Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGayon, Vincent
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-25T11:50:39Z
dc.date.available2019-07-25T11:50:39Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/19428
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectMcCracken Reporten
dc.subjectOECDen
dc.subjectneoliberal turnen
dc.subjectkeynesianismen
dc.subjectinternational cooperationen
dc.subjectmonetarismen
dc.subjectnew classicalen
dc.subjectPhilipps curveen
dc.subjectinflationen
dc.subjectfull employmenten
dc.subjectsociology of international organizationen
dc.subject.ddc306.3en
dc.titleDebating International Keynesianism: The Sense of the Acceptable and the Neoliberal Turn at the OECDen
dc.typeArticle accepté pour publication ou publié
dc.description.abstractenPublished in 1977 by the OECD in a context of widespread stagflation, the McCracken report has become emblematic of the “neoliberal turn” in international economic cooperation. This study undermines this shared teleological interpretation by revisiting the sense of what was acceptable among the actors mobilized in its writing, and the structural uncertainty into which they were plunged by their attempt to anticipate the economic and political future. Rather than an uncontested victory of neoliberalism, the sociogenetics of this bureaucratic text uncover the coping strategies of the “international Keynesianism” inherited from Bretton Woods and the plausibility structures of this space situated at the confluence of the political, bureaucratic, and academic fields. The dynamic of production is analyzed as a situational logic through which the Secretariat of the OECD was exposed to polymorphic external rationales and resources that collided with and were measured against one another. The report form allowed for this confrontation of informational, bureaucratic, and political capital, in a way objectifying their differential value or exchange rate for the participants. The socially structured expectations of what was feasible, costly, or risky are traced throughout the collective process of composition based on four key moments: the commissioning of the report, the establishment of its framework, the constitution of the group, and the crystallization of the report. The article thus proposes another way of investigating the nature of “turns.”en
dc.relation.isversionofjnlnameAnnales. Histoire, Sciences sociales: English edition
dc.relation.isversionofjnlvol72en
dc.relation.isversionofjnlissue1en
dc.relation.isversionofjnldate2019
dc.relation.isversionofjnlpages113-156en
dc.relation.isversionofdoi10.1017/ahsse.2018.21en
dc.subject.ddclabelSociologie économiqueen
dc.relation.forthcomingnonen
dc.relation.forthcomingprintnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenonen
dc.description.halcandidateouien
dc.description.readershiprechercheen
dc.description.audienceInternationalen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewednonen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewednonen
dc.date.updated2019-07-19T12:09:29Z
hal.person.labIds184082
hal.identifierhal-02194291*


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record