{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021052631578947368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009022556390977444, 'mean_word_length': 5.860824742268041, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Corporate Liberalism Reconsidered: A Review Essay

Ever since Martin Sklar first coined the term in 1960, "corporate liberalism" has been subject to scholarly dispute. Quite roughly, it has come to be understood as a characterization of twentieth-century political ideology and institutions in which the central premises of classical liberalism—the sanctity of property and contract and the dominance of society over state—have been reconstituted to assimilate large-scale concentrations of property and organizational hierarchy associated with the modern corporation. Despite the many variations on this theme, historians of corporate liberalism agree that the Progressive Era (1900-1916) is best understood as a transitional phase in American history, in which business elites, with the help of allies in state and society, successfully reconstructed public policy and institutions associated with market capitalism along neither statist nor free-market lines. This project was initially conceived as an antidote to liberal historiography and pluralist theory. The former, it was argued, erroneously interpreted Progressive Era reform as a popular movement against big business, while the latter mistakenly took interest-group bargaining for the absence of ideological and class conflict. Instead, corporate liberal scholarship,