IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v38y1984i01p41-94_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Normalcy to New Deal: industrial structure, party competition, and American public policy in the Great Depression

Author

Listed:
  • Ferguson, Thomas

Abstract

Industrial partisan preference may be formally modeled as the joint consequence of pressures from labor and the differential impact of the world economy on particular businesses. This “basic” and static model, when extended to cover the money market, can be used to examine questions of political development, including the effects of fluctuations in national income on political coalitions. American institutions and public policy during the New Deal are used to test the theory against empirical evidence, much of it from new primary sources. The rise of the New Deal coalition is traced to changes in the American industrial structure deriving from the boom of the 1920s and the reversal of the U.S. financial position that resulted from World War I, in addition to the well-known labor militancy of the 1930s. The effect of these changes was the rise of a (Democratic) political coalition dominated by capital-intensive, multinationally dominant firms and industries with a strong interest in free trade and a historically unprecedented ability to cope with major industrial upheavals without resort to force. The major public policy initiatives of the New Deal are reexamined from this standpoint.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferguson, Thomas, 1984. "From Normalcy to New Deal: industrial structure, party competition, and American public policy in the Great Depression," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 41-94, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:38:y:1984:i:01:p:41-94_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818300004276/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard T. Cupitt & Euel Elliott, 1994. "Schattschneider Revisited: Senate Voting On The Smoot‐Hawley Tariff Act Of 1930," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 187-199, November.
    2. Jim Glassman, 2005. "The New Imperialism? On Continuity and Change in US Foreign Policy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(9), pages 1527-1544, September.
    3. Jan Kregel, 2016. "What We Could Have Learned from the New Deal in Confronting the Recent Global Recession," Economics Public Policy Brief Archive ppb_141, Levy Economics Institute.
    4. Benjamin O. Fordham, 2002. "Another Look at “Parties, Voters, and the Use of Force Abroadâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 572-596, August.
    5. Paster, Thomas, 2015. "Bringing power back in: A review of the literature on the role of business in welfare state politics," MPIfG Discussion Paper 15/3, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. A. J. Julius, 2009. "The Wage–Wage‐ . . . ‐Wage–Profit Relation In A Multisector Bargaining Economy," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 537-559, July.
    7. Max Ajl, 2021. "A People’s Green New Deal: Obstacles and Prospects," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 10(2), pages 371-390, August.
    8. Suthan Krishnarajan, 2019. "Crisis? What crisis? Measuring economic crisis in political science," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1479-1493, May.
    9. Benjamin O. Fordham, 2008. "Economic Interests and Congressional Voting on Security Issues," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(5), pages 623-640, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:38:y:1984:i:01:p:41-94_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.