Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Les gouvernements sociaux-démocrates et la variété de capitalisme en République tchèque

Martin Myant and Rachel Bouyssou
Critique internationale
No. 39 (AVRIL-JUIN 2008), pp. 111-138
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24565072
Page Count: 28
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Preview not available

Abstract

Social Democrats dominated the Czech government from 1998 to 2006. Their impact on the type of capitalism in that country is analysed with an adaptation of established approaches to varieties of capitalism. Vaguely defined neo-liberal and social-democratic trends reached an implicit compromise after 1989, but economic difficulties led to a reopening of basic questions after 1998. The Social Democrats drew inspiration primarily from western European allies. The most open conflicts affecting the type of capitalism centred on the state budget. Without a parliamentary majority, the Social Democrats had to seek compromises and choose priorities such that the budget was central to developments in other spheres. The dominant trend in the business sphere was towards foreign ownership, leading to a weakening of trade union influence in the employment relations sphere and in political life in general. Weaker unions meant weaker opposition to neo-liberal pressures in the welfare sphere, but the Social Democrats resisted pressures for dismantling the 'social state', but other possible priorities suffered, such as a more progressive tax system or state support to industry and innovation.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[111]
    [111]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
112
    112
  • Thumbnail: Page 
113
    113
  • Thumbnail: Page 
114
    114
  • Thumbnail: Page 
115
    115
  • Thumbnail: Page 
116
    116
  • Thumbnail: Page 
117
    117
  • Thumbnail: Page 
118
    118
  • Thumbnail: Page 
119
    119
  • Thumbnail: Page 
120
    120
  • Thumbnail: Page 
121
    121
  • Thumbnail: Page 
122
    122
  • Thumbnail: Page 
123
    123
  • Thumbnail: Page 
124
    124
  • Thumbnail: Page 
125
    125
  • Thumbnail: Page 
126
    126
  • Thumbnail: Page 
127
    127
  • Thumbnail: Page 
128
    128
  • Thumbnail: Page 
129
    129
  • Thumbnail: Page 
130
    130
  • Thumbnail: Page 
131
    131
  • Thumbnail: Page 
132
    132
  • Thumbnail: Page 
133
    133
  • Thumbnail: Page 
134
    134
  • Thumbnail: Page 
135
    135
  • Thumbnail: Page 
136
    136
  • Thumbnail: Page 
137
    137
  • Thumbnail: Page 
138
    138