growth models are supported by and serve to sustain different dominant social blocs. Social blocs are characterized by hierarchy (or structural dependence) among their constituent components (i.e., the class segments or producer groups that are part of the bloc) and by a common set of beliefs about how the economy works (economic imperatives).
We distinguish between the core and periphery of a social bloc. In Germany, for example, the core of the social bloc includes skilled workers in export-oriented manufacturing, but this segment occupies a subordinate position. With reference to the four illustrative cases in Baccaro and Pontusson (2016), we argue that in all of these cases the dominant social bloc has been whittled down in the wake of the crises of 2007-08 and under the continued pressure of austerity. The core remains the same, but many groups that used to be integrated into the dominant social bloc have been marginalized. We believe that this interpretation sheds significant light on the rise of populism.
Partly drawing on the literature on party cartelization (Blyth and Katz 2005), we propose to recast the role of political parties. From our perspective, parties essentially compete with each other based on their competence to manage the dominant social bloc. The successful management of the dominant social bloc necessarily involves balancing the interests of the dominant sector or sectors of the economy and the need to legitimize the growth model. Under some circumstances, redistribution of income may be necessary to legitimize the growth model.
