APA 6th Edition Dolenec, D. (2014). Preispitivanje "egalitarnog sindroma" Josipa Županova. Politička misao, 51 (4), 41-64. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/135833
MLA 8th Edition Dolenec, Danijela. "Preispitivanje "egalitarnog sindroma" Josipa Županova." Politička misao, vol. 51, br. 4, 2014, str. 41-64. https://hrcak.srce.hr/135833. Citirano 15.10.2019.
Chicago 17th Edition Dolenec, Danijela. "Preispitivanje "egalitarnog sindroma" Josipa Županova." Politička misao 51, br. 4 (2014): 41-64. https://hrcak.srce.hr/135833
Harvard Dolenec, D. (2014). 'Preispitivanje "egalitarnog sindroma" Josipa Županova', Politička misao, 51(4), str. 41-64. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/135833 (Datum pristupa: 15.10.2019.)
Vancouver Dolenec D. Preispitivanje "egalitarnog sindroma" Josipa Županova. Politička misao [Internet]. 2014 [pristupljeno 15.10.2019.];51(4):41-64. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/135833
IEEE D. Dolenec, "Preispitivanje "egalitarnog sindroma" Josipa Županova", Politička misao, vol.51, br. 4, str. 41-64, 2014. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/135833. [Citirano: 15.10.2019.]
Sažetak Josip Županov’s thesis about the egalitarian syndrome as an obstacle to development is very influential across the social sciences in Croatia. This paper analyses the theoretical and empirical basis of Županov’s work on radical egalitarianism from the late 1960s. He developed the theory in three key publications “The producer and risk” (1967), “Economic aspirations and the social norm of egalitarianism”, which he published with Darinka Tadić (1969), and finally “Egalitarianism and industrialism” (1969), repeating it in his
later work. The analysis reveals important weaknesses in the empirical foundations and theoretical inferences of Županov’s thesis of radical egalitarianism. Secondly, contextualising his work into the late 1960s re-examines the widely held view about his work as critical of the regime, showing that his theses about the homo oeconomicus were part of a liberal reform wing that openly advocated market solutions at the time of his writing. Thirdly, his work is related to the concept of “deviant” modernization in Yugoslavia, which assumes that all societies converge to a capitalist model of development. This approach is criticised from the perspective of multiple modernities, according to which modernization is not a linear trajectory towards a hegemonic model, but an open ended process that necessarily takes shape in context-specific constellations.