Dalam ilmu politik, sosialisme demokratis dan demokrasi sosial terkadang dianggap sebagai hal yang sama,[23] namun penggunaan kedua istilah ini dibedakan dalam karya jurnalistik.[24] Berdasarkan definisi sosialisme demokratis,[28] demokrasi sosial adalah sebuah ideologi yang berupaya membangun ekonomi sosialis secara bertahap melalui institusi demokrasi liberal.[25] Sejak periode pasca perang dunia, demokrasi sosial didefinisikan sebagai rezim kebijakan yang mendorong reformasi kapitalisme agar sejalan dengan cita-cita keadilan sosial.[29] Pada abad ke-19, demokrasi sosial mencakup berbagai aliran sosialisme non-revolusioner dan revolusioner selain anarkisme.[30] Pada awal abad ke-20, demokrasi sosial dimanifestasikan dalam dukungan terhadap proses pembangunan masyarakat melalui struktur politik yang ada dan penentangan terhadap cara-cara revolusioner, yang sering dikaitkan dengan Marxisme.[25]
Saat ini Demokrasi Sosial berarti perekonomian yang didominasi kapitalisme dengan regulasi ekonomi negara demi kepentingan umum, penyediaan layanan kesejahteraan oleh negara, dan redistribusi pendapatan dan kekayaan. Konsep sosial demokrat mempengaruhi kebijakan sebagian besar negara Barat sejak Perang Dunia II.[31] Demokrasi sosial sering dianggap sebagai jalan tengah praktis antara kapitalisme dan sosialisme. Demokrasi sosial bertujuan untuk menggunakan aksi kolektif dan demokratis untuk mendorong kebebasan dan kesetaraan dalam perekonomian dan menentang ketidaksetaraan dan penindasan yang disebabkan oleh kapitalisme laissez-faire.[32]
Seksi demokrasi sosial yang tetap berkomitmen pada penghapusan kapitalisme secara bertahap, serta demokrat sosial anti-Jalan Ketiga bergabung menjadi sosialisme demokratik.[40][41]
Kesuksesan
Kebijakan demokrasi sosial pertama kali diadopsi di Kekaisaran Jerman pada 1880-an dan 1890-an ketika KanselirOtto von Bismarck yang konservatif mengajukan banyak proposal kesejahteraan sosialDemokrat Sosial untuk menghalangi keberhasilan pemilu mereka setelah melarang mereka dengan UU Anti-Sosialis. Kebijakan ini menjadi dasar bagi negara kesejahteraan modern pertama. Kebijakan-kebijakan tersebut dijuluki sebagai Sosialisme Negara oleh oposisi liberal, tetapi kemudian istilah itu diterima oleh Bismarck.[42] Sosialisme Negara merujuk pada seragkaian program sosial yang dilaksanakan di Jerman yang diinisiasi oleh Bismarck pada 1883 sebagai langkah perbaikan untuk menenangkan kelas pekerja dan mengurangi dukungan kepada sosialisme dan Demokrat Sosial setelah melaksanakan upaya sebelumnya melalui UU Anti-Sosialis Bismarck.[43][44]
Sejumlah penelitian dan survei menujukkan bahwa orang cenderung hidup lebih bahagia di masyarakat demokrat sosial dibandingkan yang neoliberal.[68][69][70][71]
Dari sudut pandang sosialis murni, reformasi demokrat sosial dikritik karena berfungsi untuk merancang cara baru untuk memperkuat sistem kapitalisme, sehingga bertentangan dengan tujuan sosialis, yaitu menggantikan kapitalisme dengan sistem sosialis.[72] Dengan demikian, demokrasi sosial gagal untuk mengatasi masalah-masalah sistemik yang melekat dalam kapitalisme. Filsuf sosialis demokrat Amerika, David Schweickart, membandingkan demokrasi sosial dengan sosialisme demokratik dengan mendefinisikan yang pertama sebagai upaya untuk memperkuat negara kesejahteraan dan yang kedua sebagai sistem ekonomi alternatif dari kapitalisme. Menurut Schweickart, kritik sosialis demokrat terhadap demokrasi sosial adalah bahwa kapitalisme tidak akan pernah dimanusiakan secara memadai dan bahwa setiap upaya untuk menekan kontradiksi ekonominya hanya akan menyebabkan mereka muncul di tempat lain. Misalnya, upaya untuk mengurangi pengangguran yang terlalu kuat akan mengakibatkan inflasi; dan terlalu banyak keamanan pekerjaan akan mengikis disiplin kerja.[73] Berbeda dengan demokrasi sosial, sosialis demokrat menganjurkan sistem ekonomi pascakapitalisme yang berdasarkan pada sosialisme pasar yang dikombinasikan dengan manajemen mandiri pekerja, atau pada beberapa bentuk ekonomi partisipatoristerencana yang terdesentralisasi.[74]
Sosialis Marxis berpendapat bahwa kebijakan kesejahteraan demokrat sosial tidak dapat menyelesaikan permasalahan struktural fundamental dari kapitalisme seperti fluktuasi siklus, eksploitasi dan alienasi. Karenanya, program demokrat sosial yang dimaksudkan untuk memperbaiki kondisi kehidupan dalam kapitalisme—seperti tunjangan pengangguran dan pajak atas laba—menciptakan kontradiksi lebih lanjut dengan membatasi efisiensi sistem kapitalis dengan mengurangi insentif bagi kapitalis untuk berinvestasi lebih lanjut dalam produksi.[75] Negara kesejahteraan hanya berfungsi untuk melegitimasi dan memperpanjang sistem kapitalisme yang eksploitatif dan kontradiktif sehingga merugikan masyarakat. Kritik kontemporer demokrasi sosial seperti Jonas Hinnfors berpendapat bahwa ketika demokrasi sosial meninggalkan Marxisme, maka ia juga meninggalkan sosialisme dan telah menjadi gerakan kapitalis, secara efektif membuat demokrat sosial mirip dengan partai non-sosialis seperti Partai Demokrat di Amerika Serikat.[76]
Sosialisme pasar juga mengkritik negara kesejahteraan demokrat sosial. Sementara tujuan keduanya adalah untuk mencapai kesetaraan sosial dan ekonomi, sosialisme pasar melakukannya dengan perubahan dalam kepemilikan dan manajemen perusahaan, sedangkan demokrasi sosial berusaha melakukannya dengan subsidi dan pajak terhadap perusahaan milik pribadi untuk membiayai program kesejahteraan. Franklin D. Roosevelt dan David Belkin mengkritik demokrasi sosial karena mempertahankan kelas kapitalis pemilik properti yang memiliki minat aktif untuk membalikkan kebijakan kesejahteraan demokrasi sosial, dan jumlah kekuatan yang tidak proporsional sebagai kelas untuk mempengaruhi kebijakan pemerintah.[77] Ekonom John Roemer dan Pranab Bardhan menunjukkan bahwa demokrasi sosial membutuhkan gerakan buruh yang kuat untuk mempertahankan redistribusi besarnya melalui pajak, dan bahwa idealistis untuk berpikir redistribusi semacam itu dapat dicapai di negara-negara lain dengan gerakan buruh yang lemah, serta penekanan bahwa di negara-negara Skandinavia, demokrasi sosial menurun sejalan dengan melemahnya gerakan buruh.[78]
Joseph Stalin adalah seorang kritikus yang vokal terhadap demokrasi sosial, yang kemudian menciptakan istilah fasisme sosial untuk menjelaskan demokrasi sosial pada 1930-an karena pada periode ini demokrasi sosial menganut model ekonomi korporatis yang serupa dengan model yang didukung oleh fasisme. Pandangan ini dianut oleh Komunis Internasional. Dikatakan bahwa masyarakat kapitalis telah memasuki Periode Ketiga ketika revolusi kelas pekerja sudah dekat, tetapi dapat dicegah oleh demokrat sosial dan kekuatan fasis lainnya.[79]
Beberapa kritikus mengklaim bahwa demokrasi sosial meninggalkan sosialisme pada 1930-an dengan mendukung kapitalisme kesejahteraan Keynesian.[80] Teoretikus politik sosialis demokrat, Michael Harrington, berpendapat bahwa demokrasi sosial secara historis mendukung Keynesianisme sebagai bagian dari "kompromi demokrasi sosial" antara kapitalisme dan sosialisme. Kompromi ini menciptakan negara kesejahteraan dan Harrington berpendapat bahwa meskipun kompromi ini tidak memungkinkan terciptanya sosialisme secara cepat, kompromi ini "mengakui prinsip nonkapitalis-dan bahkan antikapitalis-kebutuhan manusia melebihi dan di atas keharusan profit".[81] Baru-baru ini, demokrat sosial yang mendukung Jalan Ketiga dituduh telah mendukung kapitalisme, termasuk oleh demokrat sosial anti-Jalan Ketiga yang menuduh pendukung Jalan Ketiga seperti Anthony Giddens sebagai orang yang dalam praktiknya antidemokrasi sosial dan antisosialis.[82]
^Lane, David (2023). "The Decay of Social Democracy". Global Neoliberal Capitalism and the Alternatives: From Social Democracy to State Capitalisms. Bristol: Bristol University Press. hlm. 96–114. ISBN978-1-5292-2093-3.
^Tsakalotos 2001: "...most left-wing approaches (social democratic, democratic socialist, and so on) to how the market economy works."); Brandal, Bratberg & Thorsen 2013: "In Scandinavia, as in the rest of the world, 'social democracy' and 'democratic socialism' have often been used interchangeably to define the part of the left pursuing gradual reform through democratic means."
^"Social democracy therefore came to stand for a broad balance between the market economy, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other. Although this stance has been most clearly associated with reformist socialism, it has also been embraced, to a greater or lesser extent, by others, notably modern liberals and paternalist conservatives."[20]
^"Social democracy is a political ideology focusing on an evolutionary road to socialism or the humanization of capitalism. It includes parliamentary process of reform, the provision of state benefits to the population, agreements between labor and the state, and the revisionist movement away from revolutionary socialism."[25] "By the early twentieth century, ... many such [social democratic] parties had come to adopt parliamentary tactics and were committed to a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism. As a result, social democracy was increasingly taken to refer to democratic socialism, in contrast to revolutionary socialism."[20]
"Social democracy refers to a political theory, a social movement or a society that aims to achieve the egalitarian objectives of socialism while remaining committed to the values and institutions of liberal democracy."[26] "In general, a label for any person or group who advocates the pursuit of socialism by democratic means. Used especially by parliamentary social democrats who put parliamentarism ahead of socialism, and therefore oppose revolutionary action against democratically elected governments. Less ambiguous than social democracy, which has had, historically, the opposite meanings of (1) factions of Marxism, and (2) groupings on the right of socialist parties."[27]
^Miller 1998, hlm. 827: "In this (first) phase, therefore, the final aim of social democracy was to replace private ownership of industry with state or social ownership, but the means were to be those of parliamentary democracy."
^Wright 1999, hlm. 86: "This was an ideology which, at bottom, was grounded not in materialism but in morals. Thus Bernstein summoned up Kant to point the way towards a politics of ethical choices."
^Heywood 2012, hlm. 128: "The theoretical basis for social democracy has been provided more by moral or religious beliefs, rather than by scientific analysis. Social democrats have not accepted the materialist and highly systematic ideas of Marx and Engels, but rather advanced an essentially moral critique of capitalism."
^Berman 2008, hlm. 12–13: "Regardless of the specific policies they advocated, one thing that joined all budding interwar social democrats was a rejection of the passivity and economic determinism of orthodox Marxism [...] so they often embraced communitarian, corporatist, and even nationalist appeals and urged their parties to make the transition from workers' to 'people's' parties."
^Busky, Donald F. (20 July 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. pp. 7–8. ISBN978-0275968861. "Democratic socialism is the wing of the socialist movement that combines a belief in a socially owned economy with that of political democracy."
^Anderson, Gary L.; Herr, Kathryn G. (2007). Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. SAGE Publications. p. 448. ISBN978-1412918121. "Some have endorsed the concept of market socialism, a post-capitalist economy that retains market competition but socialises the means of production, and in some versions, extends democracy to the workplace. Some holdout for a non-market, participatory economy. All democratic socialists agree on the need for a democratic alternative to capitalism."
^Paul R. Gregory; Robert C. Stuart (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century. p. 207. "Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced social welfare legislation in Germany between 1883 and 1888, despite violent political opposition, as a direct attempt to stave off Marx's (prediction of a) socialist revolution". ISBN0-618-26181-8.
^Tarnoff, Ben (12 July 2017). "How social media saved socialism". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 May 2019. "Socialism is stubborn. After decades of dormancy verging on death, it is rising again in the westIn the UK, Jeremy Corbyn just led the Labour party to its largest increase in vote share since 1945 on the strength of its most radical manifesto in decades. In France, the leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon recently came within two percentage points of breaking into the second round of the presidential election. And in the US, the country's most famous socialist – Bernie Sanders – is now its most popular politician. [...] For the resurgent left, an essential spark is social media. In fact, it's one of the most crucial and least understood catalysts of contemporary socialism. Since the networked uprisings of 2011 – the year of the Arab spring, Occupy Wall Street and the Spanish indignados – we've seen how social media can rapidly bring masses of people into the streets. But social media isn't just a tool for mobilizing people. It's also a tool for politicizing them."
^Huges, Laura (24 February 2016). "Tony Blair admits he can't understand the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 14 May 2019. "In a joint Guardian and Financial Times interview, Mr Blair said he believed some of Mr Sanders' and Mr Corbyn's success was due to the "loss of faith in that strong, centrist progressive position", which defined his own career. He said: "One of the strangest things about politics at the moment – and I really mean it when I say I'm not sure I fully understand politics right now, which is an odd thing to say, having spent my life in it – is when you put the question of electability as a factor in your decision to nominate a leader, it's how small the numbers are that this is the decisive factor. That sounds curious to me."
^Schweickart 2007: "Social democrats supported and tried to strengthen the basic institutions of the welfare state—pensions for all, public health care, public education, unemployment insurance. They supported and tried to strengthen the labor movement. The latter, as socialists, argued that capitalism could never be sufficiently humanized and that trying to suppress the economic contradictions in one area would only see them emerge in a different guise elsewhere (e.g., if you push unemployment too low, you'll get inflation; if job security is too strong, labor discipline breaks down.)"
^Schweickart 2007: "Virtually all [democratic] socialists have distanced themselves from the economic model long synonymous with socialism (i.e., the Soviet model of a nonmarket, centrally planned economy). [...] Some have endorsed the concept of market socialism, a postcapitalist economy that retains market competition but socializes the means of production and, in some versions, extends democracy to the workplace. Some hold out for a nonmarket, participatory economy. All democratic socialists agree on the need for a democratic alternative to capitalism."
^Ticktin 1998, hlm. 60–61: "The Marxist answers that [...] it involves limiting the incentive system of the market through providing minimum wages, high levels of unemployment insurance, reducing the size of the reserve army of labour, taxing profits, and taxing the wealthy. As a result, capitalists will have little incentive to invest and the workers will have little incentive to work. Capitalism works because, as Marx remarked, it is a system of economic force (coercion)."
^Weisskopf 1994, hlm. 314–315: "Social democracy achieves greater egalitarianism via ex post government taxes and subsidies, where market socialism does so via ex ante changes in patterns of enterprise ownership [...] the maintenance of property-owning capitalists under social democracy assures the presence of a disproportionately powerful class with a continuing interest in challenging social democratic government policies."
^Bardhan & Roemer 1992, hlm. 104: "Since it [social democracy] permits a powerful capitalist class to exist (90 percent of productive assets are privately owned in Sweden), only a strong and unified labor movement can win the redistribution through taxes that is characteristic of social democracy. It is idealistic to believe that tax concessions of this magnitude can be effected simply through electoral democracy without an organized labor movement, when capitalists organize and finance influential political parties. Even in the Scandinavian countries, strong apex labor organizations have been difficult to sustain and social democracy is somewhat on the decline now."
^Haro, Lea (2011). "Entering a Theoretical Void: The Theory of Social Fascism and Stalinism in the German Communist Party". Critique. 39 (4): 563–582. doi:10.1080/03017605.2011.621248.
^Bergman on Bergman: Interviews with Ingmar Bergman. By Stig Björkman, Torsten Manns, and Jonas Sima; translated by Paul Britten Austin. Simon & Schuster. p. 176–178. Swedish edition copyright 1970; English translation 1973. ISBN0306805200.
Adams, Ian (1993). Political Ideology Today. Politics Today. Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-7190-3346-9.
⸻ (2001). Political Ideology Today. Politics Today (edisi ke-2nd). Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-7190-6019-9.
Agrawal, S. P.; Aggarwal, J. C., ed. (1989). Nehru on Social Issues. New Delhi: Concept Publishing. ISBN978-817022207-1.
Alpert, Michael. A New International History of the Spanish Civil War.
Aspalter, Christian (2001). Importance of Christian and Social Democratic Movements in Welfare Politics: With Special Reference to Germany, Austria and Sweden. Huntington, New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN978-1-56072-975-4.
Badie, Bertrand; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Morlino, Leonardo, ed. (2011). "Social Democracy". International Encyclopedia of Political Science. 8. Sage Publications. ISBN978-1-4129-5963-6.
Barrientos, Armando; Powell, Martin (2004). "The Route Map of the Third Way". Dalam Hale, Sarah; Leggett, Will; Martell, Luke. The Third Way and Beyond: Criticisms, Futures and Alternatives. Manchester University Press. hlm. 9–26. ISBN978-0-7190-6598-9.
Bernstein, Eduard (2004) [1993]. Tudor, Henry, ed. The Preconditions of Socialism. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Diterjemahkan oleh Tudor, Henry. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-39121-4.
Blaazer, David (2002) [1992]. The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition: Socialists, Liberals, and the Quest for Unity, 1884–1939. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-41383-1.
Bogdanor, Vernon (1985). "The Social Democratic Party and the Alliance". Dalam Burch, Martin; Jaenicke, Douglas; Gardner, John. Three Political Systems: A Reader in British, Soviet and American Politics. Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-7190-1085-9.
Bookchin, Murray (1998). The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era. 2. London: Cassell.
Britain, Ian (2005) [1982]. Fabianism and Culture: A Study in British Socialism and the Arts, c. 1884–1918. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-02129-6.
Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. ISBN978-0-275-96886-1.
Cammack, Paul (2004). "Giddens's Way with Words". Dalam Hale, Sarah; Leggett, Will; Martell, Luke. The Third Way and Beyond: Criticisms, Futures and Alternatives. Manchester University Press. hlm. 151–166. ISBN978-0-7190-6598-9.
Clapson, Mark (2009). The Routledge Companion to Britain in the Twentieth Century. Routledge Companions to History. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-27535-4.
Clarke, Peter (1981). Liberals and Social Democrats. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-28651-0.
Diamond, Patrick (2012). "From Fatalism to Fraternity: Governing Purpose and Good Society". Dalam Cramme, Olaf; Diamond, Patrick. After the Third Way: The Future of Social Democracy in Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. hlm. 1–27. ISBN978-1-84885-992-0.
Fitzpatrick, Tony (2003). After the New Social Democracy: Social Welfare for the Twenty-First Century. Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-7190-6477-7.
Gamble, Andrew (2012). "Debt and Deficits: The Quest for Economic Competence". Dalam Cramme, Olaf; Diamond, Patrick. After the Third Way: The Future of Social Democracy in Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. hlm. 45–59. ISBN978-1-84885-992-0.
Giddens, Anthony (1998) [1994]. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
⸻ (2003). "Neoprogressivism: A New Agenda for Social Democracy". Dalam Giddens, Anthony. The Progressive Manifesto: New Ideas for the Centre-Left. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. hlm. 1–34. ISBN978-0-7456-3295-7.
Gombert, Tobias; Bläsius, Julia; Krell, Christian; Timpe, Martin, ed. (2009). Foundations of Social Democracy(PDF). Social Democratic Reader. 1. Diterjemahkan oleh Patterson, James. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. ISBN978-3-86872-215-4. Diakses tanggal 31 January 2016.
Hart, John M. (1986). "Agrarian Reform". Dalam Raat, W. Dirk; Beezley, William H. Twentieth-Century Mexico. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. hlm. 6–16. ISBN978-0-8032-8914-7.
Hoefer, Richard (2013). "Social Welfare Policy and Politics". Dalam Colby, Ira C.; Dolmus, Catherine N.; Sowers, Karen M. Connecting Social Welfare Policy to Fields of Practice. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN978-1-118-17700-6.
Hudson, Kate (2012). The New European Left: A Socialism for the Twenty-First Century?. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-0-230-24876-2.
Marx, Karl (1972). Padover, Saul K., ed. The Karl Marx Library. Volume I: On Revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Matthijs, Matthias (2011). Ideas and Economic Crises in Britain from Attlee to Blair (1945–2005). Routledge Explorations in Economic History. 49. Abingdon, England: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-57944-5.
McBriar, A. M. (1962). Fabian Socialism and English Politics: 1884–1918. Cambridge University Press.
Merkel, Wolfgang; Petring, Alexander; Henkes, Christian; Egle, Christoph (2008). Social Democracy in Power: The Capacity to Reform. Routledge Research in Comparative Politics. London: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-43820-9.
Morgan, Austen (1987). J. Ramsay MacDonald. Lives of the Left. Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-7190-2168-8.
Morgan, Kevin (2006). MacDonald. 20 British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century. London: Haus Publishing. ISBN978-1-904950-61-5.
Naarden, Bruno (2002) [1992]. Socialist Europe and Revolutionary Russia: Perception and Prejudice, 1848–1923. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-89283-4.
Rodríguez García, Magaly (2010). Liberal Workers of the World, Unite?: The ICFTU and the Defence of Labour Liberalism in Europe and Latin America (1949–1969). Trade Unions Past, Present, and Future. 5. Bern: Peter Lang. ISBN978-3-0343-0112-1.
Romano, Flavio (2006). Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy. 75. London: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-37858-1.
Schorske, Carl E. (1993) [1955]. German Social Democracy, 1905–1917: The Development of the Great Schism. Harvard Historical Studies. 65. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-35125-7.
Schweickart, David (2007). "Democratic Socialism". Dalam Anderson, Gary L.; Herr, Kathryn G. Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. 1. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. ISBN978-1-4129-1812-1.
Slomp, Hans (2011). Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics. 1. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN978-0-313-39182-8.
⸻ (1999). "Friedrich Engels and the Origins of German Revisionism: Another Look". Dalam Steger, Manfred B.; Carver, Terrell. Engels After Marx. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University. hlm. 181–196. ISBN978-0-271-01891-1.
Ward, Paul (1998). Red Flag and Union Jack: Englishness, Patriotism and the British Left, 1881–1924. Studies in History. Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press. ISBN978-0-86193-239-9. ISSN0269-2244.
Weisskopf, Thomas E. (1992). "Toward the Socialism of the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past". Review of Radical Political Economics. 24 (3–4): 1–28. doi:10.1177/048661349202400302. hdl:2027.42/68447. ISSN0486-6134.
⸻ (1994). "Challenges to Market Socialism: A Response to Critics". Dalam Roosevelt, Frank; Belkin, David. Why Market Socialism? Voices from Dissent. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe. hlm. 297–318. ISBN978-1-56324-465-0.
Wolinetz, Steven (2008). "Trimming Sails: The Dutch and the EU Constitution after the Referendum". Dalam Laursen, Finn. The Rise and Fall of the EU's Constitutional Treaty. Constitutional Law Library. 5. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN978-900416806-0.
Wright, Anthony (1999). "Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism". Dalam Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony. Contemporary Political Ideologies (edisi ke-2nd). London: Continuum. hlm. 80–103. ISBN978-1-85567-605-3.
Whyman, Philip (2005). Third Way Economics: Theory and Evaluation. Springer. ISBN978-0-2305-1465-2.
Bacaan lebih lanjut
Brandal, Nik; Bratberg, Øivind; Thorsen, Dag Einar (2013). The Nordic Model of Social Democracy. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN978-1-137-01326-2.
Cronin, James E.; Ross, George W.; Shoch, James, ed. (2011). What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. ISBN978-0-8223-5079-8.