“Slouching” Omission: Missing References to the “Varieties of Capitalism” Literature: First Edition p. 6

A more nuanced discussion of von Hayek vs. Polanyi would strengthen the book

The passage:

No: [von Hayek’s] “The market giveth, the market taketh away; blessed be the name of the market” was not a stable principle around which to organize society and political economy. The only stable principle had to be some version of [Polanyi’s] “The market was made for man, not man for the market.” But who were the men who counted for whom the market should be made? And what version would be the best making? And how to resolve the squabbles over the answers to those questions?

As Arthur Goldhammer has pointed out to me, this really needs a reference to and some discussion of the “‘varieties of capitalism’ literature stemming from the seminal work of Hall and Soskice”. Plus more discussion of the evolving European Union as a “locus of the postwar praxis (as opposed to the intellectual history) of politics vs. markets” would strengthen the book.

See Peter Hall and David Soskice (2001): Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (New York: Oxford University Press: 0199247749) <https://archive.org/details/varietiesofcapit0355unse>