DOCSLIB.ORG

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM Classical Liberalism Is a Political Ideology and a Branch of Liberalism Which Advocates Civil Liberties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM Classical Liberalism Is a Political Ideology and a Branch of Liberalism Which Advocates Civil Liberties CLASSICAL LIBERALISM Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. As a term, classical liberalism has often been applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism. Classical liberalism began with the ideas of John Locke, whose theory of rights and labour theory of value were the foundation stones on which Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill etc. developed their ideas of liberalism. The philosophy became popular as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It developed in the early 19th century, as an idea related to economic liberalism. It focused on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, the theories of natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberalism" is the ideology advocating private property, an uninterupted market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market for attaining egalitarian goals. This new version of liberalism is sometimes designated as "social," liberalism. Classical lliberalism must be understood as a doctrine and movement that grew out of a distinctive culture and particular historical circumstances. The historical circumstances were the confrontation of the free institutions and values inherited from the Middle Ages with the dominance of the absolutist state of the 16th and 17th centuries. The struggle of the Dutch against the absolutism of the Spanish Habsburgs manifested basically liberal traits: the rule of law, including especially a firm adherence to property rights; de facto religious toleration; considerable freedom of expression; and a central government of severely limited powers. The astonishing success of the Dutch experiment exerted a "demonstration effect" on European social thought and, gradually, political practice. This was even truer of the later example of England. Throughout the history of liberalism, theory and social reality interacted, with theory stimulated and refined through the observation of practice, and attempts to reform practice undertaken with reference to more relevant theory. 1 FUNDAMENTAL ESSENCE OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM • Classical liberalism was a political philosophy and ideology which put primary emphasis on the maximum possible freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. Classical liberals gave priority to individuals’ freedom in social, political and economic life. They recognized that different people’s freedoms may conflict, but emphasized that the government would act to ensure coherence between individual freedom and the concept of common good, using minimum possible force. They gave a new definition of legitimacy of government which according to them would lie in individuals’ consent. ********* • It advocated civil liberties with a limited government under the boundaries of rule of law. Liberalism as a political and moral philosophy centered itself on two main principles - these are individualism and liberty. According to them, only rule of law could ensure maximum freedom to maximum number of people. This in turn would allow individuals to reach their full potential , which in return would ensure full development of the state. John Gray identified four essential elements of liberalism. These were individualism, egalitarianism, universalism and meliorism and the foundation on which these principles spring forth was ‘rule of law’. Governments should themselves be bound by the rule of law, and justice should be dispensed according to accepted principles and processes. Egalitarianism, in the sense promoted by classical liberals, meant equal opportunity, though not in a positive way, i.e., there would be no whereby redistribution of wealth; contrarily, it would entail legal and political equality. Universalism implied that the moral principles that follow liberalism would apply to all human beings, irrespective of place, race, religion and culture. Meliorism indicated the belief that human beings have the 2 capacity to have a better life and their social and political institutions can become better. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 paved the way for the concept of the rule of law, designed to protect individual freedom and defend landed property and this rule of law was assumed to be the only mechanism capable to implement other three principles of liberalism. Primarily, John Locke, the theorist of Glorious Revolution in 1688 in England focused on the importance of the functional concept of rule of law in its ability to protect the rights of the individuals. ****** • John Locke (1632 – 1704) was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism, as he was the pioneer in advocating the necessity of the rights of the individual for his independent existence. Locke said that an individual must have the rights to life, liberty and property and in case of violation of these rights individuals must be allowed to resist the government. The American revolutionary thinker Thomas Paine (1737–1809) , a classical liberalist argued, citizens would be within their rights to overthrow any government that broke this trust. Thus liberalism originated much earlier to the period of industrial revolution in 19th century Europe, as is claimed by the political scientists. Individualism values individuality as it entails a number of rights. According to John Locke these three rights are above the discretion of the state and exist pre- politically, in the state of nature. Individuals entered into a treaty to form a state and government to secure his rights and therefore if these rights are infringed individuals can use his firth right, i.e., the right to resist the government. A classical liberal would view these rights in a formal or legal way. According to the classical liberal thinkers, these rights should be negative in the sense that the state should not infringe these rights, and not positive in the sense that individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they do not harm anyone else, neither violates the spirit of common good. There is a legitimate role for the state to protect individuals from each other, enabling each to enjoy his rights and this enhances the utility of the state in the lives of the individuals. Despite Smith's resolute recognition of the importance and value of labor and of laborers, classical liberals selectively criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense 3 of individual rights, while they accepted corporations' rights, which led to inequality of bargaining power. Classical liberals asserted that rights are of a negative nature and therefore stipulate that other individuals and governments are to refrain from interfering with the free market. Contrarily, social liberals asserted that individuals have positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care and the right to a living wage. For society to guarantee positive rights, it requires taxation. John Stuart Mill asserted a different view in respect to the rights of the individuals, as he preached that state cannot intervene in individual’s self regarding conduct, whereas state has every right and duty to regulate individual’s other regarding conducts to ensure the compliance of individual’s rights and common good of the society. ************ • Classical liberalism developed its basic ideas in order to nurture the aggression of free market. Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. They were critical of what would come to be the idea of the welfare state as interfering in a free market. Classical liberals argued that individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand. In economics, classical liberals believe that wealth is not created by governments, but by the mutual cooperation of free individuals. Prosperity comes through free individuals inventing, creating, saving, investing and, ultimately, exchanging goods and services voluntarily, for mutual gain – the spontaneous order of the free-market economy ****** • Classical liberals disagree about the exact role of the state, but generally wish to limit the use of force, whether by individuals or governments. They call for states that are small and kept in bounds by known rules. The main problem of politics is not how to choose 4 leaders, but how to restrain them once they have power. Classical liberalism believes in limiting the role of the government in the lives of the individuals as individuals can make their own decisions; the government is required to act with a laissez-faire approach to society. Individuals are not to be controlled
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Liberalism, Social Democracy, and Tom Kent Kenneth C
    Liberalism, Social Democracy, and Tom Kent Kenneth C. Dewar Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue d'études canadiennes, Volume 53, Number/numéro 1, Winter/hiver 2019, pp. 178-196 (Article) Published by University of Toronto Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/719555 Access provided by Mount Saint Vincent University (19 Mar 2019 13:29 GMT) Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d’études canadiennes Liberalism, Social Democracy, and Tom Kent KENNETH C. DEWAR Abstract: This article argues that the lines separating different modes of thought on the centre-left of the political spectrum—liberalism, social democracy, and socialism, broadly speaking—are permeable, and that they share many features in common. The example of Tom Kent illustrates the argument. A leading adviser to Lester B. Pearson and the Liberal Party from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, Kent argued for expanding social security in a way that had a number of affinities with social democracy. In his paper for the Study Conference on National Problems in 1960, where he set out his philosophy of social security, and in his actions as an adviser to the Pearson government, he supported social assis- tance, universal contributory pensions, and national, comprehensive medical insurance. In close asso- ciation with his philosophy, he also believed that political parties were instruments of policy-making. Keywords: political ideas, Canada, twentieth century, liberalism, social democracy Résumé : Cet article soutient que les lignes séparant les différents modes de pensée du centre gauche de l’éventail politique — libéralisme, social-démocratie et socialisme, généralement parlant — sont perméables et qu’ils partagent de nombreuses caractéristiques.
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Years of Arrogance: Why 'Western' Liberalism Won't Save Latin America
    LSE Latin America and Caribbean Blog: One hundred years of arrogance: why ‘Western’ liberalism won’t save Latin America Page 1 of 4 One hundred years of arrogance: why ‘Western’ liberalism won’t save Latin America Liberalism is often seen as a Western gift to the world that became tragically warped on contact with less developed nations. But where once the region’s intellectuals themselves subscribed to this vision, more recent scholarship shows that Latin American countries charted their own courses towards “liberal” rights and constitutions. Despite even the recent ravages of neoliberalism, the key tenets and institutions of liberalism remain deeply popular, write Catherine Andrews (CIDE, Mexico) and Ariadna Acevedo Rodrigo (Cinvestav, Mexico). • Disponible también en español (versión extendida) In a recent article musing on the state of governance in Latin America, The Economist‘s columnist Bello asks himself whether “liberal ideas suffer in the region because they are imported”. He thinks so, but he nonetheless encourages Latin Americans to persist with them because they will bring “equality of opportunity” and “better public services at an affordable cost”. In a single stroke, Bello resolves all of liberalism’s contradictions and limitations by absolving it of blame for failing in Latin America. It is not liberalism – an “imported” idea – but rather its faulty application, which is in crisis. He conveniently forgets that the 2008 financial crisis left liberalism in crisis everywhere. He also overlooks at least two decades of research
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the French Liberal Moment: Some Thoughts on the Heterogeneous Origins of Lefort and Gauchet's Social Philosophy
    CHAPTER 3 Rethinking the French Liberal Moment: Some Thoughts on the Heterogeneous Origins of Lefort and Gauchet’s Social Philosophy Noah Rosenblum ecent scholarship has taken an interest in the renaissance of French liberal thought in the second half of the twentieth century. This R“French liberal revival” has swept up scholars and commentators alike, and is often thought to include the important French philosophers Claude Lefort and Marcel Gauchet. But, as work in intellectual history has shown,1 the term sits uneasily on at least these two. On close examination, we see that some of their mature thought is only ambiguously committed to liberal goals and rests on complex philosophical premises that are incompatible with some traditional liberal arguments. Tracing aspects of their social thought back to its roots reveals how deeply opposed to liberalism some of their premises were and helps us see how they carried illiberal ideas forward into new contexts. This forces us to take a new perspective on at least this piece of the twentieth century’s French liberal moment, revising accepted stories of its origins and meaning. Recognizing the heterogeneous sources of their argument leads us to appreciate Lefort and Gauchet’s creative work of reconstruction and resist the urge to canalize their powerful social philosophy. Conceptualizing the “French Liberal Revival” In a purely analytic sense, we can understand the idea of a “French liberal revival” in two different ways. The phrase describes, first, a new or renewed interest in traditional liberal themes by thinkers writing in French. We can S. W. Sawyer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: an Appraisal of Alexis De Tocqueville’S Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2017 American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the Post-World War II Welfare State John P. Varacalli The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1828 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL ASSOCIATIONS AND THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: AN APPRAISAL OF ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE’S DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (1835- 1840) APPLIED TO FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT’S NEW DEAL AND THE POST-WORLD WAR II WELFARE STATE by JOHN P. VARACALLI A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2017 © 2017 JOHN P. VARACALLI All Rights Reserved ii American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Post World War II Welfare State by John P. Varacalli The manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts ______________________ __________________________________________ Date David Gordon Thesis Advisor ______________________ __________________________________________ Date Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis Acting Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT American Civil Associations and the Growth of American Government: An Appraisal of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835-1840) Applied to Franklin D.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Polarization in the United States and Canada by Philip Carl Salzman
    (EF24) FEBRUARY 2018 Political Polarization in the United States and Canada By Philip Carl Salzman Political polarization in both the United States and Canada seems to increase every year. Those on the left appear to move ever farther to the left; while those on the right find less and less in common with their fellow citizens. The political rhetoric has, in fact, escalated to a toxic level. From the highest political level in the U.S. half of American citizens are labelled sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic, a basket of deplorables,1 redneck failures who cling to their guns, fundamentalist religion, and fear,2 and white supremacists. American opponents of the progressive left view it as consisting of traitors of America, betrayers of Western civilization, haters of Christianity and apologists for Islam, violators of the Constitution, advocates of open borders who wish to bring a flood of Third World immigrants, even those dedicated to destroying the West, enemies of capitalism who openly revere socialism, and champions of a dominant state apparatus that aims at suppressing freedom. Canada is also increasingly polarized along the same lines, with Parliament denouncing the non-existent psychiatric condition “Islamophobia” in order to suppress criticism of Islam, the press driving out conservatives, such as Kellie Leitch, whose advocacy of “so-called “Canadian values,” [was] widely viewed as anti-immigrant and nativist,”3 as racists and fascists, and with “Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals” suppressing speech that hurts someone’s feelings. In Canada too, at the highest political level, Canada’s heritage in Western Civilization is denied4 in favour of “diversity,”5 and minorities favoured over majorities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contradiction of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism
    The contradiction of classical liberalism and libertarianism blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/02/01/the-contradiction-of-classical-liberalism-and-libertarianism/ 2/1/2017 A standard assumption in policy analyses and political debates is that classical liberal or libertarian views represent a radical alternative to a progressive or egalitarian agenda. In the political arena, classical liberalism and libertarianism often inform the policy agenda of centre-right and far- right parties. They underpin laissez-faire policies and reject any redistributive action, including welfare state provisions and progressive taxation. This is motivated by a fundamental belief in the value of personal autonomy and protection from (unjustified) external interference, including from the state. It is difficult to overestimate the philosophical and political relevance of classical liberalism and libertarianism. President Trump’s proposal to repeal the “Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)”, for example, is clearly inspired by a libertarian philosophical outlook whereby “No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to” (Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again ). More generally, in the last four decades the political consensus, and the spectrum of policy proposals and outcomes, has significantly moved in a less interventionist, more laissez faire direction. The centrality of classical liberal and libertarian views has been such that the historical period after the end of the 1970s – following the election of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US – has come to be known as the “Neoliberal era”. Yet the very coherence of the classical liberal and libertarian view of society, and its consistency with the fundamental tenets of modern democracies, have been questioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change
    Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change Justin “Gus” Hurwitz & Geoffrey A. Manne ICLE Innovation & the New Economy Research Program White Paper 2018-1 ICLE | 2117 NE Oregon St. Ste 501 | Portland, OR 97232 | 503.770.0652 [email protected] | @laweconcenter | www.laweconcenter.org 2 13 Classical Liberalism and the Problem of Technological Change Justin (Gus) Hurwitz and Geoffrey A. Manne Introduction The relationship between classical liberalism and technology is surprisingly fraught. The common understanding is that technological advance is complementary to the principles of classical liberalism – especially in the case of contemporary, information-age technology.1 This is most clearly on display in Silicon Valley, with its oft-professed libertarian (classical liberalism’s kissing cousin) affinities. The analytical predicate for this complementarity is that classical liberalism values liberty-enhancing private ordering, and technological advance both is generally facially liberty-enhancing and facilitates private ordering. 1 This chapter focuses on “contemporary technology.” That is, generally, those technologies associated with the information revolution of the past generation: computers, the Internet, and related information communications and processing technologies. A treatment of the relationship between classical liberalism and a more generalized concept of technology is beyond the scope of this chapter. It is, however, the authors’ view that the discussion offered here is relevant to such a broader conceptualization. 3 This analysis, however, is incomplete. Classical liberalism recognizes that certain rules are necessary in a well-functioning polity.2 The classical liberal, for instance, recognizes the centrality of enforceable property rights, and the concomitant ability to seek recourse from a third party (the state) when those rights are compromised.
    [Show full text]
  • H-France Review Volume 4 (2004) Page 397
    H-France Review Volume 4 (2004) Page 397 H-France Review Vol. 4 (November 2004), No. 113 Alan S. Kahan, Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe: The Political Culture of Limited Suffrage. Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York, N.Y: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. vii + 239 pp. Notes, works cited, and index. $69.95 US (hb). ISBN 1-4039-1174-6. Review by Jean Elisabeth Pedersen, Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester. Alan Kahan’s new book on liberalism in nineteenth-century Europe represents a thoughtful attempt to define the core characteristics of that rich and complex intellectual tradition by focusing on liberals’ parliamentary debates over how to institute various forms of limited suffrage in England, France, and the German states before and after unification in the period from 1830 to 1885. Kahan’s earlier work has illuminated the intellectual biographies of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and, especially, Alexis de Tocqueville; his new project now explores the political and intellectual history of the more general national movements in which these three figures played such important parts.[1] Kahan initially presents nineteenth-century liberals in familiar terms as “both the confident heirs of Voltaire and the frightened successors of Robespierre” (p. 1), or, in other words, as historical figures who hoped to sponsor progressive reform without provoking either radical revolution or conservative reaction. Unlike those historians, social theorists, and political activists who have defined liberals in economic terms by focusing on their commitment to the preservation of private property, however, Kahan seeks to define liberals in political terms by focusing instead on their commitment to what he calls “the discourse of capacity” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalism 1100
    Chap 10 6/5/03 3:13 pm Page 195 Liberalism 1100 Liberalism has become the dominant ideology at the start of the third millennium. Like conservatism it cannot be easily identified with one particular political party. We trace the origins of liberalism back to the late seventeenth century and the political turmoil in England that followed the civil wars of the middle of the century. After this, liberalism’s ‘golden age’ during the nineteenth century is studied and the main themes of ‘classical’ and ‘New’ liberalism are outlined and discussed. The limitations of British liberalism began to become evident just before the First World War and it was almost eclipsed during the inter-war period. We discuss the apparent renaissance of liberalism that followed the collapse of Soviet communism during the late 1980s and the apparent triumph of liberal capitalist democracy on a global scale. Some of the inadequacies of contem- porary liberalism are discussed and an estimate is made of the future that lies in store for liberalism. POINTS TO CONSIDER ➤ Is liberalism culturally specific to Westernisation or is it of universal value? ➤ To what extent is the liberal focus on the individual based on a misunderstanding of human nature? ➤ At what point does liberalism end and socialism begin? ➤ Why were nineteenth-century liberals so uncomfortable with democracy and why don’t modern liberals appear to share the doubts? ➤ In the twenty-first century is the state still the main threat to the individual? ➤ How far is it true to say that the triumph of liberal ideology has been at the price of the eclipse of liberal political parties? Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd - 9781526137951 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 09/26/2021 08:03:51PM via free access Chap 10 6/5/03 3:13 pm Page 196 196 Understanding political ideas and movements A rich man told me recently that a liberal is a man who tells other people what to do with their money.
    [Show full text]
  • In Praise of Liberalism: an Assessment of Liberal Political Thought from the 17Th Century to Today
    Review of Contemporary Philosophy Vol. 14, 2015, pp. 11–36, ISSN 1841-5261 IN PRAISE OF LIBERALISM: AN ASSESSMENT OF LIBERAL POLITICAL THOUGHT FROM THE 17TH CENTURY TO TODAY MICHAEL B. FRIEDMAN [email protected] School of Social Work, Columbia University ABSTRACT. The author of this essay maintains that liberalism has been the primary source of progressive change in the United States since its earliest history. To support his claim, he traces the philosophical and political history of liberalism in England and the United States. The specific forms of liberalism have varied in different periods of history; but, he maintains, there is an underlying spirit of liberalism that has persisted throughout the past 350 years and can be the source of dynamic progressive social change in the 21st century. Throughout history, he maintains, liberalism has been committed to social progress and has sought to improve the lives of populations that are economically and politically disadvantaged. This underlying spirit, the author argues, can be the source for an energized liberal agenda for the 21st century. Keywords: liberalism; political philosophy; political history 1. Introduction Conservative – and even centrist – opponents of liberalism reject it because they identify it with cumbersome government; reckless spending; high tax- ation; naiveté about economics, crime, and world power; and lack of moral values. What a mistake! In fact, liberalism has been the source of social and political progress in the Western world since the 17th century. The idea that rights set a limit on the legitimate power of government is a liberal idea. The idea that govern- ment must respect the liberty of individuals is a liberal idea.
    [Show full text]
  • PAUL HINDLEY I Am Standing for Re-Election to the Social Liberal Forum Council After Serving on the Council for the Last Two Years
    PAUL HINDLEY I am standing for re-election to the Social Liberal Forum Council after serving on the Council for the last two years. Many communities have been ‘left behind’ by market fundamentalism, which has opened the door to nationalism. Individual liberty cannot thrive if people are in the grip of poverty, social hardship and economic powerlessness. Brexit puts at risk our hard-won workers’ rights, our vital EU trade links and our ability to combat climate change. With the Conservatives and Labour fighting a battle of big ideas, it is essential that the Liberal Democrats rediscover the radical heritage of social liberalism. Britain has never more needed an ambitious radical social liberal movement. Advancing Big Ideas: I wrote a chapter for “Four Go In Search of Big Ideas” calling for a new culture of social rights in-order to reach out to ‘left behind’ seaside towns. I am an advocate for economic democracy, universal inheritance, radical welfare policies, land value taxation, federalism, workers’ rights and German-style works councils. A Strong Record: I have been actively involved in the SLF Council for the last two years. Since January 2018, I have been managing the SLF social media accounts on Twitter and Facebook. I have also written many articles for the SLF Blog and Liberator. A Progressive Movement: I proposed an amendment to the SLF Constitution which enshrined the SLF’s commitment to build a “progressive alliance of people, ideas and campaigns”. The SLF must be the voice of progressives within the Liberal Democrats, while reaching out to liberal progressives in other political parties and across society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism Rawi Abdelal and John G
    chapter 7 The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism Rawi Abdelal and John G. Ruggie In this essay we revisit the principles of “embedded liberalism” and argue for their relevance to the contemporary global economy. The most essential principle is the need for markets to enjoy social legitimacy, because their politi- cal sustainability ultimately depends on it. From this principle we analyze three current sets of practices and institutions in which ongoing crises of legitimacy demonstrate the need for a renewal of embedded liberalism and a revitalization of global governance. They are: the activities of transnational corporations, particularly with regard to core standards in labor and human rights; the orga- nization of the international financial architecture; and the formal rules and informal norms of international organizations. Learning the Lessons of Embedded Liberalism The post-1945 world economy embodied a social bargain. In the aftermath of the political and economic chaos of 1920s, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Second World War—all of which together shattered the world order within the span of a single generation—policymakers sought to reorganize and rebuild the world economy by restoring open markets, promising to mitigate their adverse social consequences and thereby preempting societal demands, from both left and right, to replace markets altogether. The failure to strike such a compromise earlier had undermined international cooperation in trade and macroeconomic policy during the 1920s and 1930s, just as it had caused the collapse of the first era of globalization, circa 1870 to 1914. Influential scholars and policymakers began to make sense of how that first era of globalization had lost its way.
    [Show full text]