Bob Jessop

The problem with the label “deregulation” is that it implies less regulation and that deregulation is commonly framed as something that frees markets from government intervention, suggestive of neoliberalization. In reality, state intervention is a necessary condition for markets to thrive. In this chapters, I discuss three very different cases of what I label regulated deregulation: the electric power industry in New York State, local bus services in Great Britain and Sweden and mortgage securitization in the US and UK. All three cases are commonly labeled as deregulation, but I have tried to show how these cases all have elements of deregulation-as-liberalization but not of deregulation as defined by a reduced role of law and the state. If anything, the liberalization has been enabled, managed and controlled by re/setting rules and re/establishing “an enforcement mechanism designed to control the operation of the system’s constituent institutions, instruments and markets” (Spotton 1999: 971). Neoliberalism is not simply the roll-back of the state. Neoliberalization may involve the roll-back of the welfare state, but at the same time neoliberalism leads to a regulatory explosion (Levi-Faur 2005), indicative of the state widening its net (Cohen 1985), embedding market principles more deeply in the fabric of society (Panitch and Konings 2009). The concept of regulated deregulation enables us to see how liberalization of selective economic agents was only made possible by introducing a new regulatory system that replaced or amended the existing regulatory system. Regulated deregulation allows for the combination of competition and economic incentives on the one hand, and coordination and the regulation authority-led making and shaping of different economic sectors and industries – i.e., regulated deregulation negates the ostensibly contradiction between liberalization and state control. Under regulated deregulation some economic agents are given greater freedom from state control, but the market framework itself is regulated. By problematizing the dominant narrative of deregulation-as-neoliberalization, the concept of regulated deregulation stresses that regulation is not anathema to actually existing neoliberalism. By actively mobilizing regulation, neoliberal agents are creating the conditions of neoliberalization through the state.

Abstract
This work analyzes the practices of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) governments with a special reference to Bob Jessop’s concept of two-nations hegemonic project. In this context, this work tries to explain the New Right’s understanding of state and the neoliberal economic policies that have been put into practice since the 1980s, and the two nations hegemonic project of the AKP rule. The AKP rule is classified into three periods: a) the formation of two-nations hegemonic project between 2002-2010; b) the dissolvement of two-nations hegemonic project between 2010-2013; c) the transition to a new form of state in the post2013 era.

Öz
Bu çalışma, Bob Jessop’ın iki uluslu hegemonik proje kavramı üzerinden Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP) iktidarının uygulamalarını incelemektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, 1980’lerden itibaren uygulanan neoliberal ekonomi politikalarını, yeni sağ devlet anlayışını ve iki uluslu hegemonya projesini AKP iktidari çerçevesinde açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. AKP iktidarı, sırasıyla, 2002-2010 arası iki uluslu hegemonik projenin oluşumu, 2010-2013 arası iki uluslu hegemonik projenin çözülüşü, 2013 sonrası yeni bir devlet biçimine geçiş olmak üzere üç döneme ayrılmaktadır.

This book assesses the impact of post-9/11 domestic counterterrorism policy on US political life. It examines political discourse, law, institutional architecture, and state-population relations, and shows that ‘homeland security’ is a project with wide-ranging implications for democratic institutions and culture. These implications are addressed through a novel approach that treats law and the state as social relations, and relates developments in law to those in the state and in social dynamics. On this basis, the book examines the new political representations in counterterrorism discourse, especially regarding the relation between the state and the population. It examines the form and content of counterterrorism law, the powers it provides, and the structure and functions it prescribes for the state. By focusing on the new Department of Homeland Security and the restructuring of the intelligence apparatus, the book assesses the new, intelligence-led, policing model. Finally, it examines forms of popular support and resistance to homeland security, to discuss citizenship and state-population relations.

The author concludes that homeland security has turned the US into a hybrid polity; the legal and political institutions of democracy remain intact, but their content and practices become authoritarian and exclude the population from politics. These legal and political forms remain operative beyond counterterrorism, in the context of the present economic crisis. They are a permanent configuration of power.

David Harvey, one of the most preeminent Marxist theoreticians of the contemporary world revolutionized our thinking about the capitalist production of space while Bob Jessop, another leading Marxist theoretician, transformed Marxist state theory. While the two converge on many points in their analysis of the capitalist mode of production, they diverge on some metho-dological and theoretical arguments about how to analyze the concept of spatio-temporal fixes. While Harvey follows Capital and Grundrisse to adopt a value-theoretical approach that focuses on the circulation of capital, Jessop follows Poulantzas and the Regulation School to call for a more socio-political orientation towards capitalist social formations. Whereas Harvey concentrates on the inner contradictions and crises tendencies of capitalism and capital circulations in the creation of spatio-temporal fixes, Jessop pays more attention to political power relations and the state as modes of the extra-economic principles of societalization in producing spatio-temporal fixes. The present study, recognizing Harvey's crucial contributions to the field, but following Jessop, argues for a more socio-politicized concept of spatio-temporal fixes. It recommends linking it with state power and socio-political power relations through the complex ar-ticulations of the economic, political, and ideological determinations of social totality.

Die Diskussion über postkapitalistische Strategien heute kann von Nicos Poulantzas viel lernen. Ein Endpunkt ist seine Theorie des Staates im Kapitalismus jedoch nicht. Stattdessen ist sie auch durch historische Kontextualisierung in der Theoriegeschichte des Marxismus einerseits und systematische Analysen des heutigen Stands der Klassenformierung andererseits einer Relektüre zu unterziehen. Eine solche Relektüre ist jedoch vonnöten, weil die Diskussion über die revolutionäre Überwindung des Kapitalismus in seinen Kernstaaten nicht ohne eine solche kritische (Wieder-)Beschäftigung mit dem griechisch-französischen Staatsdenker vorbeikommt.

The word “propaganda” originates from biology, literally referring to the reproduction and duplication – the propagation – of plants and animals. In this time of catastrophe on earth and corporate and nationalist schemes to export that very same catastrophe to other living worlds, Donna Haraway’s rethinking of propaganda offers a precondition for collective survival and the perseverance of new socialist forms of living. Neo-constructivist, cosmist, and assemblist training camps and biospheres: these are the terms for a morphological vocabulary of a hyperempathic propaganda art that makes living worlds of comradeship in deep past, deep present, and deep future imaginable and realizable.

Hay un consenso más o menos extendido acerca de aquel lugar antaño llamado izquierda, que si bien no ha desaparecido como sitio de referencia histórica, sí lo ha hecho en el presente como espacio de encuentro para los sectores de la población para los que este lugar estaba pensado: los marginados y los oprimidos. Pese a lo caótico de esta situación es poco usual hallar un libro que intente complejizar el vacío que ha dejado la izquierda después de la caída del Muro de Berlín, más extraño aún es encontrar uno que se dé a la tarea de analizar y, además, proponer vías de reinvención teóricas para volver a imaginar este espacio. Juan Carlos Monedero, profesor de Ciencias Políticas en la Universidad Complutense de Madrid y fundador del partido político es-pañol Podemos, se propone en este libro reubicar los espacios comunes de la izquierda para intentar reconstruirla histórica, conceptual y políticamente, sin que en el camino pierda su memoria. Para esta tarea echa mano de distintos autores que se distinguen con claridad dentro de su estructura de pensamiento: Walter Benjamin, Antonio Gramsci y Robert Jessop, considerados clave dentro del aparato conceptual del libro que para su estudio hemos dividido en tres partes, cada una de ellas orientada por la mirada de los teóricos citados y en la lectura de cuyas ideas podemos comen-zar a pensar nuestro relato sobre esta obra. ¿Qué se ha perdido y qué ha quedado? A lo largo de los primeros tres capítulos Monedero intenta recomponer lo que se ha perdido de la izquierda partiendo de su vaciamiento, "¿qué queda de ese antiguo lugar llamado izquierda?", se pregunta el autor, y lo hace desde una perspectiva benjaminiana; esto es, desde los fragmentos de un lugar común ubicado difusamente en el tiempo, el punto

Vergleichende Textanalyse zum Thema: Theorien zu Staat, Regieren und Globalisierung im Vergleich: Im Vergleich werden die Texte von Ulrich Brand ("Verdichtung zweiter Ordnung") und Bop Jessop ("The state and state-building") zunächst einzeln, danach im Vergleich analysiert.

Artículo publicado en la revista Scientia Helmantica,  Nº4-Vol.III, Mayo 2016. Monográfico "Políticas Contemporáneas", pp. 55-74.
Resumen: El presente artículo pretende presentar las líneas fundamentales del pensamiento de Robert Kurz, teórico perteneciente a la línea de la crítica de la escisión del valor (Wertabspaltungskritik), en torno a la cuestión del Estado. Se presentan para ello, en primer lugar, algunas líneas fundamentales de su relectura de la crítica de la economía política, mostrando lo específico de la crítica categorial que desarrolla y su interés en pensar la cualidad específica de la totalidad social en su conjunto: la síntesis social cuya sustancia es el trabajo abstracto. En segundo lugar, mostraremos que la falta de reflexión sobre dicha categoría es común a los planteamientos del marxismo tradicional y las ciencias sociales de tradición académica. Esto les habría impedido ver al Estado como una forma de poder inherente a la sociedad capitalista, hecho que no conduce necesariamente a la negación abstracta del aparato estatal del pensamiento anarquista. Las reflexiones de este autor se presentan aquí en confrontación crítica con otras teorías contemporáneas de raigambre marxista para mostrar lo fructífero de su pensamiento en orden a desarrollar una crítica radical que proporcione en última instancia las herramientas teóricas para un análisis concreto e históricamente específico de la noción más fundamental del poder.

After two decades of very successful and effective family planning program, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran urged the government to impose family-oriented and pronatalist policies. Concurrently, a new comprehensive economic plan, i.e., the resistance
economy program, was introduced, primarily aimed to recover Iran’s economy from the effects of harsh international sanctions against the Islamic Republic. In this context, The Birth of Neoliberal Family Politics: A History of Governmentalization of the State in Iran, contributes to conceiving political rationality behind state policies in the current conjuncture.
The main question that the thesis addresses is: why and how the family became the strategic object/subject of political struggles in contemporary Iran. In this context, the thesis attempts to reveal the strategic importance of policing the family, i.e., family politics, for the stability and continuity of the Islamic Republic.

Present thesis is a case study applying the theory of Antonio Gramsci to labour state relations in Turkey. More specifically it seeks to highlight the causes of political instability and the contradictory course of labour politics, mainly in the period of 1950-1980, from a Gramscian perspective. On the basis mainly of the Gramscian studies of David Adam Morton (2011) and the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971) it will be illuminated how class struggles indicative to the formation of the modern Turkish state, within conditions of uneven capitalist development, resulted in a political stalemate in the 1950´s, 60´s and 70´s.

Gramscian theory claims that such political volatility is inherent to the process of state formation, which is the product of a process, which Gramsci termed a passive revolution. This concept denotes the situation, experienced in many less developed countries, where a weak
industrial bourgeoisie, or state forces acting on their behalf in the name of development, is attempting to establish hegemony – defined as rule dominated by consent – through an international catching up process involving capitalist reform. The Gramscian state, what he termed the integral state, thus, contrarily to Weberian conceptions of the state, is defined both by its use of consent and coercion. In Gramsci´s own words: “State = political society + civil society, in other words hegemony protected by the amour of coercion” (Carnoy 1984: 72). Thus, the integral state is a matrix of institutions, which is conventionally divided into the spheres of civil society and the state that “consecrate and legitimize” (Morton 2011: 7) the capitalist relations of production. Present thesis, thus, illuminates how Turkish labour movements were partially integrated into the integral state system by the dominant classes, through ideological and political co-optation. The important word here being partially, as parts of the bourgeoisie, being divided and unconsolidated by the unevenness of capitalist development, was unable to provide hegemonic leadership and therefore applied coercive measures towards labour.

This study, thus, sets itself apart from other Gramscian studies of Turkish society, in that it contains a special focus on labour relations within the integral Turkish state, and furthermore, because it makes use of the analytical concepts Uneven and Combined Development (U&CD),
the capitalist type of state, and passive revolution.

It is the claim of present thesis that such specificities to the Gramscian analysis of state-labour relations in Turkey helps illuminate the underlying power structures shaping modern state formation, and thereby clarifies the historical role of labour movements as a cog in the intricate matrix of relations making up the integral state. It is thereby the aim to clarify the class character of the state, which Antonio Gramsci claimed were obscured in the liberal demoratic state system. It does this, however, without reverting to class determination, as equal weight is given to human agency and class structure within Gramscian theory.

Through the lens of the above described theory, applied to existing studies of Turkish history, political economy and labour, it is, thus, illuminated how political processes in the multi partyera of Turkey can be perceived as a process of the refinement of the integrative exercise of passive revolution.

Partiendo de una lectura de Poulantzas, Bob Jessop concibió la selectividad estratégica como un concepto operativo para comprender la lucha política entre clases y/o agentes sociales en el Estado; esta formulación entiende que la política Estatal es contradictoria y caótica porque representa las contradicciones interinstitucionales como expresión de tensiones, luchas y estrategias de agentes sociales de distinta naturaleza. Jessop, a partir de allí construyó modelos de selectividad estatal, como la selectividad estatal de género, entre
otras, que teóricamente desarrollan la categoría inicial en análisis específicos de creciente importancia política desde la perspectiva emancipatoria. La versatilidad de la selectividad estratégica del  Estado  como categoría de análisis resulta importante para comprender la
confección y desarrollo de relaciones políticas de dominación y de lucha política inscrita en el Estado-relación, como relaciones complejas y no determinadas. La ponencia detalla el concepto de selectividad estratégica del Estado, los fundamentos teóricos, los contextos, los debates, los modelos y la potencia conceptual para comprender la acción política y el poder político hoy, así mismo, la ponencia arriesga una crítica sobre sus límites.

This article examines the relationship between the evolution of statehood and competition in the European context. To begin with, a particular take on the evolution of modern political power in the state form in Europe is developed. Against this background, the article reconstructs how the institutionalization of competition as a specific type of policy tool has been used by emerging modern states to establish their authority vis-à-vis competing claims to public authority in society. The article, furthermore, engages in an examination of (neo-)corporatist and governance-based attempts both to curb and to expand the use of competition as a tool for organizing social processes, and the implications of these attempts for the state of statehood.

Hemos transitado de la empresa transnacional a la empresa multinacional. Este ensayo retoma la "historia universal europea" caracterizada por el papel unilateral y desinhibido de los Estados nacionales. Y como en su ocaso, la inhibición y la multilateralidad no ha acontecido, por el contrario, nuevos agentes se han asumido bajo el ro de "sujetos" de acción sobre el mundo. La dinámica persiste bajo un nombre distinto.

This paper explores a dual absence -the absence of the state within contemporary geographical analyses of nature; and the absence of nature within contemporary explorations of state power. We argue that the modern state continues to play a crucial role in framing social interactions with nature, while nature is still vital to states within their realization of different forms of material and ideological power. In order to reconnect analyses of the state and nature, this paper combines work on the production of nature and state strategy with Lefebvre's recently translated writings on state space and territory. By focusing on the production of territory (or state space), we explore the interaction of the state and nature in the context of the political management of social and ecological space. We unravel the spatial entanglements of the state and nature through an analysis of the British state's territorial strategies within the West Midlands region. By considering three key historical periods within the history of the West Midlands we reveal how the emergence of the regional space called the West Midlands is a product of the ongoing spatial dialectics of state and nature therein.

Resumen La finalidad de este artículo será analizar el poder local desde los procesos de gentrificación. Para lo antes mencionado será preciso abordar algunas miradas del origen de este concepto para enfocarlo desde las resistencias barriales ya que es ahí donde se va reconfigurando el poder local. Las reflexiones vertidas desde diferentes enfoques ayudarán a crear una mirada crítica de este fenómeno desde la realidad de Quito y sus barrios. Palabras Claves Gentrificación, intervenciones estatales y actores locales. Introducción El proceso de gentrificación es uno de los principales factores que rompen las prácticas cotidianas de un barrio, a pesar de que esta concepción ya tiene más de cuarenta años de vigencia. Según el autor Luis Alberto Salinas sostiene que este concepto nace para explicar un cambio social, muchos expertos dicen que la primera persona en hacerlo fue la socióloga británica Ruth Glass, quien en 1964 utilizó este término por primer vez Con la apreciación de Glass sobre el contexto de Londres y cómo este espacio se fue transformando por los nuevos habitantes se puede entender de manera actual como gentrificación clásica al "desplazamiento de población y reinversión económica en la viviendas del barrio" (Salinas, 2013). Este concepto es aplicable a diferentes realidades. Este artículo parte de la discusión clásica para entender la importancia de la toma del espacio ya que algunos barrios del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito sufren de manera constante las llamadas "intervenciones estatales", para lo cual será importante prestar atención a los actores locales y sus diferentes formas de resistencia. Para explicar lo antes mencionado será sustancial utilizar la categoría de "giro espacial" del autor Arturo Escobar definiéndolo como el espacio político representado por el barrio local. Según el autor esta categoría se la entiende desde cuatro elementos que convergen en las luchas de los movimientos políticos locales: 1. Una fuerte defensa de lo local como prerrequisito para articular con lo global. En este contexto diremos que es importante tener experiencias locales para llegar a una adecuada organización estatal. 2. Autocrítica de la situación, valores y prácticas del grupo como forma para clarificar y fortalecer la identidad. Esta cita nos ayuda a autoevaluar el espacio para poder planificar proyectos que fortalezcan la identidad cotidiana en busca de un bienestar social. 3. Oposición al desarrollo modernizante, es decir la resistencia de los barrios ante los modelos de urbanización que penetran en algunas prácticas locales. 4. Formulación de visiones y propuestas concretas. El éxito de los proyectos planificados está en la claridad, pertinencia y consenso grupal que se genere en el barrio (Escobar 1996, p. 423).

Farklı alanlarda çalışan birçok akademisyen, değişik ekoller içinde yer alan birçok düşünür, sağ ve sol ideolojileri benimsemiş birçok siyasetçi, 1970'lerin başından beri dünyanın yönü, sınırları, kapsamı ve içeriği bakımından üzerinde bir türlü uzlaşılamayan bir dönüşüm içinde olduğundan bahsetmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bahsedilen dönüşümün, siyasetin yeniden yapılandırılması başlığında, Türkiye örneği etrafında incelenmesidir. Çalışmada, siyasetin yeniden yapılandırılmasının, yeni hegemonyanın esaslı bir bileşeni olan, yeni-muhafazakârlığın ilkeleri etrafında geliştiği, yeniden yapılandırma olarak tarif ettiğimiz sürecin ise Türkiye için Turgut Özal'la beraber başladığı öne sürülmektedir. Bu süreç, çalışmada Özal dönemi olarak anılacak; hegemonyanın Türkiye'ye özgü ulusal popüler programı ise Özalizm olarak adlandırılacaktır. Türkiye'de siyasetin yeniden yapılandırılması meselesi, yeni bir hegemonya ve buna entegre olma süreciyle ilişkili/bağımlıdır. Dolayısıyla çalışmada yeni hegemonya ve onun kurucu unsuru olan yeni muhafazakarlık ağırlıklı olarak ele alınacaktır.

I'm very pleased to say that my new book, The Problem of the State, was published on the 17th of May by Routledge, https://www.routledge.com/The.../Mair/p/book/9781138613836, through the excellent Philosophy and Method in the Social Sciences series edited by Phil Hutchinson at Manchester Metropolitan University. It may be of interest as an attempt to think about what Wittgensteinian philosophy, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis might have to say about the classical problem of the state as it has been taken up empirically in the social and political sciences over the past few decades.

This thesis is motivated by what I see as a need for making up for the insufficient attention paid to the topic of precollege economic education within the neo-Gramscian literature dealing with the hegemonic struggle unfolding in the neoliberal period and more specifically in the years following the onset of the global financial crisis of 2007-8.

My purpose of studying this topic is to discuss how social forces seeking to transcend neoliberalism in particular, or even capitalism in general, might improve or even formulate the basis of their strategies for if and how to grapple with the question of precollege economic education and thereby potentially improve their overall political positionings.

I first provide a theoretical argument that neoclassical economics, insofar as it is being widely disseminated to multiple generations of non-elite actors such as via young people’s enrolment in the precollege educational system, contributes to giving rise to an overall depoliticized conception of economic relations which might then dampen the mobilization of social forces pushing for hegemonic change, thereby precluding the destabilization of neoliberalism even in the context of severe socioeconomic fallout.

I then invoke arguments by Bob Jessop in order to hypothesize that successful dampening is predicated on particularly the actors responsible for formulating the neoclassical curricular content of precollege economic education succeeding at revising this content via strategic navigation vis-à-vis the shifts in the sociopolitical context following the onset of the Global Financial Crisis.

I examine this curricular change by studying how the Voluntary Content Standards in Economics, a document published by the US-based Council for Economic Education and a document that the curricular content of economic education across a large share of US states is strongly influenced by, has had its representation of neoclassical economics shifted from its first version of 1997 to its second version of 2010.

I find that while even though discourses external to neoclassical economics are drawn on to a larger extent in the 2010 version, neoclassical economics still remains as the hegemonic conception of economic relations.

Since my analysis thereby shows the ease with which frequently elevated criticisms of neoclassical economics that point to the empirical existence of market imperfections are integrated into the curricular content so that it can be updated and thus stay attentive to a relatively wide range of voices calling for curricular reform without however having its hegemonic representation of neoclassical economics jeopardized, it points to the strategic futility associated with disseminating such criticisms.

I therefore conclude that social forces should refrain from disseminating those; rather, I suggest, they should devote more organizational resources to disseminating radical criticisms of neoclassical economics that have at their heart politicized conceptions of economic relations.

Future research on this topic should then pick up where I leave and then in particular study the conditions under which various attempts at such dissemination might be (un)successful.

The City of Vancouver has emerged as an examplar of urban sustainability and environmental planning, combining leadership on climate action, urban containment boundaries and commitment to walkable complete communities. However, environmental improvement has occurred hand in hand with high home prices.  By 2016 there was near consensus concerning a housing crisis and regional level gentrification and municipal, provincial and federal governments are beginning to implement a series of new regulatory measures. This paper  suggest these regulatory changes amount to a new, perhaps less than ideal form of, ‘Just Green Enough” strategy that in turn can be analyzed through the concept of “Sustainability Fix”. The concept of a fix has been applied to many cities to describe policies that combine environmental improvement and capital accumulation strategies. This paper reflects on the concept, and suggests Bob Jessop’s state theory and cultural political economy provides a unique theoretical lens for analyzing a fix. Drawing on new changes to Vancouver’s housing system, this paper argues a sustainability fix can actively incorporate, absorb, and deflect civil society concerns around environmental gentrification.

This book chapter appears in 2018. Just Green Enough
Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification
Edited by Winifred Curran, Trina Hamilton. Routledge

Having the emergence and strengthening of South-South Cooperation (SSC) as the main background, compared to Official Development Assistance (ODA), the general objective of this dissertation aimed to analyze the Brazilian Cooperation for International Development (CID), known as Cobradi, in the African agricultural sector, specifically in Mozambique. A qualitative methodology was used in the research, which sought to present some theoretical contributions to the subject. Supported by this theoretical reference, the research carries out an analysis of the investments and commercial exchanges between Brazil and Africa during the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016), as well as a case study limited to Mozambique. In this country, some brazilian public policies on Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) were transferred, and the Triangular Co-operation Programme for Agricultural Development of the Tropical Savannah in Mozambique (ProSAVANA) is in the process of being implemented. Based on Nicos Poulantzas' theory and Bob Jessop's Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) contributions, the conclusions of this dissertation led to the assertion that the nature of Cobradi, transferred to Mozambique through ProSAVANA program and other Brazilian public policies, is ambiguous in relation to the principles and practices advocated by SSC; is characterized by a contradictory unity, with respect to the character of the agricultural sector’s institutional structure; and reproduces in Mozambique the development model based on the articulation of the accumulation strategies of mining, agribusiness and logistics, which resulted in ProSAVANA. This program primarily serves the interests of the power bloc of Japan, secondarily the interests of the power bloc of Brazil, and finally the interests of the power bloc in Mozambique. Finally, public policies on food security, which were successful in Brazil and were welcomed by rural workers in Mozambique, do not appear to be priority programs, as power bloc subordinate these programs to the development model carried out in Mozambique.

We discuss the work of Bob Jessop, focusing on the transition he proposes to the contemporary state form – the Schumpeterian workfare post-national regime (SWPR). After a brief presentation of the author’s account, we explore its main critiques and recent reformulations. We then consider whether Jessop’s narrative resorts to economic determinism, structuralism or functionalism, as some authors have indicated. We defend that while some traces of these might indeed be found, they can be sidestepped by approaching the emergence of the SWPR as part of an ongoing research agenda. We
finally propose some changes to the latter, related to developing an explicitly evolutionary theoretical framework, to the space that post-Fordism comprehends and to the articulation between different subtypes of post-Fordist social formations and accumulation strategies. A central point is not proposing competing regimes of accumulation for a single space, but rather a single regime that articulates the relevant forms of capital and is brought about by competing accumulation strategies.

The Fukushima Daichii nuclear disaster has radically reshaped domestic Japanese energy policy, political economy and citizen-state relations within a very short time period. This destabilised period of post-Fukushima nuclear policy is considered in meta-theoretical terms, drawing upon the work of Colin Hay in describing a Punctuated Evolution model of stability and change. This in turn, draws upon the concepts of structure and agency, and the material and ideational. I assess and apply Jessop and Hay's Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) to resolving these issues, with reference to the Fukushima disaster throughout. The ontological weaknesses of the SRA are discussed, namely the weak conceptualisation of 'the material', leading to the construction of a new hybrid model. Hay's concept of Structure-Strategy-Agency is augmented into one of Alliance-Context-Actantiality; drawing upon concepts from Actor Network Theory to better articulate the role of artefacts, physical and material processes in influencing stability and change in risk politics.

This paper argues against two of the core assumptions of contemporary liberal economic and political thought from a Marxist perspective. It does so by dissecting the ambiguities contained within the standard liberal account of the relationship between states and markets. The first of these assumptions holds that the separation of economy and polity is an essential condition of capitalist liberal democracy, while the second maintains that the relationship between international markets and territorial states in the age of capitalist globalization is necessarily antagonistic. In order to reject these assumptions, a Marxist perspective is elaborated which situates liberal ideas in the material context of their social production and circulation in capitalist society. This perspective interprets liberalism as a bourgeois form of ideological discourse which functions to naturalize the social relations, tensions, antagonisms and contradictions of a capitalist mode of production founded on inequality and exploitation by symbolically grounding them in economic liberty and political equality. On the basis of this perspective, it is argued that, firstly, far from economy and polity being separate, the liberal democratic state in capitalist society is essentially a capitalist state because the social and economic rule of the propertied minority implies the effective subordination of state policies to the logic of capital accumulation. Contra the antagonism between international markets and territorial states, the case is then made that capitalist globalization does not undermine the territorial power of national states, but rather restructures the purposes for which state power is exercised at the same time as it remains fundamentally dependent upon the exercise of state capacities in order to secure the conditions of its reproduction.

In The Thatcherite Offensive, Alexander Gallas provides a class-centred political analysis of Thatcherism. Drawing upon Greek state theorist Nicos Poulantzas, he challenges both mainstream and critical accounts of British politics in the 1980s and 90s. He shows that Thatcherism’s sucess and novelty, indeed its unity as a political project, lay in the fact that the Thatcher governments profoundly shifted class relations in Britain in favour of capital and restructured the institutions underpinning class domination. According to Gallas, it was an integral part of the Thatcherite project to directly intervene in labour relations, to deprive workers of their ability to forge coalitions, and to smash militant trade unionism.

‘Teoria della Distruzione del Valore’: teoria elaborata da Massimo Morigi afferente al ‘Repubblicanesimo Geopolitico’, al ‘Repubblicanesimo’, al ‘Neo-repubblicanesimo’, al ‘Marxismo’ e al ‘Neo-marxismo’. Pur condividendo la critica di Karl Marx all’individualismo metodologico dell’economia classica (in specie la critica ad Adam Smith e David Ricardo, individualismo metodologico che poi sarà in seguito trasmesso anche all’economia neoclassica o marginalismo), la ‘Teoria della Distruzione del Valore’ rovescia la teoria del plusvalore di Karl Marx, affermando che il rapporto sociale che va sotto il nome di ‘capitalismo’ non opera una sottrazione del valore del lavoro erogato dal lavoratore a vantaggio del capitale ma, invece, una distruzione del valore di questo lavoro, distruzione del valore che si evidenzia sul “libero mercato” dove s’incontrano – entrambi formalmente liberi – gli operai (decisori omega-strategici), che apportano su questo mercato un lavoro svalutato (distrutto quindi nel suo valore) originatosi proprio dalla libertà di questo mercato (ossia dalla sua mancanza di regole) e i datori di lavoro capitalisti (decisori alfa-strategici) che così possono avvalersi di questo valore-lavoro effettivamente svalutato (o, meglio, distrutto).

Drawing on Nicos Poulantzas' distinction between "normal" and "exceptional" forms of capitalist state, Putinism is defined as a neoliberal variety of exceptional state regime which constituted (temporarily) a resolution of the profound crisis of Russian statehood - at the historical conjuncture marked by dismantling of political, ideological and economic institutions of the Soviet state capitalism, fragmentation of dominant class and semi-spontaneous neo-liberalization of Russian economy and society. Putinism organized anew rival factions of dominant class into a single “power bloc”, with an autocrat arbirtrating and balancing conflicting interests inside the latter. On the other hand, the figure of autocrat, who solely embodies the function of representation of "people-nation", mediates between the power bloc and fragmented dominated classes. Methods of "electoral authoritaniarism" safely mobilize votes of "Putin's majority" during national elections, thereby masking dictatorial nature of the regime under the facade of liberal-democratic institutions, and endowing it with plebiscitary legitimacy. In terms of relationships of class forces, the rise of Putinism was made possible by what we called "negative equilibrium" - political-ideological weakness of both dominant and dominated classes manifested by low capacity for collective action on both sides. In case of the working class, special attention is given to the damaging effects of catastrophic de-industrialisation of the 1990-s. Basic continuity of neo-liberal policies with Yeltsin's era is being maintained by the Putin's regime, which reflected dominance inside the power bloc of those factions that are best integrated into global capitalism - the result of struggles inside dominant class through 1990-s. On the other hand, those polices now imply some compromises to dominated classes, and are articulated with ideological themes borrowed from the nationalist reaction against the earlier radical westernizing project. The rise through 2000-s of globalised segments of the urban "middle class" significantly changed the initial relationships of class forces which had been condensed in the Putin's state. Those segments were the driving force for the mass protest movement for fair elections of 2011-12. While not having resulted in any major political crisis, that movement, and the regime's response to it, shed light on the fragility of Putinism. In the end of this article the prediction is made about the evolution of Putinism towards more represssive, full-fledged dictatorship.

Devlet projesi kavramı, temsilden ziyade özgün bir yönetimsel rasyonaliteye işaret eden, devletin farklı alanlardaki ve farklı ölçeklerdeki çeşitli eylemlerini tek bir vektörel doğrultuda birleştirmeye çalışan bir tür siyaset etme mahareti [statecraft] ile ilişkilidir. Jessop’ın bu perspektifini takip edersek, AKP farklı tarihsel dönemlerde birbirinden hayli farklı toplumsal öznelerle işbirliği yaparak ve gerektiğinde onları tasfiye ederek, yeri geldiğinde ilgili dönemi Anayasa hazırlıkları ve referandumlarla bağıtlayarak hakim projeyi görece istikrarlı “sürekli ve dayanıklı” hale getirmiştir. Anayasa metinleri de hakim devlet projesinin normatif ifadesidir.

AKP ve MHP arasındaki asimetrik birliktelik, darbe girişimi sonrasında “milletin ve devletin bekası” odaklı bir formülasyona dayanmasına karşılık, esasen AKP’nin yürütücü pozisyonda olduğu ‘devlet projesi’nin siyasal ayağını oluşturmaktadır. Siyasal ayak, 16 Nisan Referandumundan sonra başkanlık sistemi ile nihai formuna kavuşmuş, devlet idaresi ve aygıtları buna göre yeniden düzenlenmiş, burjuva sınıf fraksiyonları (TÜSİAD, MÜSİAD, TOBB, sanayi-ticaret odaları) başkanlık projesi etrafında konsensüse varmışlardır.

***

Türkiye egemen sınıfları açısından yeni sistem, doğrudan iş adamı ve iş kadınlarından oluşan bir kabineyle her ne kadar sermaye birikimi önündeki bürokratik sürtünmeyi azaltsa ve grev yasaklarında olduğu üzere sınıf zorunu örgütleme kolaylığı sağlasa da, üç temel gösterge burjuva sınıf konsensüsün kırılganlığının, daha doğru bir ifadeyle sermaye fraksiyonları arasındaki gerilimin artacağına işaret etmektedir.

(...)

Karl Marx, siyasal örgütlenme biçiminin ekonomik örgütlenme biçimine karşılık geldiğini belirtmişti. Başkanlık sisteminin yani devlet projesinin siyasal ve yönetimsel etabı tamamlanmasına karşılık, sistemin üzerinde yükseleceği ekonomik kolonlar kriz koşulları ile birlikte artık istikrarlı bir yapıda değildir. Jessop’a dönersek, devlet projesi belirli politika alanlarındaki kararları ve bu kararlar arasındaki siyasal uyumu biçimlendiren kamu politikası oluşturma paradigmalarına eklemlenir. Bugün potansiyel bir siyasal krizi, kitle bağları, sosyal yardım rejimi, hamaset ve propaganda ile geçici olarak aşma olanağı varsa da aynı olanak ekonomik krizi aşmak için geçerli ve yeterli değildir; böyle bir kamu politikası bulunmamaktadır. İnşaat odaklı büyümenin tıkanışı, şirket iflaslarının artışı ve sermaye çıkışının hızlanması göstermektedir ki, yangın alarmı çalmakta ancak kovada su bulunmamaktadır.

AKP’nin ve asimetrik ortağı MHP’nin önündeki en büyük sorunsal, iktidar bloku içerisindeki sınıf fraksiyonlarının gerilimlerini bastırabilmek ve krizi atlatabilmek üzere yeni bir birikim rejimine kapı aralayabilme zorunluluğudur. Daha önceki bir yazımızda[5]belirttiğimiz üzere yeni birikim rejiminin asal öğelerinden birisi askeri-sınai kompleks temelli bir sanayileşme programı tercihi olsa dahi, iktidarın mevcut gidişatına bakarak eldeki kadrolarla bu programı gerçekleştirebilme olasılığı hayli düşük görünmektedir. Kriz de egemen sınıfları bu yönüyle, yine bir sermaye birikim rejimi yetmezliği üzerinden vuracaktır.

This work analyzes the practices of the Justice and Developement Party (AKP)  government with a special reference to Bob Jessop’s concept of two-nations hegemonic project. Jessop assesses the relationship between the concepts of regime of accumulation and mode of regulation with hegemonic projects within their own historicity according to the conditions of capital accumulation. Therefore, the transformation of the accumulation regime necessitates the transformation of the mode of regulation and the hegemonic project. In this context, this work tries to explain the New Right’s understanding of the state and the neoliberal economic policies that have been put into practice since 1980’s, and the two nations hegemonic project within the  context of AKP policies. Thus the AKP government is classified into three periods: a)  the formation of two-nations hegemonic project between 2002-2010; b) the dissolvement of two-nations hegemonic project between 2010 2013; c) the transition into a new form of state after 2013. The first chapter gives information about the conceptual framework of the study. In this context, capitalist class and its fractions, power bloc and hegemonic fraction, strategy of accumulation and regime of accumulation, hegemony and crisis of hegemony are explained. At the same time, this chapter presents the differences between the concepts of the two-nations hegemonic project and the one-nation hegemonic project. In the second chapter, the relationship between the power bloc and the state is examined within the scope of one-nation and two-nations hegemonic project. The indicators of the transition from the one-nation hegemonic project into the two-nations hegemonic project in the political life of Turkey and the relationship of those with the regime of accumulation are demonstrated.
In the third chapter, the relationship between the dependent classes and the state is discussed in terms of the hegemonic projects. Within this framework, the meaning of two-nations hegemonic project during the AKP government for the dependent classes is explained. The final chapter, by analyzing all data and indicators, reveals that the two-nations hegemonic project was tried to be implemented under the AKP government, though this attempt did not succeed due to the conditions of capital accumulation.

in hegemonyayı,gelişen stratejik ve süregelen yapısal yönleriyle,toplumun yapısı ile ilgili organizasyonda gerekli bir bileşen olarak gören görüşüne yanıt vermekten gerçek anlamda büyük bir mutluluk duymaktayım.Bu konu üzerine daha evvelki tartışmalarımız ve şu anki yazılı fikir alış verişi,eleştirel gerçekçiliğe katkıda bulunmak ve göreli olarak egemenlikle olan ilgisini sorgulamak amacıyla bir kolej ruhu havasında yürütüldü.Eleştirel gerçekçiliğe olan metodolojik bağlılığımızı paylaşmakla beraber,daha önce yapmış olduğum eleştirel gerçekçilik ve egemenliği konu alan makalemdeki görüşü devam ettirebilmek için anlamlı ve ortak bir zeminde buluşmaktayız.Joseph,bu diyaloğa,egemenliğe ilişkin kendi düşüncelerini açıklayarak yanıt verirken benim yanıtım ise,kendi stratejikilişkisel yaklaşımımı(SRA) daha da detaylandırmak ve bunun biçim analizi ile ilişkisini ortaya koymak olacaktır.Böylece,onun yaklaşımındaki iki temel soruya cevap vermiş olacağım; a) İşlevsel açıklamanın sınırları ve doğası, b) Benim ve Poulantzas'ın çalışmasında değinilen SRA yaklaşımının sınırları,doğası ve ayırt edici özelliği.Fakat öncelikle,sözü edilen sosyal bütünlüğün tartışmaya açık birliğine ve işlev sorununa neden olan kapsamı üzerine değinmeliyiz.

The paper provides a theoretical contribution to the multi-level governance debate, discussing the role of the policy instruments in tailoring polities for local development strategies. To this purpose, it examines the Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), a policy tool of the EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, which has generated more than 3.000 local initiatives across the EU. An institutionalist perspective enables a reflection on the multi-level normative dimensions of these local initiatives. A combination of the post-functionalist governance theory, the soft space debate, state-theory and strategic-relational approach provides an interpretative framework to be deployed for a dedicated research agenda. The interpretative challenge is about whether the CLLD enables spatial-temporal fixes in which a deliberative polity pursues a spatial imaginary for an ad-hoc territory. The consequent analytical dimensions can be found in: a) the relationship between attendant ad-hoc polity, policy agenda, territorial design and societal processes; and b) the meta-governance dimensions that locate the bottom-up constituency of this institutional technology in the shadow of state’s hierarchy. An overview of the CLLD implementation across the EU provides evidences on the latter.

This paper critically engages with State/Space theory by interrogating the soundness of its fundamental assumptions regarding the rescaling of capitalism and by questioning the validity of its proposition about ever-rising spatial imbalances and economic divergence in post-1970s’ Europe. The paper employs descriptive, cartographic and econometric analysis of the regional and urban growth data covering 28 European Union countries and 11 major OECD and BRICS economies. The vast volume of multi-scalar evidence presented here cannot substantiate the central rescaling hypothesis about Europe’s increasing spatial disparities. A set of alternative explanations is proposed to account for the reported European economic convergence trends.

Intermediary institutions are a multi-facetted phenomenon which has taken many different forms in the course of social evolution. This is also being testified by the evolutionary trajectories from corporatism through neo-corporatism to governance in the European settings from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. Against this background, this chapter seeks to outline the key parameters of a theoretical framework suitable for approaching and analysing intermediary institutions. The chapter pins down five central dimensions of intermediary institutions. This is done under the headings: Context, Function, Evolution, Order, and Compatibility.

‘Teoria della Distruzione del Valore’: teoria elaborata da Massimo Morigi afferente al ‘Repubblicanesimo Geopolitico’, al ‘Repubblicanesimo’, al ‘Neo-repubblicanesimo’, al ‘Marxismo’ e al ‘Neo-marxismo’. Pur condividendo la critica di Karl Marx all’individualismo metodologico dell’economia classica (in specie la critica ad Adam Smith e David Ricardo, individualismo metodologico che poi sarà in seguito trasmesso anche all’economia neoclassica o marginalismo), la ‘Teoria della Distruzione del Valore’ rovescia la teoria del plusvalore di Karl Marx, affermando che il rapporto sociale che va sotto il nome di ‘capitalismo’ non opera una sottrazione del valore del lavoro erogato dal lavoratore a vantaggio del capitale ma, invece, una distruzione del valore di questo lavoro, distruzione del valore che si evidenzia sul “libero mercato” dove s’incontrano – entrambi formalmente liberi – gli operai (decisori omega-strategici), che apportano su questo mercato un lavoro svalutato (distrutto quindi nel suo valore) originatosi proprio dalla libertà di questo mercato (ossia dalla sua mancanza di regole) e i datori di lavoro capitalisti (decisori alfa-strategici) che così possono avvalersi di questo valore-lavoro effettivamente svalutato (o, meglio, distrutto).