Health care systems reflect historical relationships between states and citizens, as well as predominant values and institutions marking a particular social milieu. Theories that place national health care in historical social context tend to exaggerate the forces of globalization and to underestimate the role of local specificities. A health care system and its social context, however, are shaped at the intersection of global, regional, and local factors, rather than by globalization alone. In this article I demonstrate this combined influence by tracking the transition in Soviet to post-Soviet health care Azerbaijan. I show that the dissolution of Azerbaijan’s socialized health care was due not to neoliberal globalization, but rather to the historical constellation of global, regional, and national processes, including the political choice of a petroleum-based development strategy.

Achieving consensus on a definition of “democracy” has proven elusive. Institutions that have been taken to be essential to democracy have changed radically since the word “democrat” began to be widely used toward the end of the eighteenth century. Democratic ideas and democratic practice engender conflict that transforms institutions rather than just reproduces them. Its transformative character rests on a half-dozen key attributes of democracy: it is an actor’s concept, as well as an analyst’s; it can arouse strong feelings; it combines not always compatible ideas; it empowers dissent; it involves a dynamic mixture of inclusion and exclusion; and the democratic histories of national states have been intertwined with global domination. Two processes combine to generate much social dynamism. First, democracy’s stirring inclusionary claims have been contradicted by a complex structure of exclusions, including distinctions in rights of full participation among citizens, distinctions in rights between citizens and non-citizens, and distinctions in resources among legally equal citizens. And second, democratic practice has been fertile soil for the development of social movements. Taken together, democracy is an invitation for movements to try to shift the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, and in so doing to expand or constrict democracy itself.

The article reviews the “Varieties of Capitalism” (VoC) approach and its large impact on the field of comparative political economy. It situates the approach within the field, and stresses its specificities. The article argues that VoC's firm-centeredness, parsimony, and reliance on conceptual tools borrowed from economics, fit better than other approaches to a Zeitgeist formed in the context of the demise of Western capitalism's alternatives, and the globalization-induced shift of societies’ center of gravity away from politics towards firms and markets. The article then revisits major debates that have followed the publication of the seminal Hall-Soskice book. The debates have revealed that VoC's greatest strengths, in the end, turn out to be obstacles when it comes to analyzing problems of contemporary capitalism.