corporatist: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

Political Dictionary: corporatism

The central core of corporatism is the notion of a system of interest intermediation linking producer interests and the state, in which explicitly recognized interest organizations are incorporated into the policy-making process, both in terms of the negotiation of policy and of securing compliance from their members with the agreed policy. However, one of the characteristics of the debate in the social sciences from the mid-1970s onwards about corporatism was the failure of the participants to agree about the meaning of the term. There was agreement that the area being studied was that of relations between organized interests and the state. There was some agreement that the discussion was particularly concerned with interests that arose from the division of labour in society, and particularly attempts to reconcile conflicts between capital and labour. However, while some analysts insisted that corporatist arrangements had to be tripartite, involving the state, organized employers, and organized labour, others insisted that they could be bipartite between the state and one of the other ‘social partners’, or between the ‘social partners’ themselves. There was a measure of agreement that whereas conventional pressure groups made representations about the content of public policy, corporatism involved a mixture of representation and control. In return for being involved in the formulation of public policy, corporatist interest groups were expected to assist in its implementation. This was sometimes captured through the idea of ‘intermediation’ which some analysts saw as central to the idea of corporatism (A. Cawson), although others doubted whether intermediation was unique to corporatism and therefore could be regarded as its distinguishing feature.

Although the modern debate started in the mid-1970s, the idea of corporatism has a long history. Guilds or corporations were important institutions in mediaeval life, but attracted little attention from political theorists. Conscious reflection about the potential prescriptive value of corporatist arrangements really started in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), Leo XIII tackled the problems of the poverty of the working classes, the development of trade unions, and the prevalent ‘spirit of revolutionary change’. It was argued that class conflict was not inevitable, but that capital and labour were mutually dependent. Noting the general growth of associative action, Leo XIII argued that problems such as working conditions and health and safety could be dealt with by specially established organizations or boards, with the state sanctioning and protecting such arrangements. The object of proceeding in this way was ‘in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State’. This concern with limiting direct state intervention, and finding alternative forms of state-sanctioned associative action, has remained a central theme of the corporatist debate. The association between corporatism and Catholic social theory has also remained a strong one.

After the First World War, the idea of corporatism was taken up by the radical right, in particular by Mussolini, who placed it at the centre of the fascist regime in Italy. As a consequence, corporatism suffered from guilt by association. It came to be regarded as a synonym for fascism and disappeared from most political discussion, although it survived in Spain and especially Portugal.

There was, nevertheless, an alternative liberal version of corporatism which was clearly distinct from the surviving remnants of authoritarian corporatism. Samuel Beer made use of the term in his Modern British Politics (1965), forecasting that ‘The further development of corporatism is surely to be expected’. Andrew Shonfield's Modern Capitalism, published in the same year and one of the most influential mid-century works on political economy, discussed the concept in terms of a corporatist management of economic planning in which the main interest groups were brought together to conclude bargains about their future behaviour.

The index entry for ‘corporatism’ in Shonfield's book reads ‘see also Fascism’, and it was the objective of the new generation of neocorporatist writers, led by Philippe Schmitter, to strip corporatism of its fascist associations, and to reinvent the concept as a means of analysing observable changes in a number of Western democracies. In 1974, Schmitter published Still the Century of Corporatism?, the title referring to Mihail Manoilesco's 1934 prediction that, just as the nineteenth century was that of liberalism, the twentieth century would be that of corporatism. Schmitter wished to escape from what he saw as an unhelpful dominance of pluralist analysis in American political science.

Schmitter triggered off an academic ‘growth industry’ on corporatism. In part, this was because it helped the understanding of long-term political phenomena such as the social pacts in Sweden and Switzerland, or the Parity Commission in Austria. Corporatism's appeal was wider, however, than explaining the politics of some of the more prosperous smaller European democracies where it was always difficult to decide whether corporatism promoted prosperity, or prosperity made corporatism possible because everyone came away from the bargaining table with something. Modern neocorporatism can best be understood as part of the breakdown of neo-Keynesianism. In the post-war period, Western governments had attempted to maintain full employment through techniques of aggregate demand management. This had, however, led to inflationary pressures, which became much worse after the first oil shock in 1973. Hence, governments increasingly turned to incomes policies as a means of restraining inflation while maintaining a demand management policy. This inevitably led them into agreements with the large producer groups, even in countries like Britain which had a predisposition for liberal solutions to economic problems. In particular, the unions were often offered concessions on social issues (employment law, taxation, social benefits) in return for agreeing to assist in the restraint of wage increases. The organized employers were also brought into the bargaining picture, in part because their assistance might be required in relation to price restraint, but also to act as a counterweight to the unions. The link between incomes policy and corporatism is illustrated in a study by Helander of the development of incomes policy in Finland which required the creation of new institutions and alterations in the functions of some existing ones. The Finnish political system changed into a two-tier one with parliamentary and corporatist subsystems.

Although the debate on corporatism produced a considerable volume of research output, it is often regarded as flawed for a number of reasons. First, there was the failure to agree on what was actually being discussed. Second, although corporatism claimed to be distinctive from pluralism, it shared many of pluralism's assumptions, and could be presented by its opponents as little more than a subtype of pluralism. Third, the debate really developed just as the phenomena it was examining became less central to the political process. More liberal solutions to problems of economic policy became favoured in a number of European countries in the 1980s as social democratic parties lost power. Moreover the focus of debate moved away from the politics of production to the politics of collective consumption, as issues such as environmental problems moved higher up the political agenda. They are less amenable to corporatist solutions, and the relevance of a modernist concept like corporatism to more post-modernist forms of politics is open to question. Fourth, the debate was characterized by a failure to separate analysis and prescription. Many, although not all, of the writers on corporatism were either openly (C. Crouch) or covertly sympathetic to its use as a means of providing a ‘middle way’ that would satisfy the legitimate aspirations of organized labour whilst maintaining a capitalist mode of production. Corporatism was often defended in terms of its effectiveness in securing desired economic goals (high growth, low inflation, low unemployment), but there was a recognition that it could have undesirable political consequences. It lacked legitimacy as a mode of governance, emphasizing functional rather than territorial representation. It tended to bypass legislatures by creating new unelected bodies, such as economic councils of various kinds, and while it included some interests, it excluded others (smaller businesses, consumers). Fifth, as the debate developed in the 1980s, it focused increasingly on examples of sectoral or meso corporatism rather than at the macro level. Although many examples of corporatism were uncovered in particular policy areas (such as training policy and in many areas of agricultural policy), the explanatory value of corporatism as a model of the polity as a whole was thereby diminished.

Schmitter's article made a clear distinction between societal corporatism to be found in countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, and state corporatism to be found in countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Mexico, as well as Fascist Italy and Pétinist France. Much of the subsequent debate focused on societal (or ‘liberal’) corporatism, although Coleman showed that the concept of state corporatism could be applied in a liberal democracy through his analysis of Quebec.

The concept of corporatism has been applied to the European Community, which certainly has been influenced by the Catholic tradition of ‘social partnership’, exemplified by the ‘val Duchesse’ discussions between the Community, employers, and labour initiated in 1985. The protocol on social policy in the Maastricht treaty includes provisions both for consultation with management and labour, and arrangements for the joint implementation of directives by management and labour. This is an unambiguously corporatist arrangement, but if the Community had generally followed a corporatist path, the Economic and Social Committee would have been a central institution, instead of being marginalized.

The corporatist debate stimulated comparative empirical research on pressure groups as, for example, in the Organization of Business interests project co-ordinated by Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck. Whether it provided theoretical ‘value added’ beyond the insights provided by pluralism remains contentious.

— Wyn Grant

Wikipedia: corporatism

Ideologies and Theories
Part of a series on Economic systems
Capitalist economy Communist economy Corporate economy Fascist economy Laissez-faire Mercantilism Natural economy Primitive communism Social market economy Socialist economy
Sectors and Systems
Closed economy Dual economy Gift economy Informal economy Market economy Mixed economy Open economy Participatory economy Planned economy Subsistence economy Underground economy Virtual economy
Related articles
Anglo-Saxon economy American School Global economy Hunter-gatherer economy Information economy New industrial economy Palace economy Plantation economy Token economy Traditional economy Transition economy
Business and Economics Portal
This box:

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies, known as corporations (not necessarily the business model known as a 'corporation' though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place.

The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body. Its usage reflects medieval European concepts of a whole society in which the various components - e.g., guilds or trade unions, universities, monasteries, the various estates, etc. - each play a part in the life of the society, just as the various parts of the body serve specific roles in the life of a body. According to various theorists, corporatism was an attempt to create a modern version of feudalism by merging the "corporate" interests with those of the state. ^{[citation needed]}

Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through shill corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.

At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used to mean the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.

Classical theoretical origins

Corporatism is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict, and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which influenced the Catholic trades unions that organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology. Theoretical underpinnings came from the medieval traditions of guilds and craft-based economics, and later, syndicalism. Corporatism was encouraged by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.

Gabriele D'Annunzio and syndicalist Alceste de Ambris incorporated principles of corporative philosophy in their Charter of Carnaro.

One early and important theorist of corporatism was Adam Müller, an advisor to Prince Metternich in what is now eastern Germany and Austria. Müller propounded his views as an antidote to the twin "dangers" of the egalitarianism of the French Revolution and the laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith. In Germany and elsewhere there was a distinct aversion among rulers to unrestricted capitalism, owing to the feudalist and aristocratic tradition of giving state privileges to the wealthy and powerful^{[citation needed]}.

Under fascism in Italy, business owners, employees, trades-people, professionals, and other economic classes were organized into 22 guilds, or associations, known as "corporations" according to their industries, and these groups were given representation in a legislative body known as the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni. See Mussolini's essay discussing the corporatist state, Doctrine of Fascism.

Similar ideas were also ventilated in other European countries at the time. For instance, Austria under the Dollfuß dictatorship had a constitution modelled on that of Italy; but there were also conservative philosophers and/or economists advocating the corporate state, for example Othmar Spann. In Portugal, a similar ideal, but based on bottom-up individual moral renewal, inspired Salazar to work towards corporatism. He wrote the Portuguese Constitution of 1933, which is credited as the first corporatist constitution in the world. See also: Fascism as an international phenomenon.

State corporatism

While classical corporatism and its intellectual successor, neo-corporatism (and their critics) emphasize the role of corporate bodies in influencing government decision-making, corporatism used in the context of the study of authoritarian or autocratic states, particularly within East Asian studies, usually refers instead to a process by which the state uses officially-recognized organizations as a tool for restricting public participation in the political process and limiting the power of civil society.

Asian corporatism

Under such a system, as described by Jonathan Unger and Anita Chan in their essay China, Corporatism, and the East Asian Model ^[1],

at the national level the state recognizes one and only one organization (say, a national labour union, a business association, a farmers' association) as the sole representative of the sectoral interests of the individuals, enterprises or institutions that comprise that organization's assigned constituency. The state determines which organizations will be recognized as legitimate and forms an unequal partnership of sorts with such organizations. The associations sometimes even get channelled into the policy-making processes and often help implement state policy on the government's behalf.

By establishing itself as the arbitrator of legitimacy and assigning responsibility for a particular constituency with one sole organization, the state limits the number of players with which it must negotiate its policies and co-opts their leadership into policing their own members. This arrangement is not limited to economic organizations such as business groups or trade unions; examples can also include social or religious groups. Examples abound, but one such would be the People's Republic of China's Islamic Association of China, in which the state actively intervenes in the appointment of imams and controls the educational contents of their seminaries, which must be approved by the government to operate and which feature courses on "patriotic reeducation" ^[2]. Another example is the phenomenon known as "Japan, Inc.", in which major industrial conglomerates and their dependent workforces were consciously manipulated by the Japanese MITI to maximize post-war economic growth.

Russian corporatism

On October 9, 2007, an article signed by Viktor Cherkesov, head of the Russian Drug Enforcement Administration, was published in Kommersant, where he used the term "corporativist state" in a positive way to describe the evolution of Russia. He claimed that the administration officials detained on criminal charges earlier that month are the exception rather than the rule and that the only development scenario for Russia that is both realistic enough and relatively favorable is to continue evolution into a corporativist state ruled by security service officials.^[3]

Here is some background. In December 2005, Andrei Illarionov, former economic adviser to Vladimir Putin, claimed that Russia had become a corporativist state.

"The process of this state evolving into a new corporativist (sic) model reached its completion in 2005. ... The strengthening of the corporativist state model and setting up favorable conditions for quasi-state monopolies by the state itself hurt the economy. ... Cabinet members or key Presidential Staff executives chairing corporation boards or serving on those boards are the order of the day in Russia. In what Western country—except in the corporativist state that lasted for 20 years in Italy—is such a phenomenon possible? Which, actually, proves that the term 'corporativist' properly applies to Russia today."^[4]

All political powers and most important economic assets in the country are owned by a group of former state security officials ("siloviks").^{[citation needed]} The takeover of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends ^[5] who gradually became a leading group of Russian oligarchs and who "seized control over the financial, media and administrative resources of the Russian state" ^[6] and restricted democratic freedoms and human rights ^[7]

Illarionov described the present situation in Russia as a new socio-political order, "distinct from any seen in our country before". In this model, members of the Corporation of Intelligence Service Collaborators [Russian abbreviation KSSS] took over the entire body of state power, follow an omerta-like behavior code, and "are given instruments conferring power over others – membership “perks”, such as the right to carry and use weapons". According to Illarionov, this "Corporation has seized key government agencies – the Tax Service, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Parliament, and the government-controlled mass media – which are now used to advance the interests of KSSS members. Through these agencies, every significant resource of the country – security/intelligence, political, economic, informational and financial – is being monopolized in the hands of Corporation members" ^[8]

Analyst Andrei Piontkovsky also considers the present situation as "the highest and culminating stage of bandit capitalism in Russia” ^[9]. He believes that "Russia is not corrupt. Corruption is what happens in all countries when businessmen offer officials large bribes for favors. Today’s Russia is unique. The businessmen, the politicians, and the bureaucrats are the same people." ^[10]

Italian fascist corporativism

Part of the Politics series on
Fascism

Definition
Definitions of fascism

Varieties and derivatives of fascism
Italian fascism
Neo-Fascism
Islamofascism
Left-wing fascism
Rexism
Ustaše
Clerical fascism
Austrofascism
Iron Guard
Arrow Cross
Greek fascism
Crypto-fascism
Lebanese Phalange
Japanese fascism
Estado Novo (Portugal)
Estado Novo (Brazil)
Brazilian Integralism

Fascist political parties and movements
Fascism as an international phenomenon
List of fascist movements by country

Fascism in history
Fascio
March on Rome
Fascist Italy
Italian Social Republic
4th of August Regime

Fascism Portal
Politics Portal

In Italian Fascism, this non-elected form of state "officializing" of every interest into the state was professed to better circumvent the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporativism would instead better recognize or 'incorporate' every divergent interest as it stands alone into the state "organically", according to its supporters, thus being the inspiration behind their use of the term totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus;

"… (The state) is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual…" & "…Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State…" but rather clearly connoting "…Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers…"

This prospect in Italian Fascist Corporativism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel's anarcho-syndicalism, wherein each interest was to form as its own entity with separate organizing parameters according to their own standards, only however within the corporative model of Italian Fascism each was supposed to be incorporated through the auspices and organizing ability of a statist construct. This was by their reasoning the only possible way to achieve such a function, i.e. when resolved in the capability of an indissoluble state.

Neo-corporatism

In social science

Some contemporary political scientists and sociologists use the term neo-corporatism to describe a process of bargaining between labor, capital, and government identified as occurring in some small, open economies (particularly in Europe) as a means of distinguishing their observations from popular pejorative usage and to highlight ties to classical theories.

In the recent literature of social science, corporatism (or neo-corporatism) lacks negative connotation. In the writings of Philippe Schmitter, Gerhard Lehmbruch, and their followers, "neo-corporatism" refers to social arrangements dominated by tri-partite bargaining between unions, the private sector (capital), and government. Such bargaining is oriented toward (a) dividing the productivity gains created in the economy "fairly" among the social partners and (b) gaining wage restraint in recessionary or inflationary periods.

Most political economists believe that such neo-corporatist arrangements are only possible in societies in which labor is highly organized and various labor unions are hierarchically organized in a single labor federation. Such "encompassing" unions bargain on behalf of all workers, and they have a strong incentive to balance the employment cost of high wages against the real income consequences of small wage gains. Many of the small, open European economies, such as Finland, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Ireland, and the Netherlands fit this classification. In the work of some scholars, such as Peter J. Katzenstein, neo-corporatist arrangements enable small open economies to effectively manage their relationship with the global economy. The adjustment to trade shocks occurs through a bargaining process in which the costs of adjustment are distributed evenly ("fairly") among the social partners.

Examples of modern neocorporatism include the ILO Conference, the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union, the collective agreement arrangements of the Scandinavian countries, the Dutch Poldermodel system of consensus, and the Republic of Ireland's system of Social Partnership. In Australia, the Labor Party governments of 1983-96 fostered a set of policies known as The Accord, under which the Australian Council of Trade Unions agreed to hold back demands for pay increases, the compensation being increased expenditure on the "social wage", Prime Minister Paul Keating's name for broad-based welfare programs. In Singapore, the National Wages Council and other state-created entities form a tripartite arrangement between the major trade unions (NTUC), employers, and the Government that co-ordinates the national economy. In Italy, the Carlo Azeglio Ciampi administration inaugurated in July 23' 1993 a concertation (Italian: concertazione) policy of peaceful agreement on salary rates between government, the three main trade unions and the Confindustria employers' federation. Before that, salary augmentations were always beset by strikes. In 2001 the Silvio Berlusconi administration put an end to concertation. Coincidentally, he was a billionaire.

Most theorists agree that traditional neo-corporatism is undergoing a crisis. In many classically corporatist countries, traditional bargaining is on the retreat. This crisis is often attributed to globalization, with increasing labour mobility and competition from developing countries (see outsourcing). However, this claim is not undisputed with nations like Singapore still strongly following neo-corporatist models.

In popular usage

Contemporary popular (as opposed to social science) usage of the term is more pejorative, especially when used in the shorter form corporatism (corporativism usually implies only the Italian construct indicating public rather than private organizing), emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex.

Criticism of Corporatism

Corporatism or neo-corporatism is often used popularly as a pejorative term in reference to perceived tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises, employers' organizations, and industry trade groups. The influence of other types of corporations, such as labor unions, is perceived to be relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies.

Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities.

In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying including many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

Many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell^{[verification needed]}, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism.

Critics of capitalism often argue that any form of capitalism would eventually devolve into corporatism, due to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. A permutation of this term is corporate globalism. John Ralston Saul argues that most Western societies are best described as corporatist states, run by a small elite of professional and interest groups, that exclude political participation from the citizenry.

Other critics say that they are pro-capitalist, but anti-corporatist. They support capitalism but only when corporate power is separated from state power. These critics can be from both the right and the left.

In the United States Republican President Ronald Reagan^[11]^[12]^[13] echoed Republican President Herbert Hoover and others who claimed that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs represented a move in the direction of a corporatist state. These claims are highly disputed. In particular these critics focussed on the National Recovery Administration. In 1935 Herbert Hoover described^[14] some of the New Deal measures as "Fascist regimentation." In his 1951 memoirs^[15] he used the phrases "early Roosevelt fascist measures", and "this stuff was pure fascism", and "a remaking of Mussolini's corporate state". For sources and more info see The New Deal and corporatism.

These claims continue to be aired in right-wing publications. These authors also discuss modern American corporatism.^[16]^[17]

Other critics, namely Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action, argue that corporatist arrangements exclude some groups, notably the unemployed, and are thus responsible for high unemployment.

See also: Fascism and ideology and Economics of fascism

Corporatism and Fascism

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Several variations of the alleged quote exist. However the veracity of this quote is highly doubtful since the most common cited texts for the quote do not contain anything like this alleged quote.[1]. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages [2], and in books [3], and even an alternative media advertisement in the Washington Post.[4]. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.[5].

In one 1935 English translation of what Mussolini wrote, the term "corporative state" is used,[6] but this has a different meaning from modern uses of the terms used to discuss business corporations. In that same translation, the phrase "national Corporate State of Fascism," refers to syndicalist corporatism. The dubious quote is sometimes claimed to more accurately summarize what Mussolini did and not what he said. However many scholars of fascism reject this claim. See Fascism and ideology.

There is a very old argument about who controlled whom in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state [7] [8] [9]. There was a power struggle between the fascist parties/leaders and the army, wealthy, and big corporations. It waxed and waned as to who had more power at any given time. Scholars have used the term "Mussolini's corporate state" in many different ways[10].

Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.^[18]^[19]^[20]

From the same message:

The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."^[18]^[20]

References

^ "China，Corporatism，and the East Asian Model". By Jonathan Unger and Anita Chan.
^ "Human Rights Watch World Report 2002: Asia: China and Tibet".
^ Cherkesov, Viktor. Нельзя допустить, чтобы воины превратились в торговцев. Kommersant #184 (3760), October 9, 2007. English translation and Comments by Grigory Pasko
^ "Q&A: Putin's Critical Adviser". By Yuri Zarakhovich. Dec. 31, 2005. Time magazine.
^ The Essence of Putinism: The Strengthening of the Privatized State by Dmitri Glinski Vassiliev, Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2000
^ What is ‘Putinism’?, by Andranik Migranyan, Russia in Global affairs, 13 April, 2004
^ The Chekist Takeover of the Russian State, Anderson, Julie (2006), International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence, 19:2, 237 - 288.
^ Andrei Illarionov: Approaching Zimbabwe (Russian) Partial English translation
^ Putinism: highest stage of robber capitalism, by Andrei Piontkovsky, The Russia Journal, February 7-13, 2000. The title is an allusion to work "Imperialism as the last and culminating stage of capitalism" by Vladimir Lenin
^ Review of Andrei's Pionkovsky's Another Look Into Putin's Soul by the Honorable Rodric Braithwaite, Hoover Institute
^ New Deal - Wikiquotes. Ronald Reagan quote on New Deal and Mussolini's "government-directed economy." From May 17, 1976 Time magazine.
^ Ronald Reagan. A biography. Has quote from May 17, 1976 Time magazine.
^ "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." New York Times. December 22, 1981.
^ Herbert Hoover. The NRA. Reply to Press Inquiry, Palo Alto, May 15, 1935
^ Herbert C. Hoover. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, vol. 3., "The Great Depression, 1929–1941", 1951; p. 420.
^ "What is American Corporatism?". By Robert Locke. FrontPageMagazine.com, Sept. 13, 2002.
^ "Quasi-Corporatism: America’s Homegrown Fascism". By Robert Higgs. The Freeman and The Independent Institute. Jan. 31, 2006.
^ ^a ^b Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Recommendations to the Congress to Curb Monopolies and the Concentration of Economic Power," April 29, 1938, in The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, ed. Samuel I. Rosenman, vol. 7, (New York, MacMillan: 1941), pp. 305-315.
^ "Anti-Monopoly". May 9, 1938. Time magazine.
^ ^a ^b Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Appendix A: Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws", The American Economic Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, Part 2, Supplement, Papers Relating to the Temporary National Economic Committee (Jun., 1942), pp. 119-128.

Sources

On Italian Corporatism

Constitution of Fiume
Rerum Novarum: encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on capital and labor
Quadragesimo Anno: encyclical of Pope Pius XI on reconstruction of the social order
There is an essay on "The Doctrine of Fascism" credited to Benito Mussolini that appeared in the 1932 edition of the Enciclopedia Italiana, and excerpts can be read at Doctrine of Fascism. There are also links there to the complete text.

On Neo-Corporatism

Katzenstein, Peter: Small States in World Markets, Ithaca, 1985.
Olson, Mancur: Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, (Harvard Economic Studies), Cambridge, 1965.
Schmitter, P. C. and Lehmbruch, G. (eds.), Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation, London, 1979.
Rodrigues, Lucia Lima: "Corporatism, liberalism and the accounting profession in Portugal since 1755," Journal of Accounting Historians, June 2003. [11]

On Fascist Corporatism

Baker, David, The political economy of fascism: Myth or reality, or myth and reality?, New Political Economy, Volume 11, Issue 2 June 2006 , pages 227 – 250.

External links

"Mussolini on the Corporate State" by Chip Berlet, 2005, Political Research Associates; Somerville, Massachusetts, USA — includes study of alleged Mussolini quote on corporatism, and quotes from Mussolini texts on corporatism.
"Economic Fascism" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Freeman, Vol. 44, No. 6, June 1994, Foundation for Economic Education; Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, USA.
2 Mussolini autobiographies in one book. English. Searchable. Click on the result titled "My Rise and Fall" (usually the top result). Then use the search form in the left column titled "search within this book."
The 1928 autobiography of Benito Mussolini. Online. My Autobiography. Book by Benito Mussolini; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928.
Corporatism by Michael A. Rizzotti
Corporatism by Jeffrey Grupp

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Donate to Wikimedia

		Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more
		Political Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more
		Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more
		Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more
		Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Corporatism". Read more
		Translations. Copyright © 2007, WizCom Technologies Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more

corporatist