THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES: LESSONS FROM EFFORTS TO ADVANCE BEYOND KEYNESIAN AND NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIC POLICIES IN THE 1970s
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article begins with a critique of analyses of neoliberalism that present the rise and hegemony of this form of capitalism as an inevitable adjustment of state apparatuses and policies to economic and social changes that had undermined previously existing Keynesian welfare states. Contrary to such view, the article argues that the New Left, labor militancy, and new social movements have thrown the Keynesian welfare state into a legitimation crisis in the early 1970s that was exacerbated by the world economic crisis 1974/1975. The second half of the decade saw a contest between progressive alternatives to the Keynesian welfare state and neoliberalism. The former failed because of the inability of progressive movements to build a historical bloc that would have been able to pursue alternative economic policies, and ultimately the transition to socialism, against opposition from capital owners and their middle‐class allies. Empirical evidence from Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden is presented to develop this historical argument. The last part of the article makes some comparisons between the legitimation and the economic crises of the 1970s and today. It concludes that progressive alternative relies on the convergence of the interests of certain social strata into a historical bloc for progressive change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it