Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGENSCHEL, Philipp
dc.contributor.authorZANGL, Bernhard
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-06T15:43:09Z
dc.date.available2015-02-06T15:43:09Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationAnnual review of political science, 2014, Vol. 17, pp. 337-354en
dc.identifier.issn1094-2939
dc.identifier.issn1545-1577
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/34537
dc.description.abstractIs the state still the basic unit of political authority in OECD countries? International relations scholars discuss whether international institutions undermine or buttress state authority. Students of comparative political economy argue about the extent to which political authority has migrated to private market actors. We inventory and compare the main arguments in both debates. Our findings suggest a different pattern of state transformation than most participants in the debates implicitly assume. The key feature is not a zero-sum shift of political authority to nonstate actors but an unbundling and reconfiguration of authority. The segmental differentiation into largely self-contained national states is overlaid by a functionally differentiated order in which different dimensions of authority are exercised by different state and nonstate actors. The state remains focal, but its role changes from virtual monopolist to manager of political authority.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofAnnual review of political scienceen
dc.titleState transformations in OECD countriesen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1146/annurev-polisci-061312-113943
dc.identifier.volume17en
dc.identifier.startpage337en
dc.identifier.endpage354en
eui.subscribe.skiptrue


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record