What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Social Question
The welfare state has come under severe pressure internationally, partly for the well-known reasons of slowing economic growth and declining confidence in the public sector. According to the influential social theorist Pierre Rosanvallon, however, there is also a deeper and less familiar reason for the crisis of the welfare state. He shows here that a fundamental practical and philosophical justification for traditional welfare policies--that all citizens share equal risks--has been undermined by social and intellectual change. If we wish to achieve the goals of social solidarity and civic equality for which the welfare state was founded, Rosanvallon argues, we must radically rethink social programs.
Rosanvallon begins by tracing the history of the welfare state and its founding premise that risks, especially the risks of illness and unemployment, are equally distributed and unpredictable. He shows that this idea has become untenable because of economic diversification and advances in statistical and risk analysis. It is truer than ever before--and far more susceptible to analysis--that some individuals will face much greater risks than others because of their jobs and lifestyle choices. Rosanvallon argues that social policies must be more narrowly targeted. And he draws on evidence from around the world, in particular France and the United States, to show that such programs as unemployment insurance and workfare could better reflect individual needs by, for example, making more explicit use of contracts between the providers and receivers of benefits. His arguments have broad implications for welfare programs everywhere and for our understanding of citizenship in modern democracies and economies.
"For more than two decades Pierre Rosanvallon has been analyzing the development and the crisis of the 'welfare state, ' combining precise, specific knowledge with philosophical and historical depth in a way that is rare among social policy analysts.... [A] subtle and informed book."--From the foreword by Nathan Glazer
Rosanvallon begins by tracing the history of the welfare state and its founding premise that risks, especially the risks of illness and unemployment, are equally distributed and unpredictable. He shows that this idea has become untenable because of economic diversification and advances in statistical and risk analysis. It is truer than ever before--and far more susceptible to analysis--that some individuals will face much greater risks than others because of their jobs and lifestyle choices. Rosanvallon argues that social policies must be more narrowly targeted. And he draws on evidence from around the world, in particular France and the United States, to show that such programs as unemployment insurance and workfare could better reflect individual needs by, for example, making more explicit use of contracts between the providers and receivers of benefits. His arguments have broad implications for welfare programs everywhere and for our understanding of citizenship in modern democracies and economies.
"For more than two decades Pierre Rosanvallon has been analyzing the development and the crisis of the 'welfare state, ' combining precise, specific knowledge with philosophical and historical depth in a way that is rare among social policy analysts.... [A] subtle and informed book."--From the foreword by Nathan Glazer
176 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1997
About the author
Pierre Rosanvallon
60 books50 followersPierre Rosanvallon (b. 1948, Blois) is a French intellectual and historian, named professor at the Collège de France in 2001. He holds there the chair in the modern and contemporary history of the political. His works are dedicated to the history of democracy, French political history, the role of the state and the question of social justice in contemporary societies. He is also director of studies at the EHESS, where he leads the Raymond Aron Centre of Political Researches. Rosanvallon was in the 1970s one of the primary theoreticians of workers' self-management in the CFDT trade union.
He is diplomed from the HEC management school. In 1982, he created the Fondation Saint-Simon think-tank, along with François Furet. The Fondation dissolved in December 1999. Since 2002, Rosanvallon is member of the Scientific Counsel of the French National Library, and has the same functions, since 2004, at the École Normale Supérieure of Paris.
Rosanvallon created in 2002 La République des Idées, an "intellectual workshop" which he presides. The group publishes a review and books.
He is diplomed from the HEC management school. In 1982, he created the Fondation Saint-Simon think-tank, along with François Furet. The Fondation dissolved in December 1999. Since 2002, Rosanvallon is member of the Scientific Counsel of the French National Library, and has the same functions, since 2004, at the École Normale Supérieure of Paris.
Rosanvallon created in 2002 La République des Idées, an "intellectual workshop" which he presides. The group publishes a review and books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 21, 2025
This book was first published a quarter of century ago and deals with a topic which, meanwhile, has been the subject of intense debate all over the world. Entire libraries have been written about the decline of the traditional Welfare State in Europe and elsewhere. Nearly as many volumes have been published about how to revive the Welfare State and put it on a more sustainable footing.
Nevertheless, although some of the arguments discussed in the book will be very familiar to the reader interested in this debate, "La nouvelle question sociale" remains an interesting essay, even in today's context.
There are two main reasons for this. The first one has to do with the diagnosis put forward in the book, whereas the second one is linked to the impressive historical knowledge of the author.
First, the diagnosis.
Rosanvallon's account of the factors explaining the decline of the traditional Welfare State differs somewhat from what you may have picked up elsewhere. In the literature on this topic, a lot of emphasis is usually put on the issue of financial sustainability. Many authors from all across the political spectrum have pointed to the fact that the combination of demographic evolutions and the mass unemployment of the 1970s have undermined the ability of the traditional Welfare State to support itself as social levies on the wages of fewer and fewer workers cannot cover increasing expenditure on healthcare benefits, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions etc. Rosanvallon recalls this problem and also considers it important. He does not dwell very long on it, however, as he suggests that another factor is equally or maybe even more important to explain the growing unease with the traditional notion of a Welfare State since the 1980s.
This other factor is referred to in the book as the "ripping of the veil of ignorance." According to Rosanvallon, the traditional Welfare State was, at least implicitly, based on the notion that social risks were distributed more or less evenly throughout stable subgroups of society and that they were of a random nature. Since nearly everyone within a given social group was thought to be more or less equally exposed to health risks, the risk of unemployment, etc. it made sense to set up social insurance systems within each of these groups. Members paid a given contribution to these insurance systems, not so much out of solidarity with others but because they understood that they themselves had a more or less equal chance of falling victim to the insured risks as the other group members they identified with.
By Rosanvallon's account this traditional notion of "social risk" has fallen prey to advances in genetics, medical science and sociology as well as to increased social mobility. We now know a lot more about the health risks and life expectancies of individual members of society based on their individual medical profile and their personal behaviour. We have also become much more aware of the fact that hardship breeds hardship and that unemployment usually does not come as an accident of a temporary nature but, instead, is likely to touch some individuals more than others and has a tendency to endure. As a result, the old notion of "social risk" has lost its unifying appeal to become more individualised, undermining the "group insurance"-logic of the traditional Welfare State.
This root cause of the decline of the old social insurance model, has far-reaching consequences. As Rosanvallon points out throughout the book, social justice becomes a far more complex matter in a more mobile and heterogeneous society where genetics, age, educational background, personal life choices are known to determine an individual's faith. Paradoxically, Rawls Theory of Social Justice, based on the theoretical fiction of a still intact "veil of ignorance", was formulated just at the time when the veil appeared to be ripped and full of holes. A new concept of social justice is therefore required to put the Welfare State on a more sound footing.
Rosanvallon does not pretend to fully fledge out this new concept of social justice within the limits of what is, after all, a relatively short essay. Nevertheless, he does provide a number of interesting avenues for further reflection that can still provide food for thought in today's context.
I myself was struck, for example, by the categorical way in which the author dismisses the idea that one should separate the problem of economic efficiency from that of social justice. According to Rosanvallon, it has been a mistake of the traditional left to think that social justice is only about ex-post redistribution (through taxes and benefits) of the wealth acquired in the market. In his view, market exchanges are always already embedded in an implicit social contract and therefore more or less redistributive.
To illustrate the point, the author refers to the various types of solidarity inherent in the applicable pay scales in the 1960s and 1970s. During that period, Rosanvallon explains, the difference between low and high wages in a given firm or sector was far less pronounced than it has become since, as highly productively workers seemed more willing to cross-subsidise lower productive ones (an attitude well captured by the concept of "solidarity wages" in Scandinavian Welfare States). Similarly, young people accepted to be remunerated less well at the beginning of the career, knowing that their wages would rise with seniority. This implicit social contract has started to unravel as of the 1980s when pay scales widened. According to Rosanvallon, one can conclude therefore that: "During the 1960s, the economies in the West internalised part of the overall social cost at the level of the firm while the tendency since has been to externalise this cost in a differentiated way (une externalisation différenciatrice)". It is this evolution from a market in which firms accept the need to integrate less productive workers as the cost of doing business to a market which exclusively focus on efficiency that Rosanvallon describes as a "radicalisation of modernity". In his view, it has led to the vision of the Welfare State as a kind of compensating machine whose only solution to social exclusion seems to be to offer financial benefits to the excluded. It is this type of Welfare State which, in the age of mass unemployment and population ageing, runs into grave problems both of financial sustainability and of bureaucratic manageability.
Rosanvallon clearly does not expect salvation from any conception of the State which neatly distinguishes between the economic and the social sphere. For that same reason, he argues against the introduction of a universal basic income. In his view, the introduction of such a universal and unconditional financial benefit would paradoxically create the conditions of possibility of an even more untamed liberalism ("libéralisme sauvage") in which market players can claim that poverty and social exclusion are not their concern. In his own words, a universal basic income "would act as a kind of macro social contract legitimising the totally asocial functioning ("fonctionnement ascocial") of the market at the micro-economic level, thereby separating the search for efficiency from the concern for solidarity."
What then is to be done? Rosanvallon's proposed solution is to turn the passive Welfare State into an active one. Instead of compensating the excluded for their exclusion from the market by giving them some kind of financial benefit, public funding should be used to pay workers, to train them, to empower them and to ensure that every citizen enjoys the right to make himself or herself useful to society.
If this sounds like a rather familiar plea, that is because it has indeed become very common nowadays to argue for so-called "active labour market policies". However and even though he will not score many points for originality with respect to the proposed solution in the eyes of the contemporary reader, I found the way in which Rosanvallon argues his case to be refreshing. That is because, unlike the contemporary mainstream, his plea for activating the excluded is not so much grounded in concerns about the financial sustainability of social security. Instead he adopts a social rights discourse, emphasising that every citizen enjoys "not just the right to live but the right to live in society", i.e. to contribute to the general welfare through paid labour.
The second reason why "La nouvelle question sociale" remains an interesting read in my view is most obvious in precisely those parts of the book which discuss this idea of the "right to live in society". As the extremely well-read social history scholar that he is, Rosanvallon obviously could not resist the temptation of a short detour through the past. Strictly speaking, his reconstruction of the history of the "right to work"-debate since the French Revolution does not add many substantive arguments supporting his case. I nevertheless enjoyed reading this part of the book as it clearly demonstrates that the current debate about what the Welfare State should look like has a long history. Or maybe I enjoyed it simply because I am a social history buff myself (albeit much less well-read than the author of "La nouvelle question sociale").
Nevertheless, although some of the arguments discussed in the book will be very familiar to the reader interested in this debate, "La nouvelle question sociale" remains an interesting essay, even in today's context.
There are two main reasons for this. The first one has to do with the diagnosis put forward in the book, whereas the second one is linked to the impressive historical knowledge of the author.
First, the diagnosis.
Rosanvallon's account of the factors explaining the decline of the traditional Welfare State differs somewhat from what you may have picked up elsewhere. In the literature on this topic, a lot of emphasis is usually put on the issue of financial sustainability. Many authors from all across the political spectrum have pointed to the fact that the combination of demographic evolutions and the mass unemployment of the 1970s have undermined the ability of the traditional Welfare State to support itself as social levies on the wages of fewer and fewer workers cannot cover increasing expenditure on healthcare benefits, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions etc. Rosanvallon recalls this problem and also considers it important. He does not dwell very long on it, however, as he suggests that another factor is equally or maybe even more important to explain the growing unease with the traditional notion of a Welfare State since the 1980s.
This other factor is referred to in the book as the "ripping of the veil of ignorance." According to Rosanvallon, the traditional Welfare State was, at least implicitly, based on the notion that social risks were distributed more or less evenly throughout stable subgroups of society and that they were of a random nature. Since nearly everyone within a given social group was thought to be more or less equally exposed to health risks, the risk of unemployment, etc. it made sense to set up social insurance systems within each of these groups. Members paid a given contribution to these insurance systems, not so much out of solidarity with others but because they understood that they themselves had a more or less equal chance of falling victim to the insured risks as the other group members they identified with.
By Rosanvallon's account this traditional notion of "social risk" has fallen prey to advances in genetics, medical science and sociology as well as to increased social mobility. We now know a lot more about the health risks and life expectancies of individual members of society based on their individual medical profile and their personal behaviour. We have also become much more aware of the fact that hardship breeds hardship and that unemployment usually does not come as an accident of a temporary nature but, instead, is likely to touch some individuals more than others and has a tendency to endure. As a result, the old notion of "social risk" has lost its unifying appeal to become more individualised, undermining the "group insurance"-logic of the traditional Welfare State.
This root cause of the decline of the old social insurance model, has far-reaching consequences. As Rosanvallon points out throughout the book, social justice becomes a far more complex matter in a more mobile and heterogeneous society where genetics, age, educational background, personal life choices are known to determine an individual's faith. Paradoxically, Rawls Theory of Social Justice, based on the theoretical fiction of a still intact "veil of ignorance", was formulated just at the time when the veil appeared to be ripped and full of holes. A new concept of social justice is therefore required to put the Welfare State on a more sound footing.
Rosanvallon does not pretend to fully fledge out this new concept of social justice within the limits of what is, after all, a relatively short essay. Nevertheless, he does provide a number of interesting avenues for further reflection that can still provide food for thought in today's context.
I myself was struck, for example, by the categorical way in which the author dismisses the idea that one should separate the problem of economic efficiency from that of social justice. According to Rosanvallon, it has been a mistake of the traditional left to think that social justice is only about ex-post redistribution (through taxes and benefits) of the wealth acquired in the market. In his view, market exchanges are always already embedded in an implicit social contract and therefore more or less redistributive.
To illustrate the point, the author refers to the various types of solidarity inherent in the applicable pay scales in the 1960s and 1970s. During that period, Rosanvallon explains, the difference between low and high wages in a given firm or sector was far less pronounced than it has become since, as highly productively workers seemed more willing to cross-subsidise lower productive ones (an attitude well captured by the concept of "solidarity wages" in Scandinavian Welfare States). Similarly, young people accepted to be remunerated less well at the beginning of the career, knowing that their wages would rise with seniority. This implicit social contract has started to unravel as of the 1980s when pay scales widened. According to Rosanvallon, one can conclude therefore that: "During the 1960s, the economies in the West internalised part of the overall social cost at the level of the firm while the tendency since has been to externalise this cost in a differentiated way (une externalisation différenciatrice)". It is this evolution from a market in which firms accept the need to integrate less productive workers as the cost of doing business to a market which exclusively focus on efficiency that Rosanvallon describes as a "radicalisation of modernity". In his view, it has led to the vision of the Welfare State as a kind of compensating machine whose only solution to social exclusion seems to be to offer financial benefits to the excluded. It is this type of Welfare State which, in the age of mass unemployment and population ageing, runs into grave problems both of financial sustainability and of bureaucratic manageability.
Rosanvallon clearly does not expect salvation from any conception of the State which neatly distinguishes between the economic and the social sphere. For that same reason, he argues against the introduction of a universal basic income. In his view, the introduction of such a universal and unconditional financial benefit would paradoxically create the conditions of possibility of an even more untamed liberalism ("libéralisme sauvage") in which market players can claim that poverty and social exclusion are not their concern. In his own words, a universal basic income "would act as a kind of macro social contract legitimising the totally asocial functioning ("fonctionnement ascocial") of the market at the micro-economic level, thereby separating the search for efficiency from the concern for solidarity."
What then is to be done? Rosanvallon's proposed solution is to turn the passive Welfare State into an active one. Instead of compensating the excluded for their exclusion from the market by giving them some kind of financial benefit, public funding should be used to pay workers, to train them, to empower them and to ensure that every citizen enjoys the right to make himself or herself useful to society.
If this sounds like a rather familiar plea, that is because it has indeed become very common nowadays to argue for so-called "active labour market policies". However and even though he will not score many points for originality with respect to the proposed solution in the eyes of the contemporary reader, I found the way in which Rosanvallon argues his case to be refreshing. That is because, unlike the contemporary mainstream, his plea for activating the excluded is not so much grounded in concerns about the financial sustainability of social security. Instead he adopts a social rights discourse, emphasising that every citizen enjoys "not just the right to live but the right to live in society", i.e. to contribute to the general welfare through paid labour.
The second reason why "La nouvelle question sociale" remains an interesting read in my view is most obvious in precisely those parts of the book which discuss this idea of the "right to live in society". As the extremely well-read social history scholar that he is, Rosanvallon obviously could not resist the temptation of a short detour through the past. Strictly speaking, his reconstruction of the history of the "right to work"-debate since the French Revolution does not add many substantive arguments supporting his case. I nevertheless enjoyed reading this part of the book as it clearly demonstrates that the current debate about what the Welfare State should look like has a long history. Or maybe I enjoyed it simply because I am a social history buff myself (albeit much less well-read than the author of "La nouvelle question sociale").
June 29, 2025
ข้อเสนอของเล่มนี้คือตัวอย่างของความพยายามที่จะทำให้รัฐสวัสดิการกลายเป็นเสรีนิยม หรือ liberalization of the welfare state ประเด็นสำคัญของหนังสือเริ่มจากการชี้ให้เห็นถึงความล้าสมัยของตัวแบบรัฐสวัสดิการ ที่ไม่สอดคล้องไปกับทิศทางของสังคมการเมืองร่วมสมัย กล่าวคือในขณะที่ตัวแบบดั้งเดิมของรัฐสวัสดิการนั้นตั้งอยู่บนฐานคิดเรื่องการประกันความเสี่ยงภายใต้เงื่อนไขของความไม่รู้ที่พลเมืองทุกคนต่างก็ไม่สามารถคาดการณ์ถึงอนาคตที่อาจเกิดขึ้นกับชีวิตของตน ทว่าสังคมการเมืองร่วมสมัยกลับเป็นสังคมที่ความรู้ขยายตัว ผู้คนสามารถเข้าถึงความรู้ได้อย่างไม่เคยเป็นมาก่อนจนส่งผลต่อเอกภาพที่ตั้งอยู่บนความไม่รู้ ที่คนซึ่งใฝ่หาความรู้และสามารถวางแผนชีวิตในอนาคตจะกลับมาตั้งคำถามถึงความคุ้มค่าของเงินภาษีที่ตนต้องจ่ายให้กับสวัสดิการที่สุดท้ายแล้วตนเองก็ไม่ได้ใช้หรือใช้น้อยเมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับคนซึ่งไม่ได้มุ่งหาความรู้ ไม่มีวินัย ใช้ชีวิตอยู่กับความเสี่ยงแต่กลับได้ประโยชน์จากระบบสวัสดิการอย่างเต็มที่
ในแง่นี้ วิกฤติของรัฐสวัสดิการจึงไม่ใช่เรื่องของงบประมาณหรือการเงินมากเท่ากับการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสังคมที่ผู้คนมีความเป็นปัจเจกมากขึ้นจนส่งผลต่อภราดรภาพหรือ solidarity ซึ่งก็คือความรู้สึกเป็นเพื่อน/พวกพ้องเดียวกันของคนในสังคม และดังนั้นการสร้างภราดรภาพขึ้นมาใหม่จึงสำคัญ โดยหัวใจหลักของการสร้างภราดรภาพดังกล่าวก็คือการสร้าง social obligation ด้วยการสร้างเงื่อนไขให้พลเมืองทุกคนต้องทำงานหรือทำหน้าที่ที่เป็นประโยชน์ต่อสังคมส่วนรวมเสียก่อนถึงจะมีสิทธิ์เข้าถึงบรืการหรือสวัสดิการต่างๆของรัฐได้ ควบคู่ไปกับการสร้างกองทุนที่มุ่งแก้ปัญหาความไม่เท่าเทียมของแต่ละปัจเจกอันเกิดมาจากฐานะทางชนชั้นของครอบครัว (เช่นการให้เงินทุนสำหรับคนที่มาจากครอบครัวที่ยากจน) มากกว่าการใช้ระบบสวัสดิการแบบเหวี่ยงแหซึ่งอาจไม่ตอบสนองความจำเป็นของผู้คนในสังคมร่วมสมัยอีกต่อไป พูดอีกแบบก็คือหนังสือเสนอว่ารัฐสวัสดิการร่วมสมัยต้องไม่ใช่รัฐที่เก็บภาษีจากคนรวยไปสร้างสวิสดิการสำหรับคนยากไร้ที่ถูกกีดกัน (exclude) จากการแข่งขัน แต่ต้องเป็นรัฐที่นำเงินภาษีจากคนรวยไปสร้างกลไกเพื่อเพิ่มศักยภาพในการแข่งขันให้กับผู้ที่ขาดโอกาสหรือถูกกีดกันจากการแข่งขัน จนสามารถผนวก (include) หรือดึงให้คนที่ถูกกีดกันเหล่านี้กลับเข้ามาแข่งขันและเป็นพลเมืองที่มีศักดิ์ศรีเทียบเท่ากับพลเมืองคนอื่นๆได้ หรือก็คือการเปลี่ยนให้ welfare state กลายเป็น workfare state ภายใต้ mutual obligation ระหว่างปัจเจกแต่ละคนกับสังคมส่วนรวมที่งานของฝ่ายแรกจะ contribute ประโยชน์ให้กับฝ่ายหลัง พร้อมๆไปกับการยอมรับในศักดิศรีและความสามารถที่ฝ่ายหลังต้องมีให้กับฝ่ายแรก
ตัวหนังสือในเล่มค่อนข้างเล็กและติดกัน ทำให้อ่านลำบากไปหน่อย ส่วนข้อเสนอของหนังสือจริงๆต้องบอกว่าไม่แปลก เพราะต้นฉบับภาษาฝรั่งเศสของเล่มนี้ตีพิมพ์เมื่อปี 1995 ซึ่งเป็นช่วงระเบียบโลกใหม่แบบเสรีนิยม/ทุนนิยม แต่ถ้าคิดถึงบริบทปัจจุบัน ก็ไม่ค่อยแน่ใจเหมือนกันว่าจะสอดคล้องแค่ไหน
ในแง่นี้ วิกฤติของรัฐสวัสดิการจึงไม่ใช่เรื่องของงบประมาณหรือการเงินมากเท่ากับการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสังคมที่ผู้คนมีความเป็นปัจเจกมากขึ้นจนส่งผลต่อภราดรภาพหรือ solidarity ซึ่งก็คือความรู้สึกเป็นเพื่อน/พวกพ้องเดียวกันของคนในสังคม และดังนั้นการสร้างภราดรภาพขึ้นมาใหม่จึงสำคัญ โดยหัวใจหลักของการสร้างภราดรภาพดังกล่าวก็คือการสร้าง social obligation ด้วยการสร้างเงื่อนไขให้พลเมืองทุกคนต้องทำงานหรือทำหน้าที่ที่เป็นประโยชน์ต่อสังคมส่วนรวมเสียก่อนถึงจะมีสิทธิ์เข้าถึงบรืการหรือสวัสดิการต่างๆของรัฐได้ ควบคู่ไปกับการสร้างกองทุนที่มุ่งแก้ปัญหาความไม่เท่าเทียมของแต่ละปัจเจกอันเกิดมาจากฐานะทางชนชั้นของครอบครัว (เช่นการให้เงินทุนสำหรับคนที่มาจากครอบครัวที่ยากจน) มากกว่าการใช้ระบบสวัสดิการแบบเหวี่ยงแหซึ่งอาจไม่ตอบสนองความจำเป็นของผู้คนในสังคมร่วมสมัยอีกต่อไป พูดอีกแบบก็คือหนังสือเสนอว่ารัฐสวัสดิการร่วมสมัยต้องไม่ใช่รัฐที่เก็บภาษีจากคนรวยไปสร้างสวิสดิการสำหรับคนยากไร้ที่ถูกกีดกัน (exclude) จากการแข่งขัน แต่ต้องเป็นรัฐที่นำเงินภาษีจากคนรวยไปสร้างกลไกเพื่อเพิ่มศักยภาพในการแข่งขันให้กับผู้ที่ขาดโอกาสหรือถูกกีดกันจากการแข่งขัน จนสามารถผนวก (include) หรือดึงให้คนที่ถูกกีดกันเหล่านี้กลับเข้ามาแข่งขันและเป็นพลเมืองที่มีศักดิ์ศรีเทียบเท่ากับพลเมืองคนอื่นๆได้ หรือก็คือการเปลี่ยนให้ welfare state กลายเป็น workfare state ภายใต้ mutual obligation ระหว่างปัจเจกแต่ละคนกับสังคมส่วนรวมที่งานของฝ่ายแรกจะ contribute ประโยชน์ให้กับฝ่ายหลัง พร้อมๆไปกับการยอมรับในศักดิศรีและความสามารถที่ฝ่ายหลังต้องมีให้กับฝ่ายแรก
ตัวหนังสือในเล่มค่อนข้างเล็กและติดกัน ทำให้อ่านลำบากไปหน่อย ส่วนข้อเสนอของหนังสือจริงๆต้องบอกว่าไม่แปลก เพราะต้นฉบับภาษาฝรั่งเศสของเล่มนี้ตีพิมพ์เมื่อปี 1995 ซึ่งเป็นช่วงระเบียบโลกใหม่แบบเสรีนิยม/ทุนนิยม แต่ถ้าคิดถึงบริบทปัจจุบัน ก็ไม่ค่อยแน่ใจเหมือนกันว่าจะสอดคล้องแค่ไหน
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews