstructed their presidential majoritarian democracies? And why have some brandnew democratic regimes, such as those of central-eastern Europe, chosen a variety ofmajoritarian solutions, for instance, a semi-presidential form of government imitatedfrom the Fifth French Republic m odel?It is to Lijph art's credit that some of these questions can now b e raised in a clearerway. Nevertheless, a lot remains to be done, avoiding all proportional obsessions andall majoritarian biases, in order to answer them in a fully convincing and satisfactorymanner.

GIANFRANCO PASQUINOUniversity of Bologna and Bologna Center of the Johns Hopkins UniversityCritical Citizens. Global Support for Democratic Governance. Edited by P.NO RR IS. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp.xv + 3 03 , 37 figures, 59 tables,biblio, index. 45 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-829479-4.Pippa Norris has edited an excellent collection of essays because she has provided avery inspiring point of departure and has successfully coordinated the writing of herfirst-rate contributors. The po int of departure is, in fact, doubly insp iring: first, becausethe topic that is researched , democratic citize ns' dissatisfaction, is in itself very timelyand important, especially now that most of us believe, on the whole rightly so, thatdemocracy as an ideal has won. Therefore, scholars and politicians alike should beinterested not so much in the existence of democracy, what democracy is, as in theperformance of democracy, what democracy do es. Second, building on David E aston'spath-breaking conception of support, Norris identifies not just three objects of support(community, regime, authorities), but five (community, regime principles, regimeperformance, regime institutions, and political actors). Following this improved

Downloadedby

[NationalTaiwanUnive

rsity]at21:1309Febru

ary2014


5/12

BOOK REVIEWS 23 3classification of the objects of support, many contributors have accordingly shaped thepresentation of their data and reinterpreted the results of their research. I found fourchapters particularly interesting, namely those by Hans-Dieter Klingemann, who hasmapped political support in the 1990s; by William Mishler and Richard Rose on the'trajectories of support for democracy in post-communist Europe'; by Dieter Fuchswho analyses the 'democratic culture of unified Germany'; and by Arthur Miller andOla Listhaug on 'political performance and institutional tru st'. How ever, all the othercontributors (Russell J. Dalton, Soren Holmberg, Doh C. Shin and Neil J. Munro,Kenneth Newton, and Ian McAllister) make a very good job in explaining thedynamics of political support both when resorting to comparative data or whenfocusing on some individual countries, for example, Sweden and South Korea.In fact, one of the most com mendable positive aspects of the book is exactly thatthe many contributors throw light on an important phenomenon, to repeat: thechanging dynamics of political support in democratic regimes, from different points ofview, and challenge both our received knowledge and our standard interpretations.What we learn is conveniently summarised first by Pippa Norris in her chapter on'Institutional Explanations for Political Support' and also by Ronald Inglehart. Theeditor-contributor stresses three major acquisitions: 1. 'citizens who live indemocracies with a strong tradition of civil liberties expressed considerableconfidence in their political system'; 2. 'evaluations of the political regime reflect ourexperience of whether we are winners or losers over successive elections' (thissentence may bring satisfaction to Arend Lijphart even though in a democratic systemenjoying government rotation, all of us have a good chance of being both losers andwinners, and of rejoicing or suffering periodically: the essence of democracy?; 3.'institutional arrangements are significantly related to political support'. To her thirdstatement Pippa Norris immediately adds an explanatory remark that will somewhatdisplease Lijphart: 'majoritarian electoral systems and moderate multi-party systems,in particular, tend to generate slightly higher levels of institutional confidence thanalternative arrangements' (p.234). As to Inglehart, the thrust of his argument iscaptured in the title of his chapter 'Postmodernization Erodes Respect for Authority,but Increases Support for Democracy'.Finally, if one is looking for solutions to the declining confidence 'in the coreinstitutions of representative government', they have to be found, the editor suggestsin her sobering conclusion, in the reform of those institutions and in the expansion ofopportunities for political participation, both conventional and heterodox. This is avery appropriate manner to summarise the findings of an excellent volume and toindicate avenues for future research and theorisations.

GIANFRANCO PASQUINOUniversity of Bologna and B ologna Center of the Johns Hopkins University

Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism. Edited by H. KITSCHELT,P. LANGE, G. MARKS and J.D. STEPHENS. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1999. Pp.xiii + 527 , biblio, index. 45 (US 69.95) (cloth) ISBN 0-521-62446-2; 16.95 (US 27.95) (paper) ISBN 0-521-63496-0.Analysts in the increasingly intertwined fields of comparative and internationalpolitical economy are in the midst of a crucial debate at the turn of the Millennium. Isglobalisation fostering a process of structural and institutional convergence affecting

Downloadedby[

NationalTaiwanUnive


ary2014


6/12

23 4 WEST EUROPEAN POLITICSall states - especially developed capitalist states? Or are different states not onlymaintaining but perhaps even reinforcing those distinct varieties of capitalism whichthey have evolved over time? Embedded institutions meet exogenous independentvariables - the immovable object and the irresistible force.

The editors of Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism have puttogether an important and ambitious book which attempts to look at the problemfrom both sides. Although designed partly as a successor volume to JohnGoldthorpe's edited volumeOrder and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism(1984),it seeks to transcend - though not actually to break - the mould. The coverage isimpressive, with chapters by leading scholars in Europe and the United States. PartI examines the international setting (production and trade, the internationalisation offinance and European integration); Part II changing domestic political economies(the evolution of different types of system, the impact of interdependence, thewelfare state, trade unions, social democratic labour market institutions and risingfemale participation in the workforce); and Part III parties and movements (post-industrial cleavages, Social Democratic and Christian Democratic parties, the neo-liberal model in Britain and the United S tates, and new left-libertarian and right-wingbacklash social movements).Unfortunately, the issues raised in the first two exce llent chapters a re not followedup systematically enough thereafter, partly underm ining the book's ostensible design.Most of the chapters in Parts II and III address comm on themes such as the decline oftraditional forms of employment and the rise of new ones and the impact of suchchanges on organisational and party politics as well as public policy. An importantcommon theme is that globalising economic variables are mediated through politicalprocesses and therefore evolve along alternative pathways. All are very sophisticatedand informative essays in their own right, but although they concern issues ostensiblyconnected with globalisation, such linkages are not really explored except for passingreferences to , for exam ple, tradeable and non-tradeable sectors. Links betw een broadtrends such as the emergence of post-industrialism on the one hand and cross-cuttingglobal and international changes on the other are too often implicit rather thansystematically addressed. The discussion of European integration also focuses tooexclusively on endogenous polity-building processes.Those later chapters which do address the theme m ore directly tend to support thecontinuing primacy of embedded institutions. David Soskice distinguishes between'co-ordinated' and 'uncoordinated' market economies (essentially an updated versionof the statist/neocorporatist versus Anglo-Saxon distinction), a theme also taken up byPeter Hall; they argue that fundamental differences between the two models are moreor less equally efficient modes of coping with globalisation. Both authors put theirprimary emphasis on the role of business and firms, rather than on labour. However,they still see the politics of firms as essentially involving relations with theirgovernments rather than with the impact of transnational structural changes - forexample the take-overs, bankruptcies, unravelling of previously stable bank-firmrelationships, and so on, so prominent in Germany today. Desmond King and StewartWood's chapter on Britain and the United States correctly points to the need toexamine more closely the role of the regulatory state as a co-ordinating mechanismrather than dismissing the state as absent from the neo-liberal model. The bestcomparative chapter in the book is Herbert Kitschelt's discussion of European SocialDemocratic parties and the policy and electoral dilemmas they face; he addresses thelink with globalising pressures more squarely than most other authors and develops auseful analytical framework for looking at the interface of Social Democracy and

Downloadedby[

NationalTaiwanUnive


ary2014


7/12

BOOK REVIEWS 23 5wider economic trends. However, it must be noted that the book manuscript wascompleted before elections returned Social Democratic parties to power in severalcoun tries, in the mid-to-late 1990s, notably B ritain and Germany, so the very issue ofSocial Democracy too often appears in an unfortunate declinist mode.

This book goes further than other com parative po litics books I have seen in takingaccount of international and transnational changes. Nevertheless, it does not reallysucceed in bridging the two traditionally divided levels of analysis. The conclusion bythe editors does discuss the interaction of convergence and divergence amongstcapitalist states in the global context, but they also seem to contradict themselves intrying to strike a balance. Furthermore, some of the authors in this book still seem tobe bemoaning the loss of the post-war 'golden age'. In the last sentence, the editorssay the twenty-first century will see the evolution of new varieties of capitalism, but:'Stable contours of that diversity ... are not yet in sight.' Continuity and Change inContemporary Capitalismtoo often falls into the same trap.PHILIP G. CERNYUniversity of M anchester

Com parative Public Policy - Patterns of Post-war Transformation. By FRANCISG. CASTLES. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998. Pp.368, 59.95 (cloth) ISBN 1-858989-816-0; 19.95 (paper) ISBN 1-858989-823-3.The fate of the welfare state has attracted considerable attention. 'Globalisation'approaches highlight the limitations experienced by national governments ineffectively influencing public policy whereas others point to the 'evil' consequencesof big government, for example wasteful public expenditure and growingunemployment. Francis Castles offers a major contribution to these debates in hisanalysis of 'post-war transformation' in 20 OECD countries over a 30-year period.Building on his 'family of nations' distinction (English-speaking, Scandinavian,continental west European and southern European), Castles compares statistical trendsand patterns and searches for determinants of public policies.Building on the notion of government growth, Castles offers a differentiatedanalysis of 'modernisation patterns' and political explanatory factors. 'Biggovernment' is examined in terms of total government outlays, receipts and civilianconsumption. The 'welfare state' is assessed by distinguishing between social security,health and education expenditures. In the labour market, Castles explores the paralleltrends of decreasing m ale employm ent and increasing female participation in the casheconomy, with women benefiting from welfare policies which are also positivelyrelated to higher fertility figures. In terms of both labour incentives and familypatterns, Castles finds little to suggest a negative impact of 'big government'.Critics will question whether the statistical data is reliable and allows forsignificant inferences, whether the independen t variables are chosen approp riately (forexam ple, are left/right w ing gove rnments easily distinguishab le?) and whe ther the datais interpreted convincingly. Crucially, the quantitative data may conceal moresignificant qualitative changes in policy programmes. The great strength of this bookis that it offers modesty and transparency in its analysis (even accom modating varyinglevels of statistical sophistication among the readership). The different hypotheses areclearly and convincingly set out and explanations, limitations and anomalies arediscussed at length.

Downloadedby[NationalTaiwanUnive


ary2014


8/12

23 6 WEST EUROPEAN POLITICSCastles finds a persistence of the 'family of nations' differentiation across policyareas indicating a process of 'fractured modernity' where political factors determineforms of social provision beyond certain economic thresholds. The differentiatedanalysis does not reveal uniform causes or patterns beyond particular socio-economicthresholds - instead 'everything matters and nations are never the same' (p.323).While Castles' data is limited in ending in the early 1990s, data from a decade laterwill offer a significant test for the persistence of his 'families of nations' and mightindicate a higher significance of international factors (especially EU membership).Nevertheless, Castles' book is an important contribution to comparative public policy,offering significant insight into policy areas over time and countries and providing akey source for any analysis of public policy.

MARTIN LODGEUniversity of Ulster at JordanstownThe Political System of the European Union.By S. HIX. London: Macmillan, 1999.Pp.ix + 427, 52 tables and 28 figures, biblio, index. 16.99 (paper) ISBN 0-333-71654-X; 49.50 (cloth) ISBN 0-333-71653-1.There are two analytically and politically important debates concerning the EuropeanUnion. The first one rotates around the quality of the research instruments to beutilised in order to explain the nature, functioning, development and future of theEuropean Union. Should one rely on instruments drawn from the discipline ofinternational relations or from comparative politics? The second debate focuses on thevery nature of the European Union and on its changes over time: is it an example ofmore or less successful intergovernmentalism or is it a very challenging case of asupranational construction? In various and significant ways Simon Hix has alreadycontributed to both debates with the publication of very interesting and suggestivearticles as well as of a book on p olitical parties join tly authored with Christopher L ord.Elsewhere and here, he entertains, promotes and defends two very clear stances: theEuropean Union should be analysed utilising the instruments developed bycomparative politics; and the European Union can be better understood if it isconsidered a case of supranational construction. The book under review cogentlybuilds on both arguments and provides the best analysis of the European Union to befound in the existing literature.For the pleasu re, for different reasons, of the Euro-optimists and the Euroscep tics,let me note that while Hix provides a very up-to-date account and analysis, somechanges have already taken place since the publication of his book. Those changesconcern, on the one hand, the fact that negotiations for membership have beenextended to another six countries plus Turkey, and, on the other hand, the presentationof the proposals drafted by the three 'wise men' appointed by the Commission in orderto strengthen the powe r of the body that Ro mano Prodi is fond of calling 'the Europeangov ernm ent'. W hat I mean to say is that the European Union is in constant evolutionand it should be analysed as an endlessly changing political system. This makes thetask of analysts, scholars and practitioners very difficult, continuously challenging andalways in need of additions and revisions. For these reasons, Hix's book is to becommended. It provides the most complete account of the European Union so faravailable and it does so in a way that may be of interest to practitioners, scholars andstudents.



ary2014


9/12

BOOK REVIEWS 23 7The book is divided into three major parts: government, politics, policy making.In the first part, the author carefully describes 'executive polities', legislative politicsand judicial politics, showing that what really counts are the changing interactionsamong the Council and the European Commission and the increasing role played bythe European Parlament. In the second part, Hix analyses three major topics: publicopinion and po litical cleavages; parties, elections and European Union dem ocracy; andinterest representation. He is especially preoccupied by the risk that the existing mixof representational styles may lead to policy immobilism and/or to the supremacy ofsome established sectorial interests over more general diffuse interests. The third partis devoted to the most important policies formulated, enacted and implemented by theEuropean Union. Particularly remarkable is the emphasis that Hix puts on thedifference between deregulatory policies, that seem to be easier to draft and toimplement, and redistributive policies which are more difficult to achieve and evenmore difficult to reform.In the rather brief conclusion, devoted to the problem of 'rethinking the EuropeanUn ion', H ix is less bold and imaginative than in some p revious proposals, for instancewhen he launched, justified and convincingly sustained the direct popular election ofthe President of Commission. In any case, he reiterates his proposal, criticises thosewho advocate referendums as the best means to reduce the democratic deficit andsuggests that the task is 'to design institutional mechanisms for competitive partygovernment to function' (p.186). The question not just of 'who governs the EU ', but'who should govern the EU and h ow ' is bound to stay with us for some time to come.However, it cannot be a long time because the risk exists that, deprived of a viablegovernment, the European Union may simply stop being a political system and mayrevert to being a socio-economic space. Hix's suggestions are that European politicalparties will in the end be required to play a more active political role. For the timebeing, his book m ust be recomm ended reading for scholars, practitioners and studentsnot only because it provides a very solid description of what kind of political systemthe European Union really is, but above all because it raises in a sober and'Eurointelligent' manner the most fruitful questions. Overall, there is nothing in whatHix w rites formulated in order to 'pater les (European) bo urge oisie'. There is a lot toeducate them, especially if they want to become a truly European demos withoutwhose existence it will be impossible to construct a better European democracy, and

vice versa.GIANFRANCO PASQUINOUniversity of Bologna and B ologna Center of the Johns H opkins U niversity

The Long Presidency. France in the Mitterrand Years 1981-19 95. By JULIUSFRIE ND . Boulder, CO and O xford: Westview Press, 1 998. Pp.xi + 3 08, biblio, index.30.95 (cloth) ISBN 0-8133-2850-0.Though books written in French proliferated during the twilight years of theMitterrand presidency, there remain relatively few studies of this recent period inFrench history in English. Friend'sThe Long Presidencyis a welcome add ition. Un likeseveral recent edited collections, the book has the advantage of the coherence of asingle-author vision. Friend adopts a resolutely orthodox approach, arguably incontrast with potentially more innovative approaches. This is a straightforwardchronological account of a period in French history from which, he concludes, it is too

Downloadedby[

NationalTaiwanUnive


ary2014


10/12

23 8 WEST EUROPEAN POLITICSrecent to draw definitive conclusions. There are strengths and weaknesses in theapproach adopted and the analysis therein. Friend has interviewed a truly impressiverange of po litical and p olicy actors of the M itterrand years; one feels that rather m orecould have been made of the information thereby acquired. The book is written inclear, jargon-free language that will be easily comprehensible to students.Though the book is comprehensive in its coverage, Friend can be accused ofsacrificing breadth for depth. It is undoubtedly the case, as Friend argues, that thechronological approach represents the messy reality more accurately than a more abstracttheoretical treatment. The downside is that the book reads as a succession of seamlesschronological events, the selection of which is necessarily rather arbitrary. Why are weallowed six pages on the comm unications revolution and only two on education, labourreform or the Maastricht Treaty? The danger with a chronology-based approach isprecisely that one cannot see the woods for the trees. The lack of conceptual ambitionmeans that there is little effort to uncover Mitterrand's political persona. W hen an attemptis finally made, in the last chapter, Friend gives way rather easily to the temptation toportray Mitterrand as political opportunist and self-seeker and to understate his policyachievements. These are, of course, debatable, but to my mind there is inadequateemphasis on the role of Mitterrand as architect of European integration and, moregenerally, a reluctance to engage in understanding his complex political persona .So,this is a book with obvious strengths and several weaknesses. At 30.50 it willprobably not be bought by m any studen ts, but should be present in university librariesas one of the few single authored books in English to deal with this passionate andimportant episode in contemporary French history.

ALISTAIR COLECardiff U niversityHistorical Dictionary of Modern Italy. Edited by MARK F. GILBERT and K.ROBERT NILSSON. The Scarecrow Press, Lanham, Maryland and London, 1999.Pp.xxxvi + 463 . 18 tables. 65 (cloth) ISBN 0-8108-3584-3In addition to its 350-plus formal entries, each averaging a page in length, this dictionarycontains a summary chronology from 1797 to 1998, an introductory essay (22 pp.), 18tables on political, economic and demographic topics, and an extensive (57 pp.)bibliography. Politics dominates, with economics, the arts and cultural matters, rangingfrom divorce to minorities (linguistic) and beyond, getting much less attention. The bookis probably most useful in its primary function as a dictionary. As such, both those seekinga useful English-language reference text for themselves, and teachers of modern Italianpolitics in particular, are likely to find this volume extremely useful. I have not read theentire volum e, but apart from one or two m inor errors such as describingM odern Italyasan annual (p.408) - it is a biannual journal - the only entry I found very unhelpful wasthat on 'consociationalism', a much used (and abused) term which certainly warrantedinclusion. Unfortunately, the entry does not make clear that the concep t's analytical utilityis questionable and its applicability to the Italian case hotly contested. Thus, there was notand could not be enduring, open elite co-operation in the form of grand coalition in the'First Republic'. The post-Fascist grand coalition was a brief elite affair which wasunable to face the onset of mass participation in politics. It disintegrated as a prelude tothe first parliamentary elections. Nor did it prove possible to reconstruct such a coalition,this time underpinned by broad mass acceptance of it, in the 1970s - by which time so-



ary2014


11/12

BOOK REVIEWS 23 9called 'consensu s' democracy was beginning to be challenged elsewhere in any case. Thissingle, detailed note of dissent should not, however, distract one from recognising thiswork as a very useful reference resource which libraries should be expected to makeavailable to students and scholars.

MARK DONOVANCardiff UniversityZukunft der Sozialpartnerschaft: Vernderungsdynamik und Reformbedarf.Edited by F. KAR LHOFE R and E. T LO S. Vienna: Signum, 1999.Pp.301,9 tables,3 figures, ATS 350 ISBN 3-85436-297-8.The Austrian version of corporatism, called social partnership, is one of the centralfeatures of the political system. In the 1990s it has experienced the most critical phaseof its history: the de-regulating effects of econom ic globalisation, the country's joiningof the European Union, growing budgetary problems, rising unemployment rates anda differentiation of the labour market, moderate neo-liberal government policies and,last but not least, intensified criticisms by the political opposition (concerning inparticular the system of obligatory m embership in the chambers) have led to an erosionof the formerly predominant influence of social partnership on decision making in thefields of economic and social policies.These developments form the starting point of the book, which gathers tencontributions by political scientists, economists and so ciologists, all of whom are well-known experts in their fields of study. The authors deal with organisationaldevelopm ents of the main interest groups, the changing role of the shop com mittees inthe face of a decentralisation of regulations, income policy, social partnership in the1990s, social policy, economic policy, the labour market, the affinities betweencorporatism in Austria and the 'social dialogue' in the European Union, therenaissance of corporatism and social pacts in other European states. The variouscontributions are in general highly inform ative, although they differ in their theoreticaland/or comparative approach. The final chapter draws general conclusions anddiscusses necessary reforms of the system.

One of the main findings of the book is that, despite the new challenges, socialpartnership in Austria is still relevant. However, the decision-making patterns even inthose policy fields which are usually associated with a domina nce of social p artnership(for example, income and social policy) have become more differentiated during the1990s, with social partnership losing influence vis--vis the government and thepolitical parties. Among the social partners, internal cohesion has suffered and thebalance of power has shifted to the representatives of the employers. In his finalchapter, editor Tlos concludes that the strains on social partnership will probably notlead to its end, but to a change towards a moderate form of corporatist interestaccomm odation. Reforms should include concentration on the main tasks and a moretransparent, service-oriented organisation.The book is not a truly edited volume. For that a longer introductory chapter isneeded, outlining the above-mentioned new circumstances for social partnership inmore depth and providing a more elaborated, theoretically based common analyticalframework with a core set of questions that would have guided the authors of thefollowing chapters. Moreover, not all the contributions deal systematically with thequestion (raised in the main title) of the 'future' of social partnership. Nevertheless,



ary2014


12/12

24 0 WEST EUROPEAN POLITICSthey give a detailed and interesting account of the changing state of social partnershipin Austria and lay a good ground for further investigation.

FRANZ FALLENDUniversity o f SalzburgGeografia della cittadinanza sociale in Italia.B y VALERIA FARG ION. Bologna: IIMulino, 1997.Pp.351,biblio, index. L.45,000 (paper) ISBN 88-15-06127-4.Recent social and political developments in advanced industrialised countries call forgovernmental responses to key structural changes in family structure, demographicmovements and social cohesion. Higher rates of female participation in the labourforce, the ageing of the population, new inequalities and social exclusion require aradical shift of care from the private sp here of the family to the pub lic sphere of socialservices. Despite the obv ious relevance of these issues, it is surprising tha t there is verylittle systematic work on the topic. Mainstream research on the welfare state focusesprimarily on income maintenance program mes and on health policy, unduly neglectingsocial services. However, policies aimed at imp roving the efficiency of social servicesare urgent at a time when the burden of care is increasingly more onerous.For this reason Geografia delia cittadinanza sociale in Italiaby Valeria Fargion isa timely and welcome contribution to the literature. Through a painstaking collectionof national and international statistics, regional and national legislation, historical andcomparative evidence, the author assesses the evolution of social services in Italybetween the 1970s and the 1990s, placing particular emphasis on the role of politicalstructures and political leadership.Fargion argues that the quality and quantity of social services is a function of boththe financial autonomy and the institutional strength of local governments. However,she also claims that strategic effects play a crucial role. In this manner, Fargiondistances herself from Putnam's celebrated path-dependence view of institutionalefficacy in Italy. To be sure, her findings do confirm a significant no rth-so uth gap , yetthey go further and show that some regions in the centre and in the south perform inways that are inconsistent with path-dependence interpretations. To make sense ofthese results the author invokes the role of political stability and the ideologicalpredisposition of the local coalition. Over the 1970s and 1980s, local governmentscharacterised by greater stability and composed of left-wing parties were more able toimprove both the quality and quantity of social services. Hence, while policy legaciesand historical development furnished constraints and opportunities, politicalleadership determined the output.The book is well written, well structured and well researched. It is devoid of theparochialism of some case-based study because Part I is explicitly devoted tocomparisons with other major European countries. Its emphasis on political influencesin the shaping of social services is a fresh reminder that political en trepreneurs cannotbe left out of our explanatory frameworks. Far from merely responding to voters'demands or to external pressures, politicians may be able to adjust the provision ofsocial services to promote their interests in the political arena. Political scientistsinterested in political leadership and social policy in general and/or in the Italianexperience in particular will find this book interesting and stimulating.

ROSA MULUniversity o f arwick



ary2014

patterns of democracy 書評

Documents