On Evidence and Interpretation: Reply to Katznelson and Pietrykowski

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In my essay I questioned two premises of Ira Katznelson's and Bruce Pietrykowski's interpretation of the failure of the Third New Deal: whether conflict over the New Deal during the 1940s can be understood as a debate over the developmental and fiscalist modes of state-economy relations; and whether an approach rooted in the analysis of bureaucratic missions and functions is a useful way to get at this question or, more generally, the broader issue of how to link state capacity with political choice. My own assessment of the evidence led me to reject their interpretation of the failure of the Third New Deal and to advance an alternative way of thinking about the question of state capacity and political choice. Now, in their very interesting rejoinder, Katznelson and Pietrykowski have raised some important issues that help clarify our differences and show what is at stake in this discussion. I should like to respond briefly to their comments and clarify my own views.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: