005 |
|
20221019171657.0 |
020 |
|
|a0230617905
|
020 |
|
|a9780230617902
|
040 |
|
|aUKPGM|beng|cUKPGM|dNOU
|
049 |
|
|aAPTA
|
050 |
14
|
|aHD4343|b.A79 2009
|
082 |
04
|
|a338.962/05|222
|
100 |
1
|
|aAidi, Hishaam D.
|
245 |
10
|
|aRedeploying the state|h[electronic resource] :|bcorporatism, neoliberalism, and coalition politics /|cHishaam D. Aidi.
|
250 |
|
|a1st ed.
|
260 |
|
|aNew York :|bPalgrave Macmillan,|c2009.
|
300 |
|
|axii, 246 p. ;|c22 cm.
|
504 |
|
|aIncludes bibliographical references (p. [211]-241) and index.
|
505 |
0
|
|aThe politics of privatization -- State formation, incorporation, political parties : conceptsand theoretical considerations -- The founding moment : elite conflict, coalition formation, and regime consolidation -- The institutional legacies of incorporation : the party-labor alliance on the eve of privatization -- Privatization and the populist-distributive alliance -- Bureaucratic reform and state-business relations -- State-labor relations and public sector reform -- Shifting the statefrom left to right -- Privatization and exclusion.
|
520 |
|
|aWhy has the Egyptian state, which is more repressive and authoritarian than its Mexican counterpart been unable to overcome the opposition of a labor movement, that is smaller, less organized, and more repressed than the Mexican labor movement? Through agitation or the threat of agitation, Egyptian workers have been able to hinder the reform process,while the Mexican labor movement, which is larger and better organizedwas unable to resist privatization. The Egyptian state's low capacity and isolation is best understood by looking at the founding moment -- or incorporation period of eachregime. The critical distinction betweenMexican and Egyptian incorporation is that in Egypt, the labor movement was depoliticized and attached to the state bureaucracy, while in Mexico, workers were electorally mobilized into a political party. This difference would prove crucial during the reform process, because, socialcontrol in Mexico, exercised through the PRI, was more effective in cooptingopponents and mobilizing urban constituencies for privatization than the control mechanisms of the Egyptian state bureaucracy.
|
533 |
|
|aElectronic reproduction.|bBasingstoke, England :|cPalgrave Macmillan,|d2009.|nMode of access:World Wide Web.|nSystem requirements: Web browser.|nTitle from title screen (viewed on Apr. 24, 2009).|nAccess may be restricted to users at subscribing institutions.
|
650 |
0
|
|aCorporate state|zEgypt.
|
650 |
0
|
|aCorporate state|zMexico.
|
650 |
0
|
|aPrivatization|zEgypt.
|
650 |
0
|
|aPrivatization|zMexico.
|
655 |
7
|
|aElectronic books.|2local
|
710 |
2
|
|aPalgrave Connect (Online service)
|
776 |
1
|
|cOriginal|z0230611591|z9780230611597|w(DLC) 2008021594|w(OCoLC)226357085
|
809 |
|
|pEB|dHD4343|eA288|y2009
|
856 |
40
|
|3Palgrave Connect|uhttp://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9780230617902|zaccess to fulltext (Palgrave)
|