The Transition to ‘New’ Social Democracy: The Role of Capitalism, Representation and (Hampered) Contestation
| Author | David J. Bailey |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2009.00373.x |
| Published date | 01 November 2009 |
| Date | 01 November 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Transition to ‘New’ Social
Democracy: The Role of Capitalism,
Representation and (Hampered)
Contestationbjpi_373593..612
David J. Bailey
This article argues that existing accounts of the transformation from ‘traditional’ to ‘new’ social
democracy has thus far only identified the contextual changes that have prompted this move. In
doing so, they have failed to account for the motives of social democratic party actors in undertaking
the transition to ‘new’ social democracy in response to those changes. The article draws upon a
critical realist method, and Marxist and anti-representational theories, to conceptualise ‘tradi-
tional’ social democratic party relations as suffering from tensions between constituents’ demands
for decommodification, the attempt by party elites to contain (and thereby ‘represent’) those
demands and the (in)compatibility of this process of containment with the need to recommodify
social relations in the light of periodic crises in contemporary capitalism. It argues that these
tensions explain the attempt by party elites to promote the move towards ‘new’ social democracy,the
(eventual) acquiescence of party constituents to those attempts and the subsequent exit from social
democratic constituencies which has resulted. The argument is made with reference to the British
Labour Party and Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).
Keywords: social democracy; Labour Party; SPD; centre-left parties
Existing literature seeking to explain the transformation, by social democratic parties,
from ‘traditional’ to ‘new’ (or ‘Third Way’) social democracy has tended to focus on
either material processes such as the global extension and liberalisation of the
international political economy (Gray 1996) and the fragmentation and/or erosion of
the industrial working class within contemporary post-Fordist capitalism (Kitschelt
1994), or ideational convergence around neo-liberal norms (Hay 1999). However,
these contextual changes cannot by themselves explain the decision by social
democratic party actors to promote, and in most cases bring into effect, a transfor-
mation from ‘traditional’ to ‘new’ social democracy.Indeed, while ‘traditional’ social
democratic parties may have experienced economic, political and/or ideological
obstacles in recent decades, these do not, by themselves, explain the abandonment
of faith in ‘traditional’ social democracy by social democratic party actors. Put
differently, why have social democratic party actors not adopted a re-emboldened
commitment to ‘traditional’ social democracy in an attempt to overcome the material
and/or ideational adversities they face in realising their political and policy goals? In
seeking to answer this question, the present article attempts to explain the adoption
of ‘new’ social democracy by social democratic party actors in the light of the
contextual changes identified within the existing literature.
The British Journal of
Politics and International Relations
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2009.00373.x BJPIR: 2009 VOL 11, 593–612
© 2009 The Author.Journal compilation © 2009 Political Studies Association
Defining ‘Traditional’ and ‘New’ Social Democracy
For the purposes of the present article, the following definitions will be used.
‘Traditional’ Social Democracy
Despite the use of a variety of terms—including ‘revisionist’ (Sassoon 1996), ‘tra-
ditionalist’ (Leggett 2007), ‘classical’ (Pierson 2001) and ‘classic’ (Thomson 2000)—
there is a broad consensus within the literature that between 1945 and the mid-
1970s there was, within most developed countries, a broad ideological position
adopted by member parties of the Socialist International, which is referred to here
as ‘traditional’ social democracy (for similar terminology, see Kitschelt 1994, 7; Hirst
1999, 94; Bailey 2005). This is an ideological commitment to pursue, through
election to office, a gradual reform programme which includes Keynesian demand
management of a (full-employment) capitalist economy and the redistribution
of resources towards its core (working-class) constituency, particularly through
the extension of both the welfare state and a progressive fiscal policy (Callaghan
2000, 11–18; Pierson 2001, 56–58; Przeworski 2001, 319–320). These aims were
expressed by a party purporting to act in the interests of an electoral constituency
centred around, but seeking to extend beyond, the industrial working class
(Moschonas 2002, 215; for more detailed discussion of this definition, see also
Bailey 2009, ch. 2).
‘New’ Social Democracy
In contrast, ‘new’ (Gamble and Wright 1999)—or ‘Third Way’ (Giddens 1998;
Green-Pedersen and Van Kersbergen 2002)—social democracy accepts much of the
neo-liberal critique of ‘traditional’ social democracy (Przeworski 2001, 320–322).
This includes the need for balanced budgets, a focus upon low inflation in macro-
economic policy, a reduction in the level of disincentivising income transfers, the
limiting of economic intervention to the supply-side of the economy (in order for
macroeconomic policy to facilitate (rather than temper) the role of the market) and
‘the association between collective provision and bureaucratic inertia’ (Sassoon
1996, 735; Thompson 1996; Thomson 2000, 156–157; Stammers et al. 2001,
36–37). Political intervention in the economy is focused on public service provisions
that benefit the national interest (such as health and education), in contrast to those
that are specifically in the interest of the working class (Thomson 2000, 157).
Economic policy is geared towards ensuring the supply of a skilled and flexible
labour force in order to ensure equality of opportunity, rather than equality of
outcome, through the meritocratic effects of education and training (Sassoon 1996;
Powell 2004).
In sum, the transformation from ‘traditional’ to ‘new’ social democratic parties
has witnessed a move away from direct interference in the economy, away from
an attempt to ease economic imperatives experienced by individuals and away
from a focus on the redistribution of resources towards the working class. As such,
the transformation to ‘new’ social democracy has witnessed social democratic
594 DAVID J. BAILEY
© 2009 The Author.Journal compilation © 2009 Political Studies Association
BJPIR, 2009, 11(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial