What do you think?
Rate this book
The Logic of Discipline: Global Capitalism and the Architecture of Government by Roberts, Alasdair [Oxford University Press, 2011] (Paperback) [Paperback]
The Logic of Global Capitalism and the Architecture of Government...
Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
4 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
About the author
Alasdair Roberts
21 books11 followersAlasdair Roberts is a professor of political science and public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 21, 2012
Roberts describes how the much-celebrated "third wave democratization" has been accompanied by a broad process of disempowering of the elected officials through either the committed outsourcing of former governmental functions to the private sector (for example, delegating infrastructure building or management to the private sector), or the creation of politically "autonomous" and "independent" bureaucracies (e.g. central banks, tax collectors, and finance ministries). These institutional innovations have been motivated by a desire to ensure that even democratic governments remained "disciplined" about spending, taxation, regulation, and inflation, the better to allow them to participate in the globalized marketplace. Roberts is also right to point out that the promised benefits of the logic of discipline have not always materialized; proponents of the LoD suffer from a "naive institutionalism" that holds that profoundly political questions about who wins and loses out of particular government arrangements can be effectively goten around by a tweaking of laws and regulations. All of this is profound and important.
But, I was a little disappointed that Roberts didn't situate the political context for this move a little more broadly. I think he's wrong to call these things a "contradiction" with the democratization movement. On the contrary, democratization was only acceptable to capital insofar as the ambit for action of these now-democratic governments was sharply curtailed. These two movements were, in other words, more complementary than contradictory, from the POV of capital. Let the elections happen - it's a good way to legitimate authority - but don't let the governments have the power to do anything that will interfere with profits or that may upset the "balance" of the system. On this note, it's really a shame that the book pays virtually no attention to the opinion of and impact on organized labor with regard to this process. One other significant, if rarely articulated motivation for the logic of discipline, after all, was to find a way to curb the power of organized labor - which is yet another mechanism for exerting "popular" control over the economy. In other words, the historical conjecture that produced "the logic of discipline" is only intelligible except when situated as part of the broader effort since the late 1970s to reassert the power of capital over labor. Roberts doesn't ignore this, but he should have made a bigger deal of it.
But, I was a little disappointed that Roberts didn't situate the political context for this move a little more broadly. I think he's wrong to call these things a "contradiction" with the democratization movement. On the contrary, democratization was only acceptable to capital insofar as the ambit for action of these now-democratic governments was sharply curtailed. These two movements were, in other words, more complementary than contradictory, from the POV of capital. Let the elections happen - it's a good way to legitimate authority - but don't let the governments have the power to do anything that will interfere with profits or that may upset the "balance" of the system. On this note, it's really a shame that the book pays virtually no attention to the opinion of and impact on organized labor with regard to this process. One other significant, if rarely articulated motivation for the logic of discipline, after all, was to find a way to curb the power of organized labor - which is yet another mechanism for exerting "popular" control over the economy. In other words, the historical conjecture that produced "the logic of discipline" is only intelligible except when situated as part of the broader effort since the late 1970s to reassert the power of capital over labor. Roberts doesn't ignore this, but he should have made a bigger deal of it.
Displaying 1 of 1 review