ArticlePDF Available

What Do We Do Now?

March 1992
Peace Review 4(1):8-13

March 1992
4(1):8-13

DOI:10.1080/10402659208425634

Authors:

Lane Kenworthy

University of California, San Diego

Content uploaded by Lane Kenworthy

Content may be subject to copyright.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.

Chapter

Full-text available

Would Democratic Socialism Be Better Than Social Democratic Capitalism? (open access chapter)

June 2022

Lane Kenworthy

Open access at https://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780197636817.pdf. Should you favor democratic socialism? If you believe strongly in workplace democracy and are willing to mandate it, or if you attach a high priority to low levels of income and wealth inequality, then possibly yes. Otherwise, you might reasonably prefer to opt for social democratic capitalism, with ... [Show full abstract] which we have extensive experience, rather than take a chance on a system that is, to this point in history, untested. Over the coming half century, social democratic capitalism is likely to be the dominant socioeconomic model in the world’s rich democratic nations. This model might evolve to include more economic democracy and more public ownership of firms, which would bring it closer to what contemporary democratic socialists would like. But even if there is no such evolution, that might be okay. Social democratic capitalism isn’t perfect, but it is quite good.

View full-text

Chapter

Toward a High‐Employment, High‐Equality Society

July 2008

Lane Kenworthy

Economic and social shifts have led to rising income inequality in the world's affluent countries. This is worrisome for reasons of fairness and because inequality has adverse effects on other socioeconomic goods. Redistribution can help, but government revenues are threatened by globalization and population aging. A way out of this impasse is for countries to increase their employment rate. ... [Show full abstract] Increasing employment enlarges the tax base, allowing tax revenues to rise without an increase in tax rates; it also reduces welfare state costs by decreasing the amount of government benefits going to individuals and households. The question is: can egalitarian institutions and policies be coupled with employment growth? For two decades conventional wisdom has held that the answer is no. This book provides an assessment of the experiences of rich nations since the late 1970s. It examines the impact on employment of six key policies and institutions: wage levels at the low end of the labor market, employment protection regulations, government benefit generosity, taxes, skills, and women-friendly policies. The analysis includes twenty countries, with a focus on Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The book concludes that there is some indication of tradeoffs, but that they tend to be small in magnitude. There is no parsimonious set of policies and institutions that have been the key to good or bad employment performance. Instead, there are multiple paths to employment success. The comparative experience suggests reason for optimism about possibilities for a high-employment, high-equality society.

Technical Report

Full-text available

The Politics of Helping the Poor

August 2010

Lane Kenworthy

What is most effective at increasing the absolute incomes of the poor in the world's affluent countries: economic growth or redistribution? Growth clearly matters. The standard of living of low-end households in rich nations is substantially higher than a century ago, and much of that improvement is due to economic growth. Indeed, over the long run the material circumstances of the poor ... [Show full abstract] necessarily depend more on economic growth than on redistribution. If the pie does not increase in size, a country could redistribute until everyone has an equal slice but then no further improvements would be possible. In the short- and medium-term, redistribution can help a great deal. Even in the United States, with its comparatively stingy welfare state, government transfers account for nearly half of the income of households in the bottom decile of the distribution. Public provision and subsidization of services — health care, education, child care, housing, transportation, retraining, job placement, and others — also helps. Services boost living standards directly, and they allow the poor to spend scarce income on other things that contribute to material wellbeing. In countries where low-end incomes have increased significantly in recent decades, is that due mainly to growth, to redistribution, or to both in equal measure? Surprisingly, social scientists have made virtually no attempt to answer this question. Researchers studying the impact of growth and redistribution in rich countries have focused their attention almost exclusively on a distributional notion of poverty — relative poverty — rather than on absolute incomes.

View full-text

Article

Full-text available

Is Equality Feasible?

August 2007 · Contexts

Lane Kenworthy

Is income equality possible in modern capitalism? Yes. Would it hurt the economy? No.

View full-text