General Conclusion

  • Béatrice Hibou
Part of the The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy book series (SPIRP)


By giving a central place to ‘insidious leniencies’ and tackling head-on the problematics of legitimacy and intentionality on the basis of economic practices and imaginaires, my analysis goes beyond the traditional issues of violence and fear. My work challenges the totalitarian hypothesis, the idea of a regime or a state capable to control, dominate and, if necessary, to suppress; it also challenges the idea that actors have clearly defined unambiguous visions and strategies they pursue with a specific intention. The reading put forward here allows for subtler analyses of the exercise of domination, highlighting the complex ways in which hegemony is constructed, beyond general and all-inclusive considerations on support or opposition, on the use of force or persuasion, on the existence or absence of coercion. Two dimensions seem particularly important to me in the contemporary discussions and are developed in this conclusion. The first refers to the delicate positioning I have adopted that rejects Manichean analyses in order to show the complexity of the exercise of domination, while duly acknowledging the power relations, the unequal relations, the violence of the ‘insidious leniencies’ and coercion. The second dimension is the benefit of a comparative approach that highlights the mainsprings of the political economy of domination and simultaneously the infinite variations that give an always specific meaning to experiences and offers an ‘inventory of differences.’


Comparative Approach Economic Practice Political Sociology Traditional Issue Subtle Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Ben Brick, T. 2000. Une si douce dictature. Chroniques tunisiennes, 1991–2000. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Browning, C. 2001. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldhagen, D. 1997. Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ingrao, C. 2003. Conquérir, aménager, exterminer. Recherches récentes sur la Shoah. Annales HSS 58(2): 417–438.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ginzburg, C. 2002. The Judge and the Historian: Marginal Notes on a Late-Twentieth-Century Miscarriage of Justice, 65–66. Trans. Antony Shugaar. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camau, M., and G. Massardier, ed. 2009. Démocraties et autoritarismes. Fragmentation et hybridation des régimes. Paris: Karthala-IEP d’Aix.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dabène, O., V. Geisser, and G. Massardier, ed. 2008. Autoritarismes démocratiques et démocraties autoritaires au XXIe siècle. Convergences Nord-Sud. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morlino, L. 2008. Regimi ibridi o regimi in transizione? Rivista italiana di scienza politica 38(2): 169–189.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linz, Juan. 1964. An Authoritarian Regime. The Case of Spain. In Cleavages, Ideologies, and Party Systems. Contributions to Comparative Political Sociology, ed. E. Allardt and Y. Littunen. Helsinki: The Academic Bookstore.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harvey, D. 2007. A Brief History of Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown, W. 2006. American Nightmare. Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-democratization. Political Theory 34(6): 690–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robinson, R., ed. 2006. The Neo-Liberal Revolution. Forging the Market State. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saad-Filho, A., and D. Johnston, ed. 2005. Neoliberalism. A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conway, D., and N. Heyne, ed. 2006. Globalization’s Contradictions. Geographies of Discipline, Destruction and Transformation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dessert, D. 1984. Argent, pouvoir et société au Grand Siècle. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hibou, B., and F. Bafoil. 2003. Européanisation: quelles mutations des administrations publiques et des modes de gouvernement? Une comparaison Europe du Sud, Europe de l’Est. Les Études du CERI, 102(December).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hibou, B. 2005. Greece and Portugal. In The Member States of the European Union, ed. S. Bulmer and C. Lequesne, 229–253. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiss, L. 1998. The Myth of the Powerless State. Governing the Economy in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rouban, L. 1998. Les États occidentaux d’une gouvernementalité à l’autre. Critique internationale 1: 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Faucher-King, F., and P. Le Galès. 2010. The New Labour Experiment: Change and Reform Under Blair and Brown; foreword by Jonah Levy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Béatrice Hibou
    • 1
  1. 1.CERI-SciencesPoParisFrance

Personalised recommendations