Social liberalism

Social liberalism, also known as left liberalism in Germany,[1][2][3] modern liberalism in the United States[4] and new liberalism in the United Kingdom,[5][6] is a political ideology and variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights. Under social liberalism, the common good is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[7]

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 branch that stresses the freedom of individuals from traditional cultural norms, see Cultural liberalism. For the political philosophy that incorporates liberal principles to socialism, see Liberal socialism. For advocacy of social reform, see Progressivism.
Part of a series on
Liberalism
  •  Liberalism portal
  •  Politics portal
Part of a series on
Progressivism
Related
  •  Philosophy portal
  •  Politics portal

Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the world.[8] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[6][9][10][11][12] A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasising the rights and autonomy of the individual.[13][14][15]

In the United States, social liberalism describes progressive moral and social values or stances on socio-cultural issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage as opposed to social conservatism. Because cultural liberalism expresses the social dimension of liberalism, it is often referred to as social liberalism, although it is not the same as the broader political ideology known as social liberalism. A social liberal in this sense may hold either more conservative or liberal views on fiscal policy.[16]

Origins
Main article: History of liberalism

United Kingdom
Leonard Hobhouse

By the end of the 19th century, the principles of classical liberalism were challenged by downturns in economic growth, a growing awareness of poverty and unemployment present within modern industrial cities and also by the agitation of organised labour. A major 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, although 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.[17]

John Stuart Mill contributed enormously to liberal thought by combining elements of classical liberalism with what eventually became known as the new liberalism. The new liberals tried to adapt the old language of liberalism to confront these difficult circumstances, which they believed could only be resolved through a broader and more interventionist conception of the state. An equal right to liberty could not be established merely by ensuring that individuals did not physically interfere with each other or merely by having laws that were impartially formulated and applied, as more positive and proactive measures were required to ensure that every individual would have an equal opportunity of success.[18]

New Liberals
Thomas Hill Green

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, a group of British thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and argued in favor of state intervention in social, economic and cultural life. What they proposed is now called social liberalism.[5] The New Liberals, including intellectuals like Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Hobhouse and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances.[6] 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 that these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented and interventionist state.[19]

The Liberal governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and H. H. Asquith, especially 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 largely accomplished by the Labour Party, was significantly designed by two Liberals, namely John Maynard Keynes (who laid the economic foundations) and William Beveridge (who designed the welfare system).[6]

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.[20][21]

Germany

In 1860s Germany, left-liberal politicians like Max Hirsch, Franz Duncker and Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch established trade unions—modeled on their British counterparts—in order to help workers improve working and economic conditions by means of reconciliation of interests and cooperation with their employers rather than class struggle. Schulze-Delitzsch is also known as the founding father of the German cooperative movement and is credited as 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 itself into wings and new parties over the 19th's 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, protection of private property while they were strongly opposed to the creation of 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 and the building of the national economy.

In 1893, the term social liberalism was used first by the historian and social reformer Ignaz Jastrow, who also joined the German Economic Association. He published the socialist democratic manifesto "Social-liberal: Tasks for Liberalism in Prussia" to create an "action group" for general people's welfare in the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which they rejected.[22]

Friedrich Naumann

The National-Social Association founded by the Protestant pastor Friedrich Naumann also maintained contacts with the left-liberals.[23] He tried to draw workers away from Marxism by proposing a mix of nationalism and a 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 was unable to 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,[24] and a rightist economic wing but heavily favored 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.[25][26]

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 theoretical influence of social liberalism based on duty and rights.[27]

France

In France, social-liberal theory was developed in the Third Republic by solidarist thinkers, including Alfred Fouillée and Émile Durkheim, who were inspired by sociology and influenced radical politicians like Léon Bourgeois. They explained that a greater division of labor caused greater opportunity and individualism, but it also inspired a 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 to manage and they encouraged cooperative insurance schemes among individuals. Their main objective was to remove barriers to social mobility rather than create a welfare state.[28]

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

In the United States, the term social liberalism was used to differentiate it from classical liberalism or laissez-faire, which dominated political and economic thought for a number of years until the term branched off from it around the Great Depression and the New Deal.[29][30] 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 towards labor 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 and 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.[31] Writing from 1884 until the 1930s, John Dewey—an educator influenced by Hobhouse, Green and Ward—advocated socialist methods to achieve liberal goals. Some social liberal ideas were later incorporated into the New Deal,[32] 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 became fully developed following World War II along with the mixed market economy. Also called embedded liberalism, social liberal policies gained broad support across the political spectrum, because they reduced the disruptive and polarizing tendencies in society, without challenging the capitalist economic system. Business accepted social liberalism in the face of widespread dissatisfaction with the boom and bust cycle of the earlier economic system as it seemed to them to be a lesser evil than more left-wing modes of government. Social liberalism was characterized by cooperation between big business, government and labor unions. Government was able to assume a strong role because its power had been strengthened by the wartime economy, but the extent to which this occurred varied considerably among Western democracies.[33]

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 elderly people, 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 co-operatives 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 favorite party for commercial interests. The reforms were regularly opposed by both business interests and trade unions. 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.[34]

Most of the social democratic parties in Europe (notably including 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, most substantive political and economic debates of recent times were between social liberal and classical liberal concepts.[35]

Germany
Alexander Rüstow

Alexander Rüstow, a German economist, first proposed the German variant of economic social liberalism. In 1932, he applied the label neoliberalism to this kind of social liberalism while speaking at the Social Policy Association, although that term now carries a meaning different from the one proposed by Rüstow. Rüstow wanted an alternative to socialism and to the classical liberal economics developed in the German Empire. In 1938, Rüstow met with a variety of economic thinkers—including the likes of Ludwig Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Wilhelm Röpke—to determine how liberalism could be renewed. Rüstow advocated a strong 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.[27]

Following World War II, Rüstow's neoliberalism, now usually called ordoliberalism or the social market economy, was adopted by the West German government under Ludwig Erhard, who was the Minister of Economics and later became Chancellor. Price controls were lifted and free markets were introduced. While these policies are credited with Germany's post-war economic recovery, the welfare state—which had been established under Bismarck—became increasingly costly.[27]

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.[36]

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 favor of greater state initiative. Even though the United States lacked an effective socialist movement, New Deal policies often appeared radical and were attacked by the right. The separate development of modern liberalism in the United States is often attributed to American exceptionalism, which kept mainstream American ideology within a narrow range.[37]

John Rawls' principal work A Theory of Justice (1971) can be considered a flagship exposition of social liberal thinking, advocating the combination of individual freedom and a fairer distribution of resources. According to Rawls, every individual should be allowed to choose and pursue his or her own conception of what is desirable in life, while a socially just distribution of goods must be maintained. Rawls argued that differences in material wealth are tolerable if general economic growth and wealth also benefit the poorest.[38] 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 principle, 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 was later restated 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.[39] Rawls may therefore be seen as a "patron saint" of social liberalism.[35]

Decline

Following economic problems in the 1970s, liberal thought underwent some transformation. Keynesian economic management was seen as interfering with the free market, while increased welfare spending that had been 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 full employment was regarded as unsustainable. Writers such as Milton Friedman and Samuel Brittan, who were influenced by Friedrich Hayek, advocated a reversal of social liberalism. Their policies which are often called neoliberalism had a significant influence on Western politics, most notably on the governments of United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and United States President Ronald Reagan, who pursued policies of deregulation of the economy and reduction in spending on social services.[40]

Part of the reason for the collapse of the social liberal coalition was a challenge in the 1970s from financial interests that could operate independently of national governments. Another cause was the decline of organized labor which had formed part of the coalition, but was also a support for left-wing ideologies challenging the liberal consensus. Related to this was the decline 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.[41]

Parties and organisations

In Europe, social liberal parties tend to be small or medium-sized centrist and centre-left parties.[42] Examples of successful European social liberal parties which have participated 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 in the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament which is the third biggest group at 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.

Giving an exhaustive list of social liberal parties worldwide is difficult, largely because political organisations are not always ideologically pure and party ideologies often change over time. However, the following parties and organisations are usually accepted by 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 as following social liberalism as a core ideology.

Social liberal parties or parties with social liberal factions

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:

gollark: Or go to spæce.
gollark: Or just make a giant floating platform.
gollark: Just make a *new* island!
gollark: I didn't get round to writing any intellectual property law.
gollark: Like the Freeish State of Gollarkia.

See also

References
Citations
  1. Hoensbroech, Paul Kajus Graf (1912). Der Linksliberalismus. Leipzig.
  2. Felix Rachfahl (1912). Eugen Richter und der Linksliberalismus im Neuen Reiche. Berlin.
  3. Ulrich Zeller (1912). Die Linksliberalen. Munich.
  4. Pease, Donald E.; Wiegman, Robyn (eds.) (2002). The Futures of American Studies. Duke University Press. p. 518.
  5. Freeden, Michael (1978). The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today (Politics Today). Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719060206.
  7. De Ruggiero, Guido (1959). The History of European Liberalism. pp. 155–157.
  8. Faulks, Keith (10 December 1999). Political Sociology: A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9780748613564. Retrieved 10 December 2018 – via Google Books.
  9. Slomp, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0275968146.
  10. 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.
  11. Hombach, Bodo (2000). The politics of the new centre. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780745624600.
  12. 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.
  13. Rohr, Donald G. (September 1964). "The Origins of Social Liberalism in Germany". The Journal of Economic History. 24 (3).
  14. Gaus, Gerald & Courtland, Shane D. (Spring 2011). "The 'New Liberalism'". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  15. Derbyshire, John (12 July 2010). "The origins of social liberalism". New Statesman.
  16. 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.
  17. Richardson, pp. 36–37.
  18. Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). Contemporary Political Ideologies. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9780826451736.
  19. The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, p. 599.
  20. Weiler, Peter (2016). "New Liberalism". In Leventhal, Fred M., ed. (1995). Twentieth-century Britain: An Encyclopedia. Garland. pp 564–565.
  21. Weiler, Peter (2016). The New Liberalism: Liberal Social Theory in Great Britain, 1889-1914 (2016). Excerpt.
  22. Na, Inho (200). Sozialreform oder Revolution: Gesellschaftspolitische Zukunftsvorstellungen im Naumann-Kreis 1890–1903/04. Tectum Verlag. p. 27.
  23. Derman, Joshua (2012), Max Weber in Politics and Social Thought: From Charisma to Canonization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 25
  24. 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.
  25. Mommsen, Hans (1996). The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. University of North Carolina Press. p. 58. ISBN 0-8078-2249-3.
  26. 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.
  27. Hartwich, Oliver Marc (2009). "Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword". Archived 25 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  28. Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). Contemporary Political Ideologies (1999). pp. 35–36.
  29. 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.
  30. Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 155587939X.
  31. Commager, Henry Steele, ed. (1967). Lester Ward and the Welfare State. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
  32. Richardson, pp. 38–41.
  33. Richardson, pp. 137–138.
  34. Feuchtwanger, pp. 273–317.
  35. Vincent, Andrew (2010). Modern Political Ideologies (Third ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 54.
  36. Adams, p. 32.
  37. Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power (2001), James L. Richardson, pp. 38–41
  38. Browing, Gary (2000). Contemporary liberalism. Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories of the Present. SAGE Publications. pp. 154–155.
  39. Harr, Edwin van de (2015). Degrees of Freedom: Liberal Political Philosophy and Ideology. Transaction.
  40. Faulks, Keith (10 December 1999). Political Sociology: A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9780748613564. Retrieved 10 December 2018 – via Google Books.
  41. Richardson, pp. 138–139.
  42. Kirchner, Emil (2000). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 356–357. ISBN 9780521323949.
  43. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2019). "Parties and Elections in Europe". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. Gwenda Tavan (2005). The Long, Slow Death of White Australia. Scribe Publications. p. 193.
  47. Huo, Jingjing (2009). Third Way Reforms: Social Democracy After the Golden Age. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-521-51843-7.
  48. "Haiti's future is secure! It has lots of children". The Nassau Guardian. 22 December 2017. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  49. "Les couleurs politiques en Belgique". Cultures&Santé. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  50. Almeida, Dimitri (2012). The Impact of European Integration on Political Parties: Beyond the Permissive Consensus. Routledge. p. 107.
  51. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2019). "German-speaking Community/Belgium". Parties and Elections in Europe.
  52. 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
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. 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. 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.
  57. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Parties and Elections in Europe". Retrieved 14 August 2020.
  58. "Croatia Elections 2015: Overview of the Parties - IDS and HDSSB". Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  59. 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". Slovak Journal of Political Sciences. Walter de Gruyter. 17 (1).
  60. J. Kirchner, Emil (1988). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Avon: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-32394-0.
  61. 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.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. Dawoud, Khaled (8 April 2016). "Egyptian Social Democratic Party Elections Highlight a Deep Rift". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  65. "Eesti 200: Poliitikad" (in Estonian). Eesti 200.
  66. 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.
  67. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2011). "Estonia". Parties and Elections in Europe. Archived from the original on 24 December 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2019.
  68. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2019). "Faroe Islands". Parties and Elections in Europe. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  69. "Finland's largest political parties". European Parliament Information. 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. "Étiquette : Mouvement Radical Social Libéral la revue des vœux des leaders de toute la Droite". Dtom.fr (in French). 6 January 2018.
  74. "Hollande est-il "socialiste", "social-démocrate", "social-libéral" ou "libéral"?". 5 January 2014.
  75. Roberts, Geoffrey (1997). Party Politics in the New Germany. p. 20. ISBN 9781855673113.
  76. 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."
  77. Maron, Thomas (28 April 2017). "Das Sozialliberale ist tief in der SPD verwurzelt". Stuttgarter Zeitung.
  78. 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.
  79. "Politics in Iceland: A beginner's guide". Iceland Monitor. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  80. N. S. Gehlot (1991). The Congress Party in India: Policies, Culture, Performance. Deep & Deep Publications. pp. 150–200. ISBN 978-81-7100-306-8.
  81. Lahav Harkov (16 February 2019). "Histadrut chief Avi Nissenkorn joins Gantzs Israel Resilience Party". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 23 February 2019.
  82. 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].
  83. Segond, Valérie (17 September 2019). "Italie: Matteo Renzi fausse compagnie au Parti démocrate". Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved 24 February 2020.
  84. 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.
  85. 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.
  86. Kölling, Martin (22 October 2017). "Abe siegt und verbirgt seine Schwäche" [Abe wins and hides his weakness]. Handelsblatt (in German). Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  87. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Parties and Elections in Europe". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  88. 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.
  89. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Lithuania". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  90. 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.
  91. Terzis, Georgios (2007). European Media Governance: National and Regional Dimensions. Intellect Books. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-84150-192-5.
  92. Magone, José (2010). Contemporary European Politics: A Comparative Introduction. Routledge. p. 436. ISBN 978-0-203-84639-1.
  93. Senkyr, Jan (2013). "Political Awakening in Malaysia". KAS International Reports. Retrieved 24 June 2019.
  94. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Montenegro". Parties-and-elections.eu. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  95. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 26 September 2011. Retrieved 27 February 2013.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  96. "Neues Parlament für Kryptowährungen". arabparliaments.org. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  97. "Political Parties". Election.irrawaddy.org. 7 April 2010. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  98. 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.
  99. Vowles, Jack (1997). Political Science. 49-50. p. 98.
  100. 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.
  101. Osterud, Oyvind (2013). Norway in Transition: Transforming a Stable Democracy. Routledge. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-317-97037-8.
  102. "Partidos politicos y relacionados".
  103. "Kann dieser schwule Atheist Polen verändern?". Bild. 5 February 2019.
  104. "„Frühling“ macht der linken Mitte Hoffnung". Deutschlandfunk. 3 February 2019.
  105. 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.
  106. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2015). "Madeira/Portugal". Parties and Elections in Europe. Archived from the original on 7 May 2018.
  107. "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.
  108. 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.
  109. White, David (2006). The Russian Democratic Party Yabloko: Opposition in a Managed Democracy. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-7546-4675-4.
  110. 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.
  111. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2020). "Slovakia". Parties and Elections in Europe.
  112. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2018). "Slovenia". Parties and Elections in Europe. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  113. 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."
  114. Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Spain". Parties and Elections in Europe. Retrieved 12 January 2015. Unión, Progreso y Democracia (UPD): Social liberalism.
  115. "UPyD. Ideology: centralism, social liberalism. Political Position: Centre". European Social Survey. Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine.
  116. Annesley, Claire, ed. (2013). A Political and Economic Dictionary of Western Europe. Routledge. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-203-40341-9.
  117. Casey, Michael (12 June 2016). "Time to Start Worrying about Taiwan". The National Interest. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
  118. "Caribbean Elections - People's National Movement". Caribbeanelections.com. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  119. 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.
  120. Clark, Alistair (2012). "The Liberal Democrats". Political Parties in the UK. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-230-36868-2.
  121. 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.
  122. 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.
  123. Nordsieck, Wolfram (2009). "Andorra". Parties and Elections in Europe. Archived from the original on 30 April 2009. Retrieved 9 April 2019.CS1 maint: unfit url (link)
  124. 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.
  125. Icon Group International (2009). European: Webster's Timeline History 1973–1977. John Wiley & Sons. p. 207. ISBN 9780546976427.
  126. 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.
  127. 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.
  128. Kempf, Udo (2007). Das politische System Frankreichs. Springer DE. p. 190. ISBN 978-3-531-32973-4.
  129. 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.
  130. Sperber, Jonathan (1997). The Kaiser's Voters: Electors and Elections in Imperial Germany. Cambridge University Press. p. 212.
  131. Zucker, Stanley (1975). Ludwig Bamberger: German Liberal Political and Social Critic, 1823-1899. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 239.
  132. Lash, Scott (1987). The End of Organized Capitalism. Univ of Wisconsin Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-299-11670-5.
  133. 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.
  134. Stargardt, Nicholas (1994). The German Idea of Militarism: Radical and Socialist Critics 1866-1914. Cambridge University Press. p. 31.
  135. Winkler, Jürgen R. (1995). Sozialstruktur, politische Traditionen und Liberalismus. Eine empirische Längsschnittstudie zur Wahlentwicklung in Deutschland, 1871–1933. Springer. p. 66.
  136. Sperber, Jonathan (1997). The Kaiser's Voters: Electors and Elections in Imperial Germany. Cambridge University Press. p. 164.
  137. 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.
  138. 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.
  139. 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.
  140. "European Election Database (EED)". Nsd.uib.no. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
  141. 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.
  142. 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. 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)
  143. Riestra, Laura (17 March 2015). "Las claves de las elecciones en Israel" (in Spanish). ABC Internacional. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  144. 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.
  145. 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.
  146. 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."
  147. Caramani, Daniele (2013). The Europeanization of Politics. Cambridge University Press. p. 310. ISBN 978-1-107-11867-6.
  148. Auzias, Dominique; Labourdette, Jean-Paul (2012). Vilnius 2012 (avec cartes et avis des lecteurs). Petit Futé. p. 22. ISBN 978-2-7469-6092-3.
  149. 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.
  150. Chodakiewicz, Marek Jan (2012). Intermarium: The Land between the Black and Baltic Seas. Transaction Publishers. p. 331. ISBN 978-1-4128-4786-5.
  151. Moldenhauer, Gebhard (2001). Die Niederlande und Deutschland: einander kennen und verstehen. Waxmann Verlag. p. 113. ISBN 978-3-89325-747-8.
  152. 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.
  153. 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.
  154. Europa (1999). The European Union Encyclopedia and Directory 1999. Psychology Press. p. 332. ISBN 978-1-85743-056-1.
  155. 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.
  156. 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.
  157. Lachner, Andreas (2006), "Das Parteiensystem der Schweiz", Die Parteiensysteme Westeuropas, VS Verlag, p. 400
  158. Adams, Ian (1998). Ideology and Politics in Britain Today. Manchester University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-7190-5056-5. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
  159. Driver, Stephen (2011). Understanding British Party Politics. Polity. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-7456-4077-8. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
  160. Cardoso Rosas, João (2008). "Socialismo ou liberalismo social?". Diario Economico. Archived from the original on 15 January 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2008.
  161. Bresser-Pereira, Luiz Carlos (2003). Building the Republican State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199261185.
  162. Meadowcroft, John (Autumn 2000). "The Origins of Community Politics" (PDF). Journal of Liberal Democrat History. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2009.
  163. Simhony, Avital; Weinstein, David (2001). The new liberalism: reconciling liberty and community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521794046.
  164. "James Hobson". Archived from the original on 31 March 2008. Retrieved 19 May 2008.
  165. Merquior, J. G. (1991). Liberalism Old and New. Boston: Twayne Publishers. ISBN 0805786279.
  166. Seidman, Steven (2004). Contested knowledge: social theory today. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631226710.
  167. W. Russell, James (2006). Double standard: social policy in Europe and the United States. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742546936.
  168. Thompson, Alastair (2000). Left Liberals, the State, and Popular Politics in Wilhelmine Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198205432.
  169. 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.
  170. 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.
  171. 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.
  172. Klausen, Jytte (2001). War and Welfare: Europe and the United States, 1945 to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780312238834.
  173. Watson, Graham (Spring 1998). "The Two Davids" (PDF). Journal of Liberal Democrat History. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2009.
  174. Vincent, Andrew (2007). The Nature of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199297955.
  175. Aron, Paul; Miller, Luke (2007). "The Third Team: A brief history of the Australian Democrats after 30 years" (PDF). Australian Democrats. Retrieved 5 April 2009.
  176. Flach, Karl-Hermann (1984). Noch eine Chance für die Liberalen. Frankfurt: Fischer S. Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3100210012.
  177. Gotovac, Vlado (1996). In Defence of Freedom: Zagreb 1971–1996. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska; Croatian PEN Centre. p. 11. ISBN 953-150-066-5.
  178. Rodriguez, Ángel Rivero (1993). "Liberalismo, democracia y pragmatismo" (PDF). Isegoría (8). Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2009. Retrieved 5 April 2009.
  179. Verhofstadt, Dirk. "Liberalism is the best Cure for Poverty". Archived from the original on 12 October 2006. Retrieved 17 August 2008.
  180. 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.
  181. 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.
  182. Krugman, Paul (2007). Conscience of A Liberal. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780141035772.
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.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.