Customer Reviews

Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference (Rodolfo DeBenedetti Lectures)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I used this book for two courses as a freshman at Princeton University. One of them was a seminar on politics of economic inequality, the other one - an introductory comparative politics course. This book provides a good introduction to explaining political outcomes in terms of socio-economic interests (as opposed to just culture or institutional arrangements). The argument of the book is fairly interesting and well-developed: the size of the welfare state depends highly on racial fractionalization of the population and political institutions (federalism, checks and balances, winner-take-all electoral system) which are the result of a historical interplay of socio-economic interests. The discussion of the historical context (e.g. the "entrepreneurial" use of racial hatred to fight against redistributive policies) and possible counterarguments are both well done. Furthermore, this book debunks some myths such as the notion that upward social mobility is higher in the US than in Europe.

However, it is not without its problems. It gets fairly dry and repetitive sometimes. The arguments themselves are not flawless either. Alesina and Glaeser imply that the reason for the large welfare state in Western Europe is the strength of the left and the labor movement, while in reality the welfare state in Western Europe was largely built by right-wing parties (the Consevatives in the UK, Gaullists in France and Christian Democrats in Germany). The attempt to argue in terms of "the right" and "the left" often backfires, too, since it is not always possible to clearly draw the line. Nevertheless, this is a solid and thought-provoking book.

Absolutely fascinating, very thorough discussion of the reasons why the US and Europe have such different approaches to social welfare policy. The presentation is systematic and extremely detailed, with data to support every point and reject competing hypotheses. It is compact and easy to read, though the writing style is a bit dry. I found the book very very useful, and I haven't encountered anything else that fills this intellectual niche so well.