Industrial Policy: A Solution in Search of a Problem

1983 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L. Schultze

Evidence from the 1970s does not support the view that the United States is “deindustrializing.” Nor is there evidence that, in periods of normal (nonrecession) economic conditions, American labor and capital cannot successfully make the gradual but inevitable transition from older to newer industries and occupations. There is no need for a new “industrial policy” under which the federal government attempts to influence industrial structure by some combination of “picking the winners” and “protecting the losers.” Industrial policy is not the secret of Japanese industrial success. And in the American political and governmental structure, such a policy would almost surely do much more harm than good.

Author(s):  
Jeffrey Helgeson

Early 20th century American labor and working-class history is a subfield of American social history that focuses attention on the complex lives of working people in a rapidly changing global political and economic system. Once focused closely on institutional dynamics in the workplace and electoral politics, labor history has expanded and refined its approach to include questions about the families, communities, identities, and cultures workers have developed over time. With a critical eye on the limits of liberal capitalism and democracy for workers’ welfare, labor historians explore individual and collective struggles against exclusion from opportunity, as well as accommodation to political and economic contexts defined by rapid and volatile growth and deep inequality. Particularly important are the ways that workers both defined and were defined by differences of race, gender, ethnicity, class, and place. Individual workers and organized groups of working Americans both transformed and were transformed by the main struggles of the industrial era, including conflicts over the place of former slaves and their descendants in the United States, mass immigration and migrations, technological change, new management and business models, the development of a consumer economy, the rise of a more active federal government, and the evolution of popular culture. The period between 1896 and 1945 saw a crucial transition in the labor and working-class history of the United States. At its outset, Americans were working many more hours a day than the eight for which they had fought hard in the late 19th century. On average, Americans labored fifty-four to sixty-three hours per week in dangerous working conditions (approximately 35,000 workers died in accidents annually at the turn of the century). By 1920, half of all Americans lived in growing urban neighborhoods, and for many of them chronic unemployment, poverty, and deep social divides had become a regular part of life. Workers had little power in either the Democratic or Republican party. They faced a legal system that gave them no rights at work but the right to quit, judges who took the side of employers in the labor market by issuing thousands of injunctions against even nonviolent workers’ organizing, and vigilantes and police forces that did not hesitate to repress dissent violently. The ranks of organized labor were shrinking in the years before the economy began to recover in 1897. Dreams of a more democratic alternative to wage labor and corporate-dominated capitalism had been all but destroyed. Workers struggled to find their place in an emerging consumer-oriented culture that assumed everyone ought to strive for the often unattainable, and not necessarily desirable, marks of middle-class respectability. Yet American labor emerged from World War II with the main sectors of the industrial economy organized, with greater earning potential than any previous generation of American workers, and with unprecedented power as an organized interest group that could appeal to the federal government to promote its welfare. Though American workers as a whole had made no grand challenge to the nation’s basic corporate-centered political economy in the preceding four and one-half decades, they entered the postwar world with a greater level of power, and a bigger share in the proceeds of a booming economy, than anyone could have imagined in 1896. The labor and working-class history of the United States between 1900 and 1945, then, is the story of how working-class individuals, families, and communities—members of an extremely diverse American working class—managed to carve out positions of political, economic, and cultural influence, even as they remained divided among themselves, dependent upon corporate power, and increasingly invested in a individualistic, competitive, acquisitive culture.


2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K.M. Rodriguez

Between 1820 and 1827 approximately 1,800 U.S. citizens immigrated to northern Mexico as part of that country’s empresario program, in which the federal government granted foreigners land if they promised to develop and secure the region. Historians have long argued that these settlers, traditionally seen as the vanguard of Manifest Destiny, were attracted to Mexico for its cheap land and rich natural resources. Such interpretations have lent a tone of inevitability to events like the Texas Revolution. This article argues that the early members of these groups were attracted to Mexico for chiefly political reasons. At a time when the United States appeared to be turning away from its commitment to a weak federal government, Mexico was establishing itself on a constitution that insured local sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, the Texas Revolution was far from the result of two irreconcilable peoples and cultures. Moreover, the role that these settlers played in the United States’ acquisition of not just Texas, but ultimately half of Mexico’s national territory, was more paradoxical than inevitable.


Author(s):  
William W. Franko ◽  
Christopher Witko

The authors conclude the book by recapping their arguments and empirical results, and discussing the possibilities for the “new economic populism” to promote egalitarian economic outcomes in the face of continuing gridlock and the dominance of Washington, DC’s policymaking institutions by business and the wealthy, and a conservative Republican Party. Many states are actually addressing inequality now, and these policies are working. Admittedly, many states also continue to embrace the policies that have contributed to growing inequality, such as tax cuts for the wealthy or attempting to weaken labor unions. But as the public grows more concerned about inequality, the authors argue, policies that help to address these income disparities will become more popular, and policies that exacerbate inequality will become less so. Over time, if history is a guide, more egalitarian policies will spread across the states, and ultimately to the federal government.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Johannes Saurer ◽  
Jonas Monast

Abstract The Federal Republic of Germany and the United States (US) have adopted different models for energy federalism. Germany allocates more authority to the federal government and the US relies on a decentralized cooperative federalism model that preserves key roles for state actors. This article explores and compares the relevance of federal legal structures for renewable energy expansion in both countries. It sets out the constitutional, statutory, and factual foundations in both Germany and the US, and explores the legal and empirical dimensions of renewable energy expansion at the federal and state levels. The article concludes by drawing several comparative lessons about the significance of federal structures for energy transition processes.


1980 ◽  
Vol 2 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 108-109
Author(s):  
Mark Kesselman

Acentral ingredient of democracy in the United States, according to Tocqueville, was local autonomy – yet the data presented by Professor Austin suggests a fundamental change in the United States since Tocquevilles time. Most local expenditures are now provided by the federal and state governments, most “local” programs are not local at all, for many (if not most) purposes the local government has become an extension of the federal government, and it is often replaced altogether by federally created field agencies (what the French call deconcentrated administration).


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Úrsula A. Aragunde-Kohl ◽  
Yahaira Segarra-González ◽  
Liza M. Meléndez-Samó ◽  
Ivemarie Hernández-Rivera ◽  
Carolina Quiles-Peña

Abstract The purpose of this research was to better understand the beliefs and practices that the residents of Puerto Rico have regarding cockfighting, including their perception of the recently passed prohibition against nonhuman animal fighting on the island. It had an exploratory descriptive design consisting of three phases, where the qualitative data obtained from phase one would guide the process of identifying variables that could be measured. In the second phase, an instrument was developed, and in the third, it was administered. Most of the participants agreed with the prohibition of cockfighting in Puerto Rico and that it was necessary. The data showed that there is a disconnect between what the federal government of the United States legislated, what the local government and agencies that were supposed to enforce the prohibition did with the legislation, and what the people directly affected by the legislation received for education and guidance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document