Search results

This paper aims to conduct a historical study using both primary (archival data) and secondary sources to evaluate the social conditions of the community of employees at Hawthorne Works between 1907 and 1933.

This paper evaluates the historical and social context of the 1915 Eastland disaster, specifically, the effects of the Eastland disaster on the community and the company to improve understanding of the contextual background and conditions which influenced the Hawthorne studies. This will also serve as a case study of crisis management.

The findings of the paper argue that the Eastland disaster likely contributed to the expansion of welfare capitalism practices by Western Electric in the 1920s–1930s and established the social and communal conditions which made the Hawthorne studies (1924–1933) possible.

Rather than evaluating the Hawthorne studies themselves, this paper focuses on social factors which made the Hawthorne Works plant site and the community serving it an ideal locale to host the famous studies as part of Western Electric’s practice of welfare capitalism and a distraction from the traumatic event which scarred the community and urged the Western Electric company to react. This study also provides an early example of crisis management.

The reproduction conditions of capitalism are hard to specify, the phrase itself being too abstract to be meaningful. Another way to find the specific distinguishing features of capitalist reproduction conditions is to seek the same conditions in a socialist economy. Socialists will tend to want a more comprehensive welfare state, but the lack of a welfare state will not mean that the economy is not socialist. Reproduction conditions of both types of economy would be very similar, the reproduction of labour power being achieved by a variety of arrangements either more or less harsh, or more or less comprehensive, without damaging the economy. The welfare state is seen as a desirable feature of socialism in its own right, rather than because of its economic contribution.

This paper traces how in Britain and Germany, for-profit and non-profit businesses coevolved with political-economic institutions. Starting in the late eighteenth century, Britain embraced the logic of liberal capitalism, although the path was not smooth. Over the same period, German states balanced both liberal and social-welfare ideals. Social-welfare ideals did not gain support in Britain until the start the twentieth century. The market logic embodied by for-profit businesses was more congruent with liberal capitalism than with social-welfare capitalism, so business corporations thrived more in Britain than in Germany. Yet in both countries, the growing number and power of for-profit businesses created problems for farmers, workers, and small producers. They sought to solve their problems by launching non-profit businesses – co-operatives, mutual-aid societies, and credit co-operatives – combining the ideals of community, enterprise, and self-help. British non-profits gained support from authorities by emphasizing their self-help and enterprise ideals, which were congruent with liberal capitalism, over the community idea, which was not. In contrast, German non-profits gained support by emphasizing all three ideals, as two were congruent with liberal capitalism and all three with social-welfare capitalism. Our analysis reveals how the success of different forms of business, embodying different institutional logics, depends on prevailing political-economic logics. It also shows how the existence and technical success of various organizational forms shapes elites’ perceptions and through them, societal-level logics of capitalism.

The course and development of capitalism is a central issue in socio‐logical analysis (Marx, 1936; Harrington, 1976; Bernstein, 1985; Badham, 1984; Baran and Sweezy, 1977; Dahrendorf, 1959; Mandel, 1976). Though there is little agreement on the destiny of capitalism, there is general recognition that capitalism has been altered by recent social change. These changes have been widely discussed around ideas pertaining to the regulation of economic actors, legal constraints on wages and the general increase of welfare programmes. Of these developments, welfare and social services have been the most carefully monitored in the sociological literature. Since welfare programmes provide goods and services without regard to social and economic status, welfare has been correctly interpreted as a significant modification of capitalism.

The hypothesis is that social inequalities tend to increase in the historical phases characterized by a high level of integration of the international economy, generating protectionism-oriented pressures. The analysis of the capitalistic evolution in the last centuries is oriented to outline the strict connection between deep international economy integration and high level of social inequalities in advanced economies.

Recent deep integration in international economy generated, in advanced economies, a significant increase in socio-economic inequalities, with negative effects on social cohesion and democratic dynamics. The paper, examining the historical evolution of capitalism, analyses the consequences generated by the deep integration, achieved by the international economy, on social inequalities in advanced countries. The discussion is focussed on three models of capitalism: competitive capitalism, Fordist capitalism and cognitive capitalism.

As a result, for governments, two alternatives open up in the hyper-globalization phases: to preserve deep international economic integration, with risks for democracy; to preserve internal social cohesion, with risks of protectionism and closure to the international economy.

The article is oriented to underline the intrinsic incompatibility between hyper-globalization and democracy, for the strong negative effects generated by hyper-globalization on social inequalities and on social cohesion.

Introduces a special issue on globalization and the welfare state. Asserts that economic globalization constrains national economic and social policy far more now than ever before, although the level of international trade has not increased that much compared to levels at the beginning of this century. Talks about the political consequences of economic globalization, particularly welfare state retrenchment in the advanced capitalist world. Outlines the papers included in this issue – comparing welfare system changes in Sweden, the UK and the USA; urban bias in state policy‐making in Mexico; and the developing of the Israeli welfare state. Concludes that economic globalization has a limited effect in shaping social welfare policy in advanced capitalist countries; nevertheless, recommends further research into which aspects of economic globalization shape social welfare policy.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on those “meeting points” and “encountering places” where the action of individuals, families, corporations, NGOs and public policies can optimize the advancement of social citizenship within the European context.

An analysis of the worlds of welfare capitalism is contrasted with a corporate social responsibility (CSR) typology of policy governance. It serves the purpose of highlighting not only institutional arrangements and operational welfare rationales, but also value‐systems and cultural tenets shaping commonalities and diversities in public policy governance in the European Union.

Considerations are made on the impacts that both the global order and the “new social risks” (NSR) have for the promotion of CSR and the advancement of social citizenship. The case of the reconciliation of work and family life illustrates how CSR might induce a greater role for businesses in welfare development.

Further research is needed to establish the linkages between the welfare regime approach and the models of public policy supports for CSR.

The paper is original in its theoretical linking of welfare mix, CSR and social citizenship with regard to the improvement of citizens’ living conditions.

The typical corporation is based on free capital markets, and in general, on the free market capital system for all its factors of production, distribution, and consumption. Hence, this chapter studies the economic, legal, ethical, and moral goodness and promise of the Free Enterprise Capitalist System (FECS) as it exists and thrives in the open and free economies of the world. We will review several versions of FECS starting from Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) views on private property, Thomas Hobbes’ (1588–1679), The Leviathan (1651), Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, 1776), Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1904/1958) to modern defenses of capitalism by David Bollier (Aiming Higher, 1997), Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales (Saving Capitalism from Capitalists, 1998, 2004), C. K. Prahalad (2005) on Inclusive Capitalism, Nitesh Gor (The Dharma of Capitalism, 2012), and John Mackey and Raj Sisodia (Conscious Capitalism, 2014), to name a few. Based on these seminal authors and subsequent theoretical developments, this chapter seeks to defend, save, and uphold the goodness of the FECS along multiple viewpoints such as economics, management, law, ethics, morals, and executive spirituality.

Attempts to find answers to such theoretical questions as the character of Soviet‐type societies and the major tendency of their development. Argues that, as long as the analysis is conducted in convenient and extreme terms of “either capitalism or socialism or communism”: as long as the yardstick for the comparison remains capitalism of laissez‐faire; and as long as the general trend and the particular forms of the world economic development are ignored ‐no satisfactory answer to the nature and fate of such societies can be found. If, however, one looks at Soviet‐type systems as socio‐economic and political structures destined to solve the problem of the industrial revolution and modernization of backward and peasant nations under the conditions of the twentieth century, then the enigma disappears. Soviet‐type societies become what they are in reality: a variety of capitalism that, having fulfilled the “archaic” act of industrialization, is moving into its post‐industrial era.

Purpose – European social protection arrangements have undergone significant transformations since the mid-1970s. However, while the existing literature has focused on reforms in public welfare arrangements, an analysis of both public and private social protection is needed to understand the social protection status of European workers. Recent reforms have led to varying degrees of social protection dualism between insiders and outsiders. After showing the existence of dualization processes in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, the chapter explores the structural and political sources of these processes.

Methodology/approach – We conduct a comparative historical analysis and process tracing of policy change and its drivers in three major European political economies. A combination of qualitative evidence and quantitative measurements are used.

Findings – We find that de-industrialization has contributed to unsettling the skill composition that sustained both public and private postwar social protection arrangements. This development has affected the preferences of employers, for whom cost containment has become a critical issue. Furthermore, we show that the capacity of employers to realize their preferences depends on the governance structures of social policy arrangements and on domestic political institutions.

Originality/value – The chapter suggests new perspectives on employers' preferences in Coordinated and Liberal political economies which differ from those which have informed the Varieties of Capitalism approach.