Back in 1972, German political sociologist Claus Offe published a book on the Structural Problems of Late Capitalism which, for almost two decades, inspired and stimulated an international and transdisciplinary debate on the role of the state in contemporary capitalism. An academic debate which, paradoxically, began to wane as the issues about which Offe had been writing became even more prominent: the "Contradictions of the Welfare State" (the title of a collection of Offe's main contributions to the debate published in English in 1984) and democratic capitalism's reality of the permanent "crises of crisis management". Since 2008, it has again become a widely shared diagnosis that advanced capitalism is in crisis. However, there is either scholarly disagreement or (more often so) mere perplexity when it comes to understanding this crisis and to explaining the prevalent patterns in dealing with it. In this volume, Jens Borchert and Stephan Lessenich critically combine a reconstruction Claus Offe's approach to state theory with an analysis of the current constellation of democratic capitalism based on that same theory. In doing so, they expertly argue that his relational approach to state theory is much better equipped analytically to grasp the contradictory dynamics of the financial crisis and its political regulation than competing contributions. This is why systematically revisiting the theory of "late capitalism" is not only of a historical concern, but constitutes an essential contribution to a political sociology of our time.

Back in 1972, German political sociologist Claus Offe published a book on the Structural Problems of Late Capitalism which, for almost two decades, inspired and stimulated an international and transdisciplinary debate on the role of the state in contemporary capitalism. An academic debate which, paradoxically, began to wane as the issues about which Offe had been writing became even more prominent: the "Contradictions of the Welfare State" (the title of a collection of Offe's main contributions to the debate published in English in 1984) and democratic capitalism's reality of the permanent "crises of crisis management". Since 2008, it has again become a widely shared diagnosis that advanced capitalism is in crisis. However, there is either scholarly disagreement or (more often so) mere perplexity when it comes to understanding this crisis and to explaining the prevalent patterns in dealing with it. In this volume, Jens Borchert and Stephan Lessenich critically combine a reconstruction Claus Offe's approach to state theory with an analysis of the current constellation of democratic capitalism based on that same theory. In doing so, they expertly argue that his relational approach to state theory is much better equipped analytically to grasp the contradictory dynamics of the financial crisis and its political regulation than competing contributions. This is why systematically revisiting the theory of "late capitalism" is not only of a historical concern, but constitutes an essential contribution to a political sociology of our time.

This is the first comprehensive overview of professional politicians in democratic countries in Europe and North America. On a country by country basis it provides up-to-date information on when and how politicians became professionals in their own right, on the kind of institution they operate in, on typical career paths, incomes, and recent reform proposals.

1. Ende einer Ara: Die Sozialdemokratie vor neuen Herausforderungen Die holzschnittartige Gegenuberstellung von Labour Party und SPD als Posi tiv- und Negativbeispiel sozialdemokratischer Erneuerung verkennt die fun damentale Herausforderung, der sich alle sozialdemokratischen Parteien Eu ropas (und Ozeaniens) und die liberalen Parteien Nordamerikas gleicherma ssen gegenubersehen: die Krise des sozialdemokratischen Modells. Auch das Ausmass der Hoffnungen, die in Tony Blair gesetzt werden, erklart sich ja nur aus dem steilen Absturz der einstmals stolzen Labour Party in den letzten 20 Jahren. Die grosste Herausforderung betrifft den Verlust ideologischer Ge wissheiten durch die Schwachung von traditioneller Organisationskultur und Organisationsweise (1) ebenso wie durch die Erschopfung jener Politikinhal te, die in der Nachkriegszeit pragend fur das sozialdemokratische Politikver standnis waren (2). (1) Die Sozialdemokratie stutzte sich traditionell auf eine starke Bindung ih rer Mitglieder und Wahler an die Partei, die durch bestimmte soziale Milieus und sozio-kulturelle Umfeldorganisationen aufrechterhalten und reproduziert wurde. Gerade in der Zwischenkriegszeit war die Sozialdemokratie Partei, soziale Bewegung und Lebensweise gleichermassen, auf der Betriebsebene und im Ortsverein konstituiert, aber in alle Spharen proletarischer Existenz hineinreichend - eben nicht nur in die Arbeitswelt, sondern ebenso in die Wohnviertel, die Freizeitaktivitaten und die Bildungsinstitutionen. Ein dich tes organisatorisches Netzwerk, zusammengehalten durch eine allgemein gultige Solidaritatsnorm, erschien der Sozialdemokratie als notwendige Uberlebensstrategie in einer feindlichen kapitalistischen Welt und als partiel le Vorwegnahme jener utopischen sozialistischen Gesellschaft, die insgesamt angestrebt wurde."