The Politics of Economic Adjustment: Explaining the Transformation of Industry-State Relationships in Australia
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1995.tb01698.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1995 |
| Date | 01 March 1995 |
| Author | Stephen Bell |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political
Studies
(1993,
XLIII,
22-47
The
Politics
of
Economic
Adjustment: Explaining the
Transformation
of
Industry-State
Relationships in Australia
STEPHEN
BELL
University
of
Tasmania
Recent theories
of
the state (pluralism, statism, Marxism and corporatism) are
evaluated in terms of their capacity to explain an historic transformation in
industry-state relationships in Australia over the last two decades. The explanatory
tasks focus
on
explaining the shift from high protectionism to free trade for
manufacturing industry, coupled with an increase in positive industry assistance
measures. The paper argues that a suitably tailored Marxist account avoids most
of
the limitations
of
the other theories examined. Yet it
is
stressed that Marxism’s
strength lies not in explaining policy details but in providing a broad macro-struc-
tural theory
of
the state in capitalist societies. Marxism’s explanatory ‘superstruc-
ture’, needs to
be
filled in at the meso-level by other explanatory elements
so
that
the contours and dynamics of policy making below the macro-structural level can
be more fully explained. Concepts such
as
accumulation strategy, political coalitions
and policy networks are suggested
for
this purpose.
This article seeks to evaluate the capacity of recent theories
of
the state to
explain key aspects of the transformation of state-industry relationships in
Australia since industry restructuring and industry policy reform were first
placed on the political agenda in the late
1960s.
For the last quarter century
policy makers in all countries have grappled with challenges thrown up
by
dramatic changes in the world economy. One
of
the most interesting aspects
of the growing field of comparative political economy has been the attempt to
explain the varied national responses to these challenges. In Australia’s case,
changes in the world economy have been reflected in dramatic policy responses.
Indeed the state’s historic role in Australian manufacturing industry has been
turned on its head in the last two decades as Australia has moved from one
of the most protectionist
to
one
of
the least protectionist countries in the
OECD.
For
much of the twentieth century, high protectionism was used by
the state purposefully to shape the structure of Australia’s economy and to
help build a sizable manufacturing
sector.
Yet this structural
or
macro-level
statism was combined with a system
of
micro-level laissez-faire which sought
to preserve management prerogative and the autonomy
of
individual
firms.
In this sense Australian protectionism came without any detailed form of
r_
Polit~ml
Studies
Association
1995
Published
by
Blackwell
Publishers.
108
Cowley
Rodd Oxford
OX4
IJF.
UK
and
238
Main
Street.
Carnbndge,
MA
02142
USA
STEPHEN
BELL
23
accountability. The subsequent reform process has all but abolished Australia’s
historic pattern of macro-level statism by drastically lowering protectionism.
At the same time there has been increased intervention and assistance by the
state in manufacturing industry, but of a kind which has largely respected
management prerogative and the autonomy of the firm. This article seeks to
explain these changes and continuities in the industrial role of the Australian
state by drawing on recent theories of the state. Such theories have various
strands, descriptive, explanatory and normative. Here the focus is on the
capacity of pluralism, statism, Marxism and corporatism
to
explain
the pro-
cess
of policy choice within a contemporary liberal-capitalist state such as
Australia.
The article looks first at the explanatory capacities of pluralism, found
wanting largely because it is unable to move beyond its rather narrow focus
on interest group machinations to systematically incorporate a sufficiently
comprehensive array of explanatory variables. This is followed by an examin-
ation of so-called statism which is, arguably, another dead-end trail in state
theory. The main problem with statism is that it relies for its
distinctiveness
on an untenable conceptual distinction between state and society. Once the
false nature of this distinction for advanced capitalist societies is recognized,
it is argued here that only Marxism can provide the explanatory purchase
needed to account for the transformations in the Australian state’s industrial
role. Indeed, Marxism’s capacity to place state action in a wider framework
of state-economy relations, its capacity to account for the variable autonomy
of the state, and its insistence on the importance of class politics (in this
case, particularly conflicts within the capitalist class), all emerge
as
crucial
to
explaining Australian state-industry relationships in recent decades.
In advocating a Marxist explanatory framework, however, a number of
issues need to
be
addressed. First, crude forms of Marxism which see the state
as
slavishly serving capitalists or capitalism in relatively unmediated terms need
to
be
rejected at the outset. Things, as many Marxists have argued, are more
complicated than that. Indeed, endlessly to debate the purported macro-scopic
functions of the ‘capitalist state’ can quickly lead to ahistorical theorizing.
Nevertheless, without insisting on any kind of ‘last instance’ determinacy, there
do seem to
be
some Marxist fundamentals here which more-or-less apply most
of the time. For example, states in capitalist societies do typically seek to
preserve the fundamental elements of the socio-economic order and seek to
promote stable capital accumulation. This tends to privilege capitalists in
politics. This means that state Clites in charge of policy making machinery as
well as powerful members of the capitalist class are likely to be very important
players in the politics of industrial change. All this seems fairly unremarkable.
Yet a challenge for Marxism is to move beyond such bald claims in order to
link
macro-structural variables with more detailed, institutional and process
elements
of
state policy making.‘ The details as well
as
the broader macrolevel
aspects of policy change matter. Marxists have tended to focus more on the
latter than the former, yet it
is
important to move to the specifics of policy
making in order to make more explicit the connection between various
levels
of
analysis.
The aim here,
is
to show, through case material on Australian
I
Some
useful
work
here has been done by
C.
Offe.
See,
for
example, ‘The theory
of
the capitalist
state and the problem
of
policy formation’ in
L.
Lindberg,
R.
Alford,
C.
Crouch and
C.
Offe (eds)
Stress
and
Contradiction
in
Modern Capitalism
(Lexington, Heath,
1975).
C:
Political
Studies
Association,
1995
To continue reading
Request your trial