Social liberalism

Social liberalism (German: Sozialliberalismus, Spanish: socioliberalismo, Dutch: Sociaalliberalisme), also known as new liberalism in the United Kingdom,[1][2] modern liberalism, or simply liberalism in the contemporary United States,[3][4] left-liberalism (German: Linksliberalismus) in Germany,[5][6][7] and progressive liberalism (Spanish: Liberalismo progresista) in Spanish-speaking countries,[8] is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses a social market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights. Social liberalism views the common good as harmonious with the individual's freedom.[9] Social liberals overlap with social democrats in accepting economic intervention more than other liberals,[10] although its importance is considered auxiliary compared to social democrats.[11] Further terms for social liberalism include the terms welfare liberalism,[12] liberal paternalism,[13] New Deal liberalism in the United States,[14] and Keynesian liberalism.[15] The world has widely adopted social liberal policies.[16]

This article is about the variety of liberalism that supports a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights. For the branch of liberalism that advocates civil liberties with an emphasis on economic freedom, see Classical liberalism. For the ideology that stresses the freedom of individuals from traditional cultural norms, see Cultural liberalism. For the political philosophy that incorporates liberal principles in socialism, see Liberal socialism. For advocacy of social reform, see Progressivism.

Part of a series on
Liberalism
History
Ideas
Schools of thought
Thinkers
Politicians
Organizations
  • Africa Liberal Network
  • Alliance of Liberals
    and Democrats for Europe
  • Alliance of Liberals
    and Democrats for Europe Party
  • Amnesty International
  • Arab Liberal Federation
  • Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats
  • European Democratic Party
  • European Liberal Youth
  • European Party for Individual Liberty
  • Humanists International
  • International Alliance of Libertarian Parties
  • International Federation of Liberal Youth
  • Liberal International
  • Liberal Network for Latin America
  • Liberal parties
  • Liberal South East European Network
Regional variants
  • Europe
  • Latin America
  • Albania
  • Armenia
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bolivia
  • Brazil
  • Bulgaria
  • Canada
  • China
  • Chile
  • Colombia
  • Croatia
  • Cuba
  • Cyprus
  • Czech lands
  • Denmark
  • Ecuador
  • Egypt
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Georgia
  • Germany
  • Greece
    • Venizelism
  • Honduras
  • Hong Kong
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • India
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • Italy
    • Liberism
  • Japan
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Macedonia
  • Mexico
  • Moldova
  • Montenegro
  • Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Nicaragua
  • Nigeria
  • Norway
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Poland
    • Cracovian
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Russia
  • Senegal
  • Serbia
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • South Africa
  • South Korea
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Thailand
  • Tunisia
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom
    • Cobdenism
    • Gladstonian
    • Manchester
    • Whiggism
  • United States
    • Arizona School
    • Classical
      • Jeffersonian
    • Modern
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela
  • Zimbabwe
Related topics
  •  Liberalism portal
  •  Politics portal
Part of a series on
Progressivism
History
Ideas
People
By region
Related
  •  Philosophy portal
  •  Politics portal

Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist[10] or centre-left.[17][18][lower-alpha 1] Addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, education, and the climate using government intervention while emphasising individual rights and autonomy are expectations under a social liberal government.[19][20][21] In the United States, social liberalism may sometimes refer to progressive stances on sociocultural issues,[22] such as reproductive rights and same-sex marriage, in contrast with social conservatism. Cultural liberalism is also often referred to as social liberalism because it expresses the social dimension of liberalism. However, it is not the same as the broader political ideology known as social liberalism. In American politics, a social liberal may hold either conservative (economic liberal) or liberal (economic progressive) views on fiscal policy.[23]

Origins
Main article: History of liberalism

United Kingdom
Leonard Hobhouse was one of the originators of social liberalism, notably through his book Liberalism, published in 1911

By the end of the 19th century, downturns in economic growth challenged the principles of classical liberalism, a growing awareness of poverty and unemployment present within modern industrial cities, and the agitation of organised labour. A significant political reaction against the changes introduced by industrialisation and laissez-faire capitalism came from one-nation conservatives concerned about social balance and the introduction of the famous Education Act 1870. However, socialism later became a more important force for change and reform. Some Victorian writers—including Charles Dickens, Thomas Carlyle, and Matthew Arnold—became early influential critics of social injustice.[24]

John Stuart Mill contributed enormously to liberal thought by combining elements of classical liberalism with what eventually became known as the new liberalism. Mill developed this philosophy by liberalising the concept of consequentialism to promote a rights based system.[25] He also developed his liberal dogma by combining the idea of using a utilitarian foundation to base upon the idea of individual rights.[26] The new liberals tried to adapt the old language of liberalism to confront these difficult circumstances, which they believed could only through a broader and more interventionist conception of the state could this be resolved. Ensuring that individuals did not physically interfere with each other or merely by impartially having formulated and applied laws could not establish an equal right to liberty. More positive and proactive measures were required to ensure that every individual would have an equal opportunity for success.[27]

New Liberals
Thomas Hill Green

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a group of British thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism. It argued in favour of state intervention in social, economic, and cultural life. What they proposed is now called social liberalism.[1] The New Liberals, including intellectuals like Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Hobhouse, and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty achievable only under favourable social and economic circumstances.[2] In their view, the poverty, squalor, and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented, and interventionist state could alleviate these conditions.

The Liberal governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H. H. Asquith, mainly thanks to Chancellor of the Exchequer and later Prime Minister David Lloyd George, established the foundations of the welfare state in the United Kingdom before World War I. The comprehensive welfare state built in the United Kingdom after World War II, although primarily accomplished by the Labour Party's Attlee ministry, was significantly designed by two Liberals, namely John Maynard Keynes (who laid the foundations in economics with the Keynesian Revolution) and William Beveridge (whose Beveridge Report was used to design the welfare system).[2]

Historian Peter Weiler has argued:

Although still partially informed by older Liberal concerns for character, self-reliance, and the capitalist market, this legislation nevertheless marked a significant shift in Liberal approaches to the state and social reform, approaches that later governments would slowly expand and that would grow into the welfare state after the Second World War. What was new in these reforms was the underlying assumption that the state could be a positive force, that the measure of individual freedom ... was not how much the state left people alone, but whether he gave them the capacity to fill themselves as individuals.[28][29]

Germany

In 1860s Germany, left-liberal politicians like Max Hirsch, Franz Duncker, and Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch established trade unions—modelled on their British counterparts—to help workers improve working and economic conditions through reconciliation of interests and cooperation with their employers rather than class struggle. Schulze-Delitzsch is also the founding father of the German cooperative movement and the organiser of the world's first credit unions. Some liberal economists, such as Lujo Brentano or Gerhart von Schulze-Gävernitz, established the Verein für Socialpolitik (German Economic Association) in 1873 to promote social reform based on the historical school of economics and therefore rejecting classical economics, proposing a third way between Manchester Liberalism and socialist revolution in the 1871-founded German Empire.

However, the German left-liberal movement fragmented into wings and new parties over the 19th century. The main objectives of the left-liberal parties—the German Progress Party and its successors—were free speech, freedom of assembly, representative government, secret and equal but obligation-tied suffrage, and protection of private property. At the same time, they were strongly opposed to creating a welfare state, which they called state socialism. The main differences between the left-liberal parties were:

  • The national ambitions.
  • The different substate people's goals.
  • Free trade against Schutzzollpolitik.
  • The building of the national economy.

The term 'social liberalism' (German: Sozialliberalismus) was used first in 1891 by Austria-Hungarian economist and journalist Theodor Hertzka.[30][lower-alpha 2] Subsequently, in 1893, the historian and social reformer Ignaz Jastrow also used this term and joined the German Economic Association. He published the socialist democratic manifesto "Social-liberal: Tasks for Liberalism in Prussia" to create an "action group" for the general people's welfare in the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which they rejected.[31]

Friedrich Naumann

The National-Social Association, founded by the Protestant pastor Friedrich Naumann also maintained contacts with the left liberals.[32] He tried to draw workers away from Marxism by proposing a mix of nationalism and Protestant-Christian-value-inflected social liberalism to overcome class antagonisms by non-revolutionary means. Naumann called this a "proletarian-bourgeois integral liberalism". Although the party could not win any seats and soon dissolved, he remained influential in theoretical German left-liberalism.

In the Weimar Republic, the German Democratic Party was founded and came into an inheritance of the left-liberal past and had a leftist social wing[33] and a rightist economic wing but heavily favoured the democratic constitution over a monarchist one. Its ideas of a socially balanced economy with solidarity, duty, and rights among all workers struggled due to the economic sanctions of the Treaty of Versailles, but it influenced local cooperative enterprises.[34][35]

After 1945, the Free Democrats included most of the social liberals while others joined the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Until the 1960s, post-war ordoliberalism was the model for Germany. It had a theoretical social liberal influence based on duty and rights.[36] As the Free Democrats discarded social liberal ideas in a more conservative and economically liberal approach in 1982,[37] some members left the party and formed the social liberal Liberal Democrats.[38][39]

France

In France, solidaristic thinkers, including Alfred Fouillée and Émile Durkheim, developed the social-liberal theory in the Third Republic. Sociology inspired them, and they influenced radical politicians like Léon Bourgeois. They explained that a more extensive division of labour caused more opportunity and individualism and inspired more complex interdependence. They argued that the individual had a debt to society, promoting progressive taxation to support public works and welfare schemes. However, they wanted the state to coordinate rather than manage, encouraging cooperative insurance schemes among individuals. Their main objective was to remove barriers to social mobility rather than create a welfare state.[40]

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, whose New Deal domestic policies defined American liberalism for the middle third of the 20th century

United States
Main article: Modern liberalism in the United States

Social liberalism was a term in the United States to differentiate it from classical liberalism or laissez-faire. It dominated political and economic thought for several years until the word branched off from it around the Great Depression and the New Deal.[41][42] In the 1870s and the 1880s, the American economists Richard Ely, John Bates Clark, and Henry Carter Adams—influenced both by socialism and the Evangelical Protestant movement—castigated the conditions caused by industrial factories and expressed sympathy toward labour unions. However, none developed a systematic political philosophy, and they later abandoned their flirtations with socialist thinking. In 1883, Lester Frank Ward published the two-volume Dynamic Sociology. He formalized the basic tenets of social liberalism while at the same time attacking the laissez-faire policies advocated by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. The historian Henry Steele Commager ranked Ward alongside William James, John Dewey, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and called him the father of the modern welfare state.[43] A writer from 1884 until the 1930s, John Dewey—an educator influenced by Hobhouse, Green, and Ward—advocated socialist methods to achieve liberal goals. John Dewey's expanding popularity as an economist also coincided with the greater Georgist movement that rose in the 1910s, pinnacling with the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.[44] America later incorporated some social liberal ideas into the New Deal,[45] which developed as a response to the Great Depression when Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office.

Implementation
David Lloyd George, who became closely associated with this new liberalism and vigorously supported expanding social welfare

The welfare state grew gradually and unevenly from the late 19th century but fully developed following World War II, along with the mixed market economy and general welfare capitalism.[46] Also called embedded liberalism, social liberal policies gained broad support across the political spectrum because they reduced society's disruptive and polarizing tendencies without challenging the capitalist economic system. Businesses accepted social liberalism in the face of widespread dissatisfaction with the boom and bust cycle of the earlier financial system as it seemed to them to be a lesser evil than more left-wing modes of government. Characteristics of social liberalism were cooperation between big business, government, and labour unions. Governments could assume a vital role because the wartime economy had strengthened their power, but the extent to which this occurred varied considerably among Western democracies.[47] Social liberalism is also a generally internationalist ideology.[48] Social liberalism has also historically been an advocate for liberal feminism among other forms social progress.[49]

Social liberals tend to find a compromise between the perceived extremes of unrestrained capitalism and state socialism to create an economy built on regulated capitalism.[50] Due to a reliance on what they believe to be a too centralized government to achieve its goals, critics have called this strain of liberalism a more authoritarian ideological position compared to the original schools of liberal thought, especially in the United States, where conservatives have called presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson authoritarians.[51][52]

United Kingdom
British leaflet from the Liberal Party expressing support for the National Health Insurance Act of 1911 and the legislation provided benefits to sick and unemployed workers, marking a major milestone in the development of social welfare

The first notable implementation of social liberal policies occurred under the Liberal Party in Britain from 1906 until 1914. These initiatives became known as the Liberal welfare reforms. The main elements included pensions for poor older adults, health, sickness, and unemployment insurance. These changes were accompanied by progressive taxation, particularly in the People's Budget of 1909. The old system of charity relying on the Poor Laws and supplemented by private charity, public cooperatives, and private insurance companies was in crisis, giving the state added impetus for reform. The Liberal Party caucus elected in 1906 also contained more professionals, including academics and journalists, sympathetic to social liberalism. The large business owners had mostly deserted the Liberals for the Conservatives, the latter becoming the favourite party for commercial interests. Both business interests and trade unions regularly opposed the reforms. Liberals most identified with these reforms were Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, John Maynard Keynes, David Lloyd George (especially as Chancellor of the Exchequer), and Winston Churchill (as President of the Board of Trade), in addition to the civil servant (and later Liberal MP) William Beveridge.[53]

Most of the social democratic parties in Europe (notably the British Labour Party) have taken on strong influences of social liberal ideology. Despite Britain's two major parties coming from the traditions of socialism and conservatism, the most substantive political and economic debates of recent times were between social liberal and classical liberal concepts.[54]

Germany
Alexander Rüstow

Alexander Rüstow, a German economist, first proposed the German variant of economically social liberalism. In 1932, he dubbed this kind of social liberalism neoliberalism while speaking at the Social Policy Association. However, that term now carries a meaning different from the one proposed by Rüstow. Rüstow wanted an alternative to socialism and the classical liberal economics developed in the German Empire. In 1938, Rüstow met with various economic thinkers—including Ludwig Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Wilhelm Röpke—to determine how and what could renew liberalism. Rüstow advocated a powerful state to enforce free markets and state intervention to correct market failures. However, Mises argued that monopolies and cartels operated because of state intervention and protectionism and claimed that the only legitimate role for the state was to abolish barriers to market entry. He viewed Rüstow's proposals as negating market freedom and saw them as similar to socialism.[36]

Following World War II, the West German government adopted Rüstow's neoliberalism, now usually called ordoliberalism or the social market economy, under Ludwig Erhard. He was the Minister of Economics and later became Chancellor. Erhard lifted price controls and introduced free markets. While Germany's post-war economic recovery was due to these policies, the welfare state—which Bismarck had established—became increasingly costly.[36]

Turkey
Main article: Kemalism

The Kemalist economic model was designed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Republic of Turkey, after an unsuccessful attempt to embrace a regulated market economy from İzmir Economic Congress until the 1929 Depression. A standard description of his economic model was a "solidaristic liberal economy." Atatürk put the principle of "etatism" in his Six Arrows and explained this principle as follows:

State can't take the place of individuals, but, it must take into consideration the individuals to make them improve and develop theirselves. Etatism includes the work that individuals won't do because they can't make profit or the work which are necessary for national interests. Just as it is the duty of the state to protect the freedom and independence of the country and to regulate internal affairs, the state must take care of the education and health of its citizens. The state must take care of the roads, railways, telegraphs, telephones, animals of the country, all kinds of vehicles and the general wealth of the nation to protect the peace and security of the country. During the administration and protection of the country, the things we just counted are more important than cannons, rifles and all kinds of weapons. ... Private interests are generally the opposite of the general interests. Also, private interests are based on rivalries. But, you can't create a stable economy only with this. People who think like that are delusional and they will be a failure. ... And, work of an individual must stay as the main basis of economic growth. Not preventing an individual's work and not obstructing the individual's freedom and enterprise with the state's own activities is the main basis of the principle of democracy."[55]

Moreover, Atatürk said this in his opening speech on 1 November 1937: "Unless there is an absolute necessity, the markets can't be intervened; also, no markets can be completely free."[56] He said that the principle of statism was a unique economic system for Turkey and that it was different from socialism, communism, and collectivism.[57]

Rest of Europe

The post-war governments of other countries in Western Europe also followed social liberal policies. These policies were implemented primarily by Christian democrats and social democrats as liberal parties in Europe declined in strength from their peak in the 19th century.[58]

United States
Main article: Modern liberalism in the United States

American political discourse resisted this social turn in European liberalism. While the economic policies of the New Deal appeared Keynesian, there was no revision of liberal theory in favour of more significant state initiatives. Even though the United States lacked an effective socialist movement, New Deal policies often appeared radical and were attacked by the right. American liberalism would eventually evolve into a more anti-communist ideology as a result.[59] American exceptionalism was likely the reason for the separate development of modern liberalism in the United States, which kept mainstream American ideology within a narrow range.[60]

John Rawls' principal work, A Theory of Justice (1971), can be considered a flagship exposition of social liberal thinking, noted for its use of analytic philosophy and advocating the combination of individual freedom and a fairer distribution of resources.[61] According to Rawls, every individual should be allowed to choose and pursue their conception of what is desirable. At the same time, the greater society must maintain a socially just distribution of goods. Rawls argued that differences in material wealth are tolerable if general economic growth and wealth also benefit the poorest.[62] A Theory of Justice countered utilitarian thinking in the tradition of Jeremy Bentham, instead following the Kantian concept of a social contract, picturing society as a mutual agreement between rational citizens, producing rights and duties as well as establishing and defining roles and tasks of the state. Rawls put the equal liberty principle in the first place, providing every person with equal access to the same set of fundamental liberties, followed by the fair equality of opportunity and difference, thus allowing social and economic inequalities under the precondition that privileged positions are accessible to everyone, that everyone has equal opportunities and that even the least advantaged members of society benefit from this framework. This framework repeated itself in the equation of Justice as Fairness. Rawls proposed these principles not just to adherents of liberalism but as a basis for all democratic politics, regardless of ideology. The work advanced social liberal ideas immensely within the 1970s political and philosophic academia.[63] Rawls may therefore be a "patron saint" of social liberalism.[54]

Decline

Following economic problems in the 1960s and 1970s, liberal thought underwent some transformation. Keynesian financial management faced criticism for interfering with the free market. At the same time, increased welfare spending funded by higher taxes prompted fears of lower investment, lower consumer spending, and the creation of a "dependency culture." Trade unions often caused high wages and industrial disruption, while total employment was considered unsustainable. Writers such as Milton Friedman and Samuel Brittan, whom Friedrich Hayek influenced, advocated a reversal of social liberalism. Their policies—often called neoliberalism—had a significant influence on Western politics, most notably on the governments of United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the United States President Ronald Reagan. They pursued policies of deregulation of the economy and reduction in spending on social services.[16]

Part of the reason for the collapse of the social liberal coalition was a challenge in the 1960s and 1970s from financial interests that could operate independently of national governments. A related reason was the comparison of ideas such as socialized medicine, advocated by politicians such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, facing criticisms and being dubbed as socialist by conservatives during the midst of the Red Scare, notably by the previously mentioned Reagan.[64] Another cause was the decline of organized labour which had formed part of the coalition but was also a support for left-wing ideologies challenging the liberal consensus. Related to this were the downfall of working-class consciousness and the growth of the middle class. The push by the United States, which had been least accepting of social liberalism for trade liberalization, further eroded support.[65]

Contemporary revival of social liberal thought

From the end of the 20th century, at the same time that it was losing political influence, social liberalism experienced an intellectual revival with several substantial authors, including John Rawls (political philosophy), Amartya Sen (philosophy and economy), Ronald Dworkin (philosophy of law), Martha Nussbaum (philosophy), Bruce Ackerman (constitutional law), and others.[66]

Parties and organisations

In Europe, social liberal parties tend to be small or medium-sized centrist and centre-left parties.[67] Examples of successful European social liberal parties participating in government coalitions at national or regional levels include the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom, the Democrats 66 in the Netherlands, and the Danish Social Liberal Party. In continental European politics, social liberal parties are integrated into the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament, the third biggest group in the parliament, and includes social liberal parties, market liberal parties, and centrist parties. Other groups such as the European People's Party, the Greens–European Free Alliance, and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats also house some political parties with social-liberal factions.

In North America, social liberalism (as Europe would refer to it) tends to be the dominant form of liberalism present, so in common parlance, "liberal" refers to social liberals. In Canada, social liberalism is held by the Liberal Party of Canada, while in the United States, social liberalism is a significant force within the Democratic Party.

Giving an exhaustive list of social liberal parties worldwide is difficult, mainly because political organisations are not always ideologically pure, and party ideologies often change over time. However, peers such as the Africa Liberal Network, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party, the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, the European Liberal Forum, the Liberal International, and the Liberal Network for Latin America or scholars usually accept them as parties who are following social liberalism as a core ideology.

Social liberal parties or parties with social liberal factions

Social liberal political parties that are more left-biased than general centre-left parties are not described here. (See list of progressive parties)

Historical social liberal parties or parties with social liberal factions

Notable thinkers

Some notable scholars and politicians ordered by date of birth who are generally considered as having made significant contributions to the evolution of social liberalism as a political ideology include:

See also

Notes
  1. There are sometimes cases of deviating from these positions to the political right or the political left, such as France's centre to centre-right social liberal MoDem, Greenland's centre to centre-right Democrats, Sweden's centre to centre-right Centre Party, Poland's left-wing liberal Your Movement, Taiwan's left-wing liberal Taiwan Statebuilding Party, and Japan's liberal left-wing populist politician Tarō Yamamoto.
  2. Hertzka was from Pest, part of Budapest, now the capital of Hungary. At the time of his birth, Hungary was the territory of the Austrian Empire.

References
  1. Freeden, Michael (1978). The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today (Politics Today). Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719060206.
  3. Pease, Donald E.; Wiegman, Robyn (eds.) (2002). The Futures of American Studies. Duke University Press. p. 518.
  4. Courtland, Shane D.; Gaus, Gerald; Schmidtz, David (2022), "Liberalism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 16 September 2022
  5. Hoensbroech, Paul Kajus Graf (1912). Der Linksliberalismus. Leipzig.
  6. Felix Rachfahl (1912). Eugen Richter und der Linksliberalismus im Neuen Reiche. Berlin.
  7. Ulrich Zeller (1912). Die Linksliberalen. Munich.
  8. José Luis Comellas Del antiguo al nuevo régimen: hasta la muerte de Fernando VII, pp. 421. (Spanish)
  9. De Ruggiero, Guido (1959). The History of European Liberalism. pp. 155–157.
  10. Slomp, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 35. ISBN 0275968146.
  11. Margalit, Avishai (2013). "Liberal or Social Democrat?". Dissent. No. Spring 2013. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
  12. "Main Ideas of General-welfare Liberalism". www1.udel.edu. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
  13. "No such thing as society? Liberal paternalism, politics of expertise, and the Corona crisis". Discover Society. 20 March 2020. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
  14. "How Classical Liberalism Morphed Into New Deal Liberalism". Center for American Progress. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
  15. kanopiadmin (7 April 2010). "Was Keynes a Liberal?". Mises Institute. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
  16. Faulks, Keith (10 December 1999). Political Sociology: A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9780748613564. Retrieved 10 December 2018 – via Google Books.
  17. Hombach, Bodo (2000). The politics of the new centre. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780745624600.
  18. Matland, Richard E.; Montgomery, Kathleen A. (2003). Women's access to political power in post-communist Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-924685-4.
  19. Rohr, Donald G. (September 1964). "The Origins of Social Liberalism in Germany". The Journal of Economic History. 24 (3).
  20. Gaus, Gerald & Courtland, Shane D. (Spring 2011). "The 'New Liberalism'". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  21. Derbyshire, John (12 July 2010). "The origins of social liberalism". New Statesman.
  22. "They retain meaning across populations and through time. That's the whole point ... | Hacker News".
  23. Chideya, Farai (2004). "The Red and the Blue: A Divided America". Trust: Reaching the 100 Million Missing Voters and Other Selected Essays. Soft Skull Press. pp. 33–46. ISBN 9781932360264.
  24. Richardson, pp. 36–37.
  25. "Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism | History of ideas and intellectual history". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 29 September 2022.
  26. Brink, David O. (18 April 2013). "Liberalism, utilitarianism, and rights". Mill's Progressive Principles. pp. 214–233. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672141.003.0009. ISBN 978-0-19-967214-1.
  27. Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). Contemporary Political Ideologies. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9780826451736.
  28. Weiler, Peter (2016). "New Liberalism". In Leventhal, Fred M., ed. (1995). Twentieth-century Britain: An Encyclopedia. Garland. pp 564–565.
  29. Weiler, Peter (2016). The New Liberalism: Liberal Social Theory in Great Britain, 1889-1914 (2016). Excerpt.
  30. Theodor Hertzka: Socialdemokratie und Socialliberalismus (German). Dresden/Leipzig: Pierson. 1891.
  31. Na, Inho (200). Sozialreform oder Revolution: Gesellschaftspolitische Zukunftsvorstellungen im Naumann-Kreis 1890–1903/04. Tectum Verlag. p. 27.
  32. Derman, Joshua (2012), Max Weber in Politics and Social Thought: From Charisma to Canonization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 25
  33. Van De Grift, Liesbeth (2012). Securing the Communist State: The Reconstruction of Coercive Institutions in the Soviet Zone of Germany and Romania, 1944-48. Lexington Books. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-7391-7178-3.
  34. Mommsen, Hans (1996). The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. University of North Carolina Press. p. 58. ISBN 0-8078-2249-3.
  35. Kurlander, Eric (2006). The Price of Exclusion: Ethnicity, National Identity, and the Decline of German Liberalism, 1898–1933. Berghahn Books. p. 197. ISBN 1-8454-5069-8.
  36. Hartwich, Oliver Marc (2009). "Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword". Archived 25 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  37. "Trennung nach 13 gemeinsamen Jahren". Deutschlandfunk (in German). 17 September 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  38. "Bundestagswahl 2021: alle teilnehmenden Parteien". bundestagswahl-2021.de (in German). 14 December 2020. Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  39. "Geschichte". Liberale Demokraten - Die Sozialliberalen (in German). Retrieved 15 September 2021.
  40. Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). Contemporary Political Ideologies (1999). pp. 35–36.
  41. Marks, Gary & Wilson, Carole (July 2000). "The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Response to European Integration" (PDF). British Journal of Political Science. 30 (3): 433–459. doi:10.1017/S0007123400000181. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2008.
  42. Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 155587939X.
  43. Commager, Henry Steele, ed. (1967). Lester Ward and the Welfare State. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
  44. England, Christopher William (2015). Land and Liberty: Henry George, The Single Tax Movement, and the Origins of 20th Century Liberalism (thesis thesis). Georgetown University.
  45. Richardson, pp. 38–41.
  46. "Chapter 2: The 1920s and the Start of the Depression 1921-1933 | U.S. Department of Labor". www.dol.gov. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
  47. Richardson, pp. 137–138.
  48. Beitz, Charles R. (1999). "Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism". International Affairs. 75 (3): 515–529. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.00091. ISSN 0020-5850. JSTOR 2623634.
  49. Baehr, Amy R. (2021), "Liberal Feminism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 30 September 2022
  50. Whiteside, Heather (3 November 2020). Canadian Political Economy. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4875-3091-4.
  51. Hornberger, Jacob G. (23 November 2016). "Don't Forget FDR's Authoritarianism". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 20 September 2022.
  52. Carlin, David. "Democratic, Authoritarian, Laissez-Faire: What Type Of Leader Are You?". Forbes. Retrieved 20 September 2022.
  53. Feuchtwanger, pp. 273–317.
  54. Vincent, Andrew (2010). Modern Political Ideologies (Third ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 54.
  55. Medeni Bilgiler ve M.Kemal Atatürk'ün El Yazıları. Afet İnan. 1930s. pp. 46–47.
  56. Atatürk'ün Meclis Açılış Konuşmaları. Turkish Grand National Assembly. 1 November 1937. Archived from the original on 13 January 2006. Retrieved 22 June 2022.
  57. Medeni Bilgiler (Örgün Yayınları). Afet İnan. 1930s. p. 212.
  58. Adams, p. 32.
  59. "Daniel W. Aldridge, A Militant Liberalism: Anti-Communism and the African American Intelligentsia, 1939-1955". www.hartford-hwp.com. Retrieved 29 September 2022.
  60. Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power (2001), James L. Richardson, pp. 38–41
  61. "A Theory of Justice — John Rawls". www.hup.harvard.edu. Retrieved 29 September 2022.
  62. Browing, Gary (2000). Contemporary liberalism. Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. SAGE Publications. pp. 154–155.
  63. Harr, Edwin van de (2015). Degrees of Freedom: Liberal Political Philosophy and Ideology. Transaction.
  64. "American Rhetoric: Ronald Reagan -- Radio Address on Socialized Medicine". www.americanrhetoric.com. Retrieved 20 September 2022.
  65. Richardson, pp. 138–139.
  66. Vincent, Andrew (2004). The nature of political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929795-5. OCLC 193933532.
  67. Kirchner, Emil (2000). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 356–357. ISBN 9780521323949.
  68. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2019). "Parties and Elections in Europe". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  69. Godio, Julio; Robles, Alberto José (2008). El tiempo de CFK; entre la movilización y la institucionalidad: El desafío de organizar los mercados (in Spanish). Corregidor. p. 65.
  70. Judith Brett (1994). "Ideology". In Judith Brett; James A. Gillespie; Murray Goot (eds.). Developments in Australian Politics. Macmillan Education AU. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-7329-2009-8.
  71. Gwenda Tavan (2005). The Long, Slow Death of White Australia. Scribe Publications. p. 193.
  72. Huo, Jingjing (2009). Third Way Reforms: Social Democracy After the Golden Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-521-51843-7.
  73. Leigh, Andrew (29 June 2019). "Social liberalism fits Labor". The Saturday Paper. Retrieved 18 August 2020.
  74. "Haiti's future is secure! It has lots of children". The Nassau Guardian. 22 December 2017. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  75. "Les couleurs politiques en Belgique". Cultures&Santé. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  76. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2019). "German-speaking Community/Belgium". Parties and Elections in Europe.
  77. Sejfija, Ismet (2013), "Analysis of Interviews with Representatives of Political Parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina" (PDF), Dealing with the Past in the Western Balkans. Initiatives for Peacebuilding and Transitional Justice in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia, Berghahn Foundation, p. 92
  78. Law Commission of Canada (2011). Law and Citizenship. UBC Press. p. 6. ISBN 9780774840798. The party became infused with social liberalism in the 1940s and 1950s.
  79. Prentice, Susan (2004). "Manitoba's childcare regime: Social liberalism in flux". Canadian Journal of Sociology. 29 (2): 193–207. doi:10.1353/cjs.2004.0029. S2CID 145708797.
  80. Prince, Michael J. (2012). "Canadian disability activism and political ideas: In and between neo-liberalism and social liberalism". Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. 1 (1): 1–34. doi:10.15353/cjds.v1i1.16.
  81. Smith, Miriam (2005). "Social movements and judicial empowerment: Courts, public policy, and lesbian and gay organizing in Canada". Politics & Society. 33 (2): 327–353. doi:10.1177/0032329205275193. S2CID 154613468. The Liberal Party of Canada, the party that championed the Charter, is strongly identified with the document and uses the social liberalism of the Charter as a distinctive badge of party identification.
  82. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Parties and Elections in Europe". Retrieved 14 August 2020.
  83. "Puljak: Želimo se maknuti od '41., '71. i '91. godine". N1. 29 October 2015.
  84. Damir Petranović (26 March 2017). "'Spavam 3-4 sata, više otkidam od obitelji nego od banke, a nisam ni lijevo ni desno'". tportal.hr.
  85. "Croatia Elections 2015: Overview of the Parties - IDS and HDSSB". Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  86. Maškarinec, Pavel (2017). "The Czech Pirate Party in the 2010 and 2013 Parliamentary Elections and the 2014 European Parliament Elections: Spatial Analysis of Voter Support" Archived 2 July 2019 at the Wayback Machine. Slovak Journal of Political Sciences. Walter de Gruyter. 17 (1).
  87. J. Kirchner, Emil (1988). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Avon: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-32394-0.
  88. Marks, Gary & Wilson, Carole (July 2000). "The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Response to European Integration" (PDF). British Journal of Political Science. 30 (3): 433–459. doi:10.1017/S0007123400000181. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2008.
  89. Madsen, Tomas Bech (Autumn 2007). "Radicalis and Liberalis in Denmark" (PDF). Journal of Liberal Democrat History. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2009. Retrieved 16 August 2009.
  90. Almeida, Dimitri (9–11 May 2008). "Liberal Parties and European Integration" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 June 2015. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
  91. Dawoud, Khaled (8 April 2016). "Egyptian Social Democratic Party Elections Highlight a Deep Rift". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  92. Bakke, Elisabeth (2010). Central and East European party systems since 1989. Central and Southeast European Politics since 1989. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-139-48750-4.
  93. Kjetil Duvold; Sten Berglund; Joakim Ekman (2020). Political Culture in the Baltic States: Between National and European Integration. Springer Nature. p. 62. ISBN 978-3-030-21844-7.
  94. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2011). "Estonia". Parties and Elections in Europe. Archived from the original on 24 December 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
  95. "Estonia 200 unveils its full election candidate list". ERR News. Eesti Rahvusringhääling. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  96. Sebald, Christoph; Matthews-Ferrero, Daniel; Papalamprou, Ery; Steenland, Robert (14 May 2019). "EU country briefing: Estonia". EURACTIV. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  97. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2019). "Faroe Islands". Parties and Elections in Europe. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  98. "Finland's largest political parties". European Parliament Information. 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  99. Smolander, Jyrki (2000). Suomalainen oikeisto ja "kansankoti" : Kansallisen kokoomuksen suhtautuminen pohjoismaiseen hyvinvointivaltiomalliin jälleenrakennuskaudelta konsensusajan alkuun [The Finnish Right Wing and "Folkhemmet" – Attitudes of the National Coalition Party towards the Nordic Welfare Model from the Period of Reconstruction to the Beginning of Consensus]. University of Turku. ISBN 978-951-45-9652-0.
  100. Hloušek, Vít; Kopeček, Lubomír (2010). Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-7546-7840-3.
  101. Hertner, Isabelle (2018). Centre-left parties and the European Union: Power, accountability and democracy. Manchester University Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-5261-2036-6.
  102. Kempf, Udo (2007). Das politische System Frankreichs. Springer DE. p. 190. ISBN 978-3-531-32973-4.
  103. "France - Europe Elects".
  104. Roberts, Geoffrey (1997). Party Politics in the New Germany. p. 20. ISBN 9781855673113.
  105. Breyman, Steve (2019). Movement Genesis: Social Movement Theory And The West German Peace Movement. "The Liberal Democrats (Liberale Demokraten or LD) split from the FDP to create their own social-left liberal alternative."
  106. Maron, Thomas (28 April 2017). "Das Sozialliberale ist tief in der SPD verwurzelt". Stuttgarter Zeitung.
  107. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2021). "Parties and Elections in Europe". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 1 February 2022.
  108. Ulf Hedetoft (2020). Paradoxes of Populism: Troubles of the West and Nationalism's Second Coming. Anthem Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-78527-216-5.
  109. N. S. Gehlot (1991). The Congress Party in India: Policies, Culture, Performance. Deep & Deep Publications. pp. 150–200. ISBN 978-81-7100-306-8.
  110. Soper, J. Christopher; Fetzer, Joel S. (2018). Religion and Nationalism in Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press. pp. 200–210. ISBN 978-1-107-18943-0.
  111. "Politics in Iceland: A beginner's guide". Iceland Monitor. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  112. Lahav Harkov (16 February 2019). "Histadrut chief Avi Nissenkorn joins Gantzs Israel Resilience Party". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 23 February 2019.
  113. "Yesh Atid unveils detailed policy plan to promote LGBT equality". The Times of Israel.
  114. De Lucia, Dario (2017). Dal PCI al PD. Imprimatur editore. Le culture di riferimento dei politici appartenenti al Partito democratico sono: la socialdemocrazia, il cristianesimo sociale e il liberalismo sociale [The reference cultures of politicians belonging to the Democratic Party are: social democracy, social Christianity and social liberalism].
  115. Segond, Valérie (17 September 2019). "Italie: Matteo Renzi fausse compagnie au Parti démocrate". Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved 24 February 2020.
  116. Pridham, Geoffrey (1988). "Two roads of Italian liberalism: the Partito Repubblicana Italiano and the Partito Liberale Italiano". In Emil J. Kirchner (ed.). Liberal Parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 29–61. ISBN 978-0-521-32394-9.
  117. Slomp, Hans (2011). Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics: An American Companion to European Politics. ABC-CLIO. p. 403. ISBN 978-0-313-39182-8.
  118. Kölling, Martin (22 October 2017). "Abe siegt und verbirgt seine Schwäche" [Abe wins and hides his weakness]. Handelsblatt (in German). Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  119. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Parties and Elections in Europe". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  120. Hearl, Derek (1988). "The Luxembourg Liberal Party". In Kirchner, Emil Joseph (ed.). Liberal Parties in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 376–395. ISBN 978-0-521-32394-9.
  121. Terzis, Georgios (2007). European Media Governance: National and Regional Dimensions. Intellect Books. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-84150-192-5.
  122. Magone, José (2010). Contemporary European Politics: A Comparative Introduction. Routledge. p. 436. ISBN 978-0-203-84639-1.
  123. Senkyr, Jan (2013). "Political Awakening in Malaysia". KAS International Reports. Retrieved 24 June 2019.
  124. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Montenegro". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  125. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Montenegro". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 15 February 2022.
  126. "Dr. Abderrahmane Lahlou - Festival of Thinkers". Archived from the original on 26 September 2011. Retrieved 27 February 2013.
  127. "Neues Parlament für Kryptowährungen". arabparliaments.org. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  128. "Political Parties". Election.irrawaddy.org. 7 April 2010. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  129. Hloušek, Vít; Kopeček, Lubomír (2010). Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 108–109. ISBN 978-0-7546-9661-2. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
  130. Vowles, Jack (1997). Political Science. Vol. 49–50. p. 98.
  131. Slomp, Hans (2011). Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics: An American Companion to European Politics. ABC-CLIO. p. 425. ISBN 978-0-313-39182-8.
  132. Osterud, Oyvind (2013). Norway in Transition: Transforming a Stable Democracy. Routledge. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-317-97037-8.
  133. "Values Charter - Liberal Party of the Philippines". Archived from the original on 24 July 2018.
  134. Henningsen, Bernd; Etzold, Tobias; Hanne, Krister, eds. (15 September 2017). The Baltic Sea Region: A Comprehensive Guide: History, Politics, Culture and Economy of a European Role Model. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. p. 353. ISBN 978-3-8305-1727-6.
  135. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2015). "Madeira/Portugal". Parties and Elections in Europe. Archived from the original on 7 May 2018.
  136. "Victor Ponta, în partidul Pro România, alături de Daniel Constantin: Nu mi-am propus să rup PSD". Libertatea (in Romanian). 3 September 2017. Retrieved 23 December 2019.
  137. Kulik, Anatoly; Pshizova, Susanna (2005). Political Parties in Post-Soviet Space: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltics. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-275-97344-5.
  138. White, David (2006). The Russian Democratic Party Yabloko: Opposition in a Managed Democracy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-7546-4675-4.
  139. Orlović, Slaviša; Antonić, Slobodan; Vukomanović, Dijana; Stojiljković, Zoran; Vujačić, Ilija; Đurković, Miša; Mihailović, Srećko; Gligorov, Vladimir; Komšić, Jovan; Pajvančić, Marijana; Pantić, Dragomir (2007). Ideologija i političke stranke u Srbiji [Ideology and Political Parties in Serbia] (PDF) (in Serbian). Belgrade: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Faculty of Political Sciences, Institute for Humanities. ISBN 978-86-83767-23-6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 November 2013. Retrieved 17 July 2001.
  140. Daniel Matthews-Ferrero; Patrik Fritz; Robert Steenland (24 April 2019). "EU country briefing: Slovakia". EURACTIV. Recent presidential elections were seen as a crossroads: sticking with the old establishment in the form of SMER-supported EC Vice-President for Energy Union, Maroš Šefčovič, or a desire for change embodied in the political novice Zuzana Čaputová from the relatively new social liberal Progressive Slovakia (PS) party.
  141. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2020). "Slovakia". Parties and Elections in Europe.
  142. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2018). "Slovenia". Parties and Elections in Europe. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  143. Denney, Steven (31 December 2015). "An Identity Crisis for South Korea's Opposition". The Diplomat. Retrieved 24 June 2019. "South Korea's main opposition social-liberal party is reeling (again) from intraparty factional struggle. Rebranded earlier this week "the Minjoo Party of Korea" (formerly New Politics Alliance for Democracy), the party is searching for a new identity and direction after high profile and popular assemblyperson Ahn Cheol-soo defected on 13 December."
  144. "Seoul Mayor's Death Shocks South Korea". The Diplomat. 9 July 2019. Retrieved 9 November 2021. Ryu Ho-jeong of the small liberal opposition Justice Party wrote on Facebook that she won't pay respects to Park, saying she doesn't want the alleged victim to “feel lonely.” Her message drew both strong support and opposition online.
  145. "This South Korean Pastor 'Blessed' a Queer Festival. He's Now Being Investigated". Vice. 2 October 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2021. The minor liberal Justice Party is now on its seventh attempt to pass the bill in the National Assembly. Previous attempts failed as conservative Christian groups have been lobbying against it since 2007. Lee believes that the bill's passing is long overdue.
  146. Annesley, Claire, ed. (2013). A Political and Economic Dictionary of Western Europe. Routledge. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-203-40341-9.
  147. Slomp, Hans (26 September 2011). Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics [2 volumes]: An American Companion to European Politics. ISBN 9780313391828.
  148. Casey, Michael (12 June 2016). "Time to Start Worrying about Taiwan". The National Interest. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
  149. "Caribbean Elections - People's National Movement". Caribbeanelections.com. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  150. Slomp, Hans (2011). Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics: An American Companion to European Politics. ABC-CLIO. p. 343. ISBN 978-0-313-39182-8.
  151. "Introduction to The Liberal Party Policies". liberal.org.uk. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
  152. Grigsby, Ellen (2008). Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Politics Science. Florence: Cengage Learning. pp. 106–107. ISBN 978-0495501121. Its liberalism is for the most part the later version of liberalism—modern liberalism.
  153. Arnold, N. Scott (2009). Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation. Florence: Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0495501121. Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States.
  154. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2009). "Andorra". Parties and Elections in Europe. Archived from the original on 30 April 2009. Retrieved 9 April 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  155. Walter, James (2010). What Were They Thinking?: The Politics of Ideas in Australia (Large Print 16pt). ReadHowYouWant.com. p. 430. ISBN 978-1-4596-0494-0.
  156. Icon Group International (2009). European: Webster's Timeline History 1973–1977. John Wiley & Sons. p. 207. ISBN 9780546976427.
  157. Mirow, Wilhelm (2016). Strategic Culture, Securitisation and the Use of Force: Post-9/11 Security Practices of Liberal Democracies. Taylor & Francis. p. 189. ISBN 978-1-317-40660-0.
  158. Wauters, Bram; Lisi, Marco; Teruel, Juan-Rodríguez (2016). "Democratising Party Leadership Selection in Belgium and Israel". In Sandri, Giulia; Seddone, Antonella; Venturino, Fulvio (eds.). Party Primaries in Comparative Perspective. Routledge. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-317-08356-6.
  159. "Étiquette : Mouvement Radical Social Libéral la revue des vœux des leaders de toute la Droite". Dtom.fr (in French). 6 January 2018. Archived from the original on 12 July 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  160. Kurlander, Eric (2007). The Landscapes of Liberalism: Particularism and Progressive Politics in Two Borderland Regions. Localism, Landscape, and the Ambiguities of Place: German-speaking Central Europe, 1860–1930. University of Toronto Press. p. 125.
  161. Sperber, Jonathan (1997). The Kaiser's Voters: Electors and Elections in Imperial Germany. Cambridge University Press. p. 212. ISBN 9780521591386.
  162. Zucker, Stanley (1975). Ludwig Bamberger: German Liberal Political and Social Critic, 1823-1899. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 239. ISBN 9780822932987.
  163. Lash, Scott (1987). The End of Organized Capitalism. Univ of Wisconsin Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-299-11670-5.
  164. Grift, Liesbeth (2012). Securing the Communist State: The Reconstruction of Coercive Institutions in the Soviet Zone of Germany and Romania, 1944-1948. Lexington Books. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-7391-7178-3.
  165. Stargardt, Nicholas (1994). The German Idea of Militarism: Radical and Socialist Critics 1866-1914. Cambridge University Press. p. 31.
  166. Winkler, Jürgen R. (1995). Sozialstruktur, politische Traditionen und Liberalismus. Eine empirische Längsschnittstudie zur Wahlentwicklung in Deutschland, 1871–1933. Springer. p. 66.
  167. Sperber, Jonathan (1997). The Kaiser's Voters: Electors and Elections in Imperial Germany. Cambridge University Press. p. 164.
  168. Niedermayer, Oskar (2006). "Das Parteiensystem Deutschelands". In Niedermayer, Oskar; Stöss, Richard; Haas, Melanie (eds.). Die Parteiensysteme Westeuropas. Springer-Verlag. p. 109. ISBN 978-3-531-90061-2.
  169. Träger, Hendrik (2015). "Die Europawahl 2014 als second-order election". In Kaeding, Michael; Switek, Niko (eds.). Die Europawahl 2014: Spitzenkandidaten, Protestparteien, Nichtwähler. Springer-Verlag. p. 41. ISBN 978-3-658-05738-1.
  170. Hloušek, Vít; Kopeček, Lubomír (2010). Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-7546-9661-2. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
  171. "European Election Database (EED)". Nsd.uib.no. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  172. Aranson, Agust Thor (2006). "The European Union Seen From the Top – the View of an Inside-Outsider". In Joakim Nergelius (ed.). Nordic And Other European Constitutional Traditions. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 31. ISBN 90-04-15171-0.
  173. Goldstein, Amir (Spring 2011). "'We Have a Rendezvous With Destiny'—The Rise and Fall of the Liberal Alternative". Israel Studies. 16 (1): 27, 32, 47. doi:10.2979/isr.2011.16.1.26. S2CID 143487617. Thus, the PP continued to represent mostly white collar and government workers, intellectuals, and the labor intelligentsia, all of whom favored the social liberalism, broadly-based universal views, and social and religious pluralism that the party stood for.⁴(27); Kol wrote to Goldmann...: 'But the party must be founded on a clear ideological basis, and no such basis exists between our progressive humanistic liberalism and Herut.'²⁰(32); Kol emphasized that, 'The Herut Movement and social liberalism cannot dwell together in the same house.'(47)
  174. Riestra, Laura (17 March 2015). "Las claves de las elecciones en Israel" (in Spanish). ABC Internacional. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  175. Pombeni, Paolo (2015). "Christian Democracy in power, 1946–63". In Jones, Erik; Pasquino, Gianfranco (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Italian Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 258. ISBN 978-0-19-966974-5.
  176. Seißelberg, Jörg (1995). "Berlusconis Forza Italia. Wahlerfolg einer Persönlichkeitspartei". In Steffani, Winfried; Thaysen, Uwe (eds.). Demokratie in Europa: Zur Rolle der Parlamente. Springer-Verlag. p. 209. ISBN 978-3-322-93517-5.
  177. Franičević, Vojimir; Kimura, Hiroshi, eds. (2003) Globalization, Democratization and Development: European and Japanese Views of Change in South East Europe. "Towards the end of the 1990s the social-liberal Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan, DPJ) consolidated and replaced Shinshinto as a rival of LDP."
  178. Caramani, Daniele (2013). The Europeanization of Politics. Cambridge University Press. p. 310. ISBN 978-1-107-11867-6.
  179. Auzias, Dominique; Labourdette, Jean-Paul (2012). Vilnius 2012 (avec cartes et avis des lecteurs). Petit Futé. p. 22. ISBN 978-2-7469-6092-3.
  180. Hearl, Derek (1988). "The Luxembourg Liberal Party". In Kirchner, Emil (ed.). Liberal Parties in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 373–395. ISBN 0-521-32394-0.
  181. Chodakiewicz, Marek Jan (2012). Intermarium: The Land between the Black and Baltic Seas. Transaction Publishers. p. 331. ISBN 978-1-4128-4786-5.
  182. Moldenhauer, Gebhard (2001). Die Niederlande und Deutschland: einander kennen und verstehen. Waxmann Verlag. p. 113. ISBN 978-3-89325-747-8.
  183. Hloušek, Vít; Kopeček, Lubomír (2010). Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 121. ISBN 978-0-7546-7840-3.
  184. Guardiancich, Igor (2012). Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: From Post-Socialist Transition to the Global Financial Crisis. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-136-22595-6.
  185. "Kann dieser schwule Atheist Polen verändern?". Bild. 5 February 2019.
  186. "„Frühling“ macht der linken Mitte Hoffnung". Deutschlandfunk. 3 February 2019.
  187. Struve, Peter (1932). The Social Liberalism. Internationales Handwtsrterbuch des Gewerkschaftswesens. pp. 412–423.
  188. Europa (1999). The European Union Encyclopedia and Directory 1999. Psychology Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-85743-056-1.
  189. Almeida, Dimitri (2012). The Impact of European Integration on Political Parties: Beyond the Permissive Consensus. Taylor & Francis. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-136-34039-0.
  190. Hloušek, Vít; Kopecek, Lubomír (2013). Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 120. ISBN 978-1-4094-9977-0.
  191. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Spain". Parties and Elections in Europe. Retrieved 12 January 2015. Unión, Progreso y Democracia (UPD): Social liberalism.
  192. "UPyD. Ideology: centralism, social liberalism. Political Position: Centre". European Social Survey. Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine.
  193. Lachner, Andreas (2006), "Das Parteiensystem der Schweiz", Die Parteiensysteme Westeuropas, VS Verlag, p. 400
  194. Clark, Alistair (2012). "The Liberal Democrats". Political Parties in the UK. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-230-36868-2.
  195. Adams, Ian (1998). Ideology and Politics in Britain Today. Manchester University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-7190-5056-5. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
  196. Driver, Stephen (2011). Understanding British Party Politics. Polity. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-7456-4077-8. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
  197. Cardoso Rosas, João (2008). "Socialismo ou liberalismo social?". Diario Economico. Archived from the original on 15 January 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2008.
  198. Bresser-Pereira, Luiz Carlos (2003). Building the Republican State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199261185.
  199. Meadowcroft, John (Autumn 2000). "The Origins of Community Politics" (PDF). Journal of Liberal Democrat History. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2009.
  200. Simhony, Avital; Weinstein, David (2001). The new liberalism: reconciling liberty and community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521794046.
  201. "James Hobson". Archived from the original on 31 March 2008. Retrieved 19 May 2008.
  202. Ortiz, Cansino; Gellner, Ernest; Merquior, José Guilherme; Emil, César Cansino (1996). Liberalism in Modern Times: Essays in Honour of Jose G. Merquior. Budapest: Central European University Press. 185866053X.
  203. Merquior, J. G. (1991). Liberalism Old and New. Boston: Twayne Publishers. ISBN 0805786279.
  204. Seidman, Steven (2004). Contested knowledge: social theory today. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631226710.
  205. W. Russell, James (2006). Double standard: social policy in Europe and the United States. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742546936.
  206. Thompson, Alastair (2000). Left Liberals, the State, and Popular Politics in Wilhelmine Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198205432.
  207. F. Biagini, Eugenio (2002). Citizenship and Community: Liberals, Radicals and Collective Identities in the British Isles, 1865–1931. Cambridge: Published by Cambridge University Press. p. 228. ISBN 9780521893602.
  208. Rahden, Till; Brainard, Marcus (2008). Jews and Other Germans: Civil Society, Religious Diversity, and Urban Politics in Breslau, 1860–1925. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 9780299226947.
  209. Haim Bresheeth-Zabner, ed. (2020). TAn Army Like No Other: How the Israel Defense Forces Made a Nation. Verso Books. p. 118.
  210. Findlay, Ronald; Jonung, Lars; Lundahl, Mats (2002). Bertil Ohlin: a centennial celebration, 1899–1999. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262062282. Archived from the original on 10 September 2006.
  211. Klausen, Jytte (2001). War and Welfare: Europe and the United States, 1945 to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780312238834.
  212. Adam Bronson (2016). One Hundred Million Philosophers: Science of Thought and the Culture of Democracy in Postwar Japan. University of Hawaii Press. p. 56. Maruyama Masao, the left-liberal historian of political thought
  213. Watson, Graham (Spring 1998). "The Two Davids" (PDF). Journal of Liberal Democrat History. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2009.
  214. Vincent, Andrew (2007). The Nature of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199297955.
  215. Aron, Paul; Miller, Luke (2007). "The Third Team: A brief history of the Australian Democrats after 30 years" (PDF). Australian Democrats. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 March 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2009.
  216. Flach, Karl-Hermann (1984). Noch eine Chance für die Liberalen. Frankfurt: Fischer S. Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3100210012.
  217. Gotovac, Vlado (1996). In Defence of Freedom: Zagreb 1971–1996. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska; Croatian PEN Centre. p. 11. ISBN 953-150-066-5.
  218. Rodriguez, Ángel Rivero (1993). "Liberalismo, democracia y pragmatismo" (PDF). Isegoría (8). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2009. Retrieved 5 April 2009.
  219. Verhofstadt, Dirk. "Liberalism is the best Cure for Poverty". Archived from the original on 12 October 2006. Retrieved 17 August 2008.
  220. Fotopoulos, Takis (October 2004). "Why an Inclusive Democracy? The multidimensional crisis, globalisation and inclusive democracy". The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. 1 (1). Retrieved 21 May 2008.
  221. Tosto, Milton (2005). The meaning of liberalism in Brazil. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739109861. Archived from the original on 24 May 2006. Retrieved 13 December 2017.
  222. David T Johnson, Franklin E Zimring, ed. (2009). The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia. Oxford University Press. p. 150.
  223. "Grigory Yavlinski".
  224. Krugman, Paul (2007). Conscience of A Liberal. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780141035772.
  225. "Justin Trudeau, Liberal Let-Down | Martin Lukacs".

Sources
  • Adams, Ian (2001). Political ideology today. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. ISBN 0 7190 6019 2.
  • De Ruggiero, Guido (1959). The History of European Liberalism. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0844619705
  • Faulks, Keith (1999). Political Sociology: A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0 7486 1356 0.
  • Feuchtwanger, E. J. (1985). Democracy and Empire: Britain 1865-1914. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd. ISBN 0-7131-6162-0.
  • Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. ISBN 1-55587-915-2.
  • Slomp, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-first Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-96814-6.

Further reading
  • Green, Thomas Hill (2006). Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange. ISBN 1584776145.
  • Hobhouse, L. T. (1994). Liberalism and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521437261.
  • Hobson, John Atkinson (2000). The Crisis of Liberalism: New Issues of Democracy. Delaware: Adamant Media Corporation. ISBN 1421227819.
  • Martin, Keith D. (2010). A Liberal Mandate: Reflections on Our Founding Vision and Rants on How We Have Failed to Achieve It. MSilver Spring: Wet Press. ISBN 9780578043654.
  • Merquior, J. G. (1991). Liberalism Old and New. Cambridge: Twayne Publishers. ISBN 0805786279.
  • Mill, John Stuart (1989). 'On Liberty' and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521379172.
  • Rawls, John (2005). A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674017722.
  • Rawls, John (2005). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231130899.
  • Simhony, Avital; Weinstein, David (2001). The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521794048.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Social liberalism.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.