Lecture 1
Every democracy is facing democratic backsliding (Poland, Hungary, turkey, etc.) even ‘good’
democracies
The situation were in is very unique. In the 60’s Spain, eastern Europe were not democratic. In the
90’s everyone was optimistic that everything would become liberal. Now not so much…
it’s a very recent phenomenon. Women got voting right just over a century ago…
Populist: represented by the common man (this one man), right-wing (this liberal ideology is wrong),
instead of a constitutional whatever
If a country hold elections it doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
Younger people are going to abandon democracy (lecturer thinks). Why would you support a system
that doesn’t give the output you need. It is a problem if younger people are abandoning democratic
principles. There’s a generational gap / cleavage. But also class, gender, age.
Democracies are usually wealthier. Liberals are right that freedom does something amazing. If you
give more freedom to people they educate themselves they’re creative they make companies. You
unleash enormous potential. The best way to make a country flourish is to stop repressing women.
You also create a lot of wealth. There’s real benefits in liberal more free democracies.
Liberal democracy doesn’t function. You need a more populist democracy. People like trump argue
that they’re the only one who can solve the problem.
In western societies we see more effective polarization. Not because we don’t agree but just because
we don’t like each other. Talk bad about. There’s no longer a political debate possible.
there’s a reality polarization. We don’t see the same facts or deny the facts someone sees. You live in
a different world in our own echo chamber. We think that’s what’s going on is this multi level
polarization between these 2 and ideological polarization.
It becomes increasingly impossible to compromise with political polarization.
Populist mobilize discontent which has effect on how people trust each other and politicians. in
organizations (can be anything, football club or bigger) that’s where you learn democracy.
Democracy is learned via interaction. Did the emergence of the internet undermined the nurturing of
democratic attitudes? But we don’t know jet cause were the first generation that has this.
A lot of populist argue that elections are no longer fair. Elections are never completely fair. There’s
not a even playing field. The other side is arguing that no election can be trusted. Its easier to say the
system is not working than it is to explain how it works.
Populist parties have the least trust in media and science. Left wing the most
Can you be a party only through the media. Pvv has only 1 member. There’s no official membership.
Pvv doesn’t get money here cause you get per member. They get from the US (after meer of minder
marokanen court case).
Populist say social problems can be solved easily and quickly.
Is it true that populists are better representers and why do they think that
Immigration is the core issue in modern politics. European democracies are rapidly becoming very
old. This creates a lot of problems for pension, for health care. This creates a problem so we had a lot
,of arbeidsmigranten. We have creates a system where we import a lot of labour from abroad. It
creates a lot of unease in society and a lot of housing problems and problems on the labour market.
Populist mobilization gets very deep into the middle classes. A lot of lower, middle, and upper middle
class are mobilized by populist parties.
There’s been a lot of welfare state retrenchment. Economic security has been reduced. Our security
is threatened by the system.
,Lecture 2
Welfare states
economic redistribution: through subsidies and taxes. When lots of people make money you take
some of that through taxes and redistribute the money that came in. You give it to for example
people that don’t make their own money (unemployment benefits).
If you don’t have a welfare state and don’t redistribute there’s larger inequality. The welfare state
was developed after ww2 and made smaller in the 70s and 80s and even more during the financial
crisis of 2008 and the aftermath of that.
1. Mitigating capitalism and inequality
Models of capitalism:
1 Anglo-Saxon:
UK, USA.
Not a totally free market, you can’t sell cocaine legally in the US, but they will try to organize a free
market whenever they can.
2 continental:
Germany, Netherlands (meer vroeger nu steeds meer Anglo-Saxon).
Much more state intervention in markets.. Intervention if often deemed needed.
3 Nordic:
Norway.
The market is more or less regulated (in between the previous 2). Have a low corporate tax so
business has a quite low tax compared to the income tax.
4 Mediterranean:
Italy.
Important factors in capitalism:
Markets: supply and demand. Planned economy / communism: no freedom, the government
regulates everything. The other side of pure competition where the government does basically
nothing. There’s a scale between these 2 for states to decide how they interact with the market
Taxes: (vat = btw) (nic = national insurance contribution, insurance paid for by employers).
Relations in industry: what is the place of the employee vs the employer. When you get fired your
company still has to pay a percentage for you unemployment benefits for some time (happens in NL).
Welfare state: What benefits are organized and how. Are they accessible to everyone or is it made
difficult. De toeslagenaffaire is an example in which the welfare state failed.
All countries have some kind of capitalism and in some way they are interacting with their economy.
The interference is governance. Mitigating inequality is done in different ways in different countries
because of their different views on capitalism.
2. What is governance
Intervening through policies. Governance is intervention in reality (economic, social, political).
Governance in mostly issued by the state but can also be through bedrijfsvoering by big companies
or enterprises.
Different countries have different ways on intervening though policy. Because they have different
models of capitalism and shit.
, Dutch case Tata Steel:
around 10.000 employees. Several acres of land. But it is quite polluting and lots of people are
getting sick. There’s a discussion on if we should nationalise it or how to intervene through a shut
down. If the government decided to nationalise: would not intervene (Anglo-Saxon), would intervene
(continental, Mediterranean, Nordic).
3. Why governance
Why intervene at all? Some say I don’t want a state or for them to intervene at all in social reality.
The big short:
In the 70s this dude came up with a private-label MBS. They created a contract (a financial product)
that said that if you sign here for however much money you will be given some percent interest for a
certain time. This interest was guaranteed by a bundling of mortgages. If the bank couldn’t give it
back you would be the owner of the mortgage. If the bank could not give interest you would hand
over the mortgages (mortgage backed securities). If you want to sell them you need to have them so
a lot of people got them but couldn’t pay them back.
2007: there were so many no one knew what the mortgages were about and how healthy they were
(not healthy it turned out). People weren’t paying their mortgages anymore.
They have this contract backed by these mortgages but this security was worthless cause there were
a lot or mortgages that were worth nothing or were being paid back. They had multiple of these
bonds and all these contain mortgages, they bundled these worthless contracts to make a new one
to create C.D.O.’s. (collateralized debt obligation)
This idea went so far that the market for these contracts was 20 times larger than the amount of
mortgages. They were worth 20 times more
The SEC (rating agencies) don’t see the risks they are taking. They don’t know the amount of risk they
are really taking
They took these risks because they knew that the government would come in cause if the banks
failed so would the economy
The banks took the money and killed big reform through lobbying
immigrants and poor people took the blame.
So why govern? States intervene cause they have a desire that they want. They strive for morally
desired outcomes. What states want correlates to the type of capitalism they use.
Anglo-Saxon: though free market
Continental: though more state intervention. Engaging more with society.
A free market creates people who are individualistic. If you want to have or keep this you need less
emphasis on cooperations. But state intervention is aiming towards a collective good. In continental
economies cooperations play a larger role. More collective entrepreneurship.
International interdependence and neoliberalism is the catch of governance.
Castells: we live in a society due to the internet and globalization. We live in a society were all is
connected and nothing is centrally controlled.
Neo-liberalism often associated with the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. The whole world economy
is integrating and economies are not confined to the states, when this is the case states need to take
a step back anyways. This is what neoliberalism stands for. States have to uphold the free market
otherwise they detach themselves from the world economy. You cant just do whatever as a state if
you are interwoven. If they didn’t take a step back than they may detach themselves from a larger
network and companies will leave your country. If you have to take a step back it means less
regulation and you have less oversight what is happening.
Every democracy is facing democratic backsliding (Poland, Hungary, turkey, etc.) even ‘good’
democracies
The situation were in is very unique. In the 60’s Spain, eastern Europe were not democratic. In the
90’s everyone was optimistic that everything would become liberal. Now not so much…
it’s a very recent phenomenon. Women got voting right just over a century ago…
Populist: represented by the common man (this one man), right-wing (this liberal ideology is wrong),
instead of a constitutional whatever
If a country hold elections it doesn’t mean it’s a democracy.
Younger people are going to abandon democracy (lecturer thinks). Why would you support a system
that doesn’t give the output you need. It is a problem if younger people are abandoning democratic
principles. There’s a generational gap / cleavage. But also class, gender, age.
Democracies are usually wealthier. Liberals are right that freedom does something amazing. If you
give more freedom to people they educate themselves they’re creative they make companies. You
unleash enormous potential. The best way to make a country flourish is to stop repressing women.
You also create a lot of wealth. There’s real benefits in liberal more free democracies.
Liberal democracy doesn’t function. You need a more populist democracy. People like trump argue
that they’re the only one who can solve the problem.
In western societies we see more effective polarization. Not because we don’t agree but just because
we don’t like each other. Talk bad about. There’s no longer a political debate possible.
there’s a reality polarization. We don’t see the same facts or deny the facts someone sees. You live in
a different world in our own echo chamber. We think that’s what’s going on is this multi level
polarization between these 2 and ideological polarization.
It becomes increasingly impossible to compromise with political polarization.
Populist mobilize discontent which has effect on how people trust each other and politicians. in
organizations (can be anything, football club or bigger) that’s where you learn democracy.
Democracy is learned via interaction. Did the emergence of the internet undermined the nurturing of
democratic attitudes? But we don’t know jet cause were the first generation that has this.
A lot of populist argue that elections are no longer fair. Elections are never completely fair. There’s
not a even playing field. The other side is arguing that no election can be trusted. Its easier to say the
system is not working than it is to explain how it works.
Populist parties have the least trust in media and science. Left wing the most
Can you be a party only through the media. Pvv has only 1 member. There’s no official membership.
Pvv doesn’t get money here cause you get per member. They get from the US (after meer of minder
marokanen court case).
Populist say social problems can be solved easily and quickly.
Is it true that populists are better representers and why do they think that
Immigration is the core issue in modern politics. European democracies are rapidly becoming very
old. This creates a lot of problems for pension, for health care. This creates a problem so we had a lot
,of arbeidsmigranten. We have creates a system where we import a lot of labour from abroad. It
creates a lot of unease in society and a lot of housing problems and problems on the labour market.
Populist mobilization gets very deep into the middle classes. A lot of lower, middle, and upper middle
class are mobilized by populist parties.
There’s been a lot of welfare state retrenchment. Economic security has been reduced. Our security
is threatened by the system.
,Lecture 2
Welfare states
economic redistribution: through subsidies and taxes. When lots of people make money you take
some of that through taxes and redistribute the money that came in. You give it to for example
people that don’t make their own money (unemployment benefits).
If you don’t have a welfare state and don’t redistribute there’s larger inequality. The welfare state
was developed after ww2 and made smaller in the 70s and 80s and even more during the financial
crisis of 2008 and the aftermath of that.
1. Mitigating capitalism and inequality
Models of capitalism:
1 Anglo-Saxon:
UK, USA.
Not a totally free market, you can’t sell cocaine legally in the US, but they will try to organize a free
market whenever they can.
2 continental:
Germany, Netherlands (meer vroeger nu steeds meer Anglo-Saxon).
Much more state intervention in markets.. Intervention if often deemed needed.
3 Nordic:
Norway.
The market is more or less regulated (in between the previous 2). Have a low corporate tax so
business has a quite low tax compared to the income tax.
4 Mediterranean:
Italy.
Important factors in capitalism:
Markets: supply and demand. Planned economy / communism: no freedom, the government
regulates everything. The other side of pure competition where the government does basically
nothing. There’s a scale between these 2 for states to decide how they interact with the market
Taxes: (vat = btw) (nic = national insurance contribution, insurance paid for by employers).
Relations in industry: what is the place of the employee vs the employer. When you get fired your
company still has to pay a percentage for you unemployment benefits for some time (happens in NL).
Welfare state: What benefits are organized and how. Are they accessible to everyone or is it made
difficult. De toeslagenaffaire is an example in which the welfare state failed.
All countries have some kind of capitalism and in some way they are interacting with their economy.
The interference is governance. Mitigating inequality is done in different ways in different countries
because of their different views on capitalism.
2. What is governance
Intervening through policies. Governance is intervention in reality (economic, social, political).
Governance in mostly issued by the state but can also be through bedrijfsvoering by big companies
or enterprises.
Different countries have different ways on intervening though policy. Because they have different
models of capitalism and shit.
, Dutch case Tata Steel:
around 10.000 employees. Several acres of land. But it is quite polluting and lots of people are
getting sick. There’s a discussion on if we should nationalise it or how to intervene through a shut
down. If the government decided to nationalise: would not intervene (Anglo-Saxon), would intervene
(continental, Mediterranean, Nordic).
3. Why governance
Why intervene at all? Some say I don’t want a state or for them to intervene at all in social reality.
The big short:
In the 70s this dude came up with a private-label MBS. They created a contract (a financial product)
that said that if you sign here for however much money you will be given some percent interest for a
certain time. This interest was guaranteed by a bundling of mortgages. If the bank couldn’t give it
back you would be the owner of the mortgage. If the bank could not give interest you would hand
over the mortgages (mortgage backed securities). If you want to sell them you need to have them so
a lot of people got them but couldn’t pay them back.
2007: there were so many no one knew what the mortgages were about and how healthy they were
(not healthy it turned out). People weren’t paying their mortgages anymore.
They have this contract backed by these mortgages but this security was worthless cause there were
a lot or mortgages that were worth nothing or were being paid back. They had multiple of these
bonds and all these contain mortgages, they bundled these worthless contracts to make a new one
to create C.D.O.’s. (collateralized debt obligation)
This idea went so far that the market for these contracts was 20 times larger than the amount of
mortgages. They were worth 20 times more
The SEC (rating agencies) don’t see the risks they are taking. They don’t know the amount of risk they
are really taking
They took these risks because they knew that the government would come in cause if the banks
failed so would the economy
The banks took the money and killed big reform through lobbying
immigrants and poor people took the blame.
So why govern? States intervene cause they have a desire that they want. They strive for morally
desired outcomes. What states want correlates to the type of capitalism they use.
Anglo-Saxon: though free market
Continental: though more state intervention. Engaging more with society.
A free market creates people who are individualistic. If you want to have or keep this you need less
emphasis on cooperations. But state intervention is aiming towards a collective good. In continental
economies cooperations play a larger role. More collective entrepreneurship.
International interdependence and neoliberalism is the catch of governance.
Castells: we live in a society due to the internet and globalization. We live in a society were all is
connected and nothing is centrally controlled.
Neo-liberalism often associated with the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. The whole world economy
is integrating and economies are not confined to the states, when this is the case states need to take
a step back anyways. This is what neoliberalism stands for. States have to uphold the free market
otherwise they detach themselves from the world economy. You cant just do whatever as a state if
you are interwoven. If they didn’t take a step back than they may detach themselves from a larger
network and companies will leave your country. If you have to take a step back it means less
regulation and you have less oversight what is happening.
