Search results

The purpose of the chapter is to determine specific and common features of social conflicts and economic crises and substantiate the necessity for their complex research within the theory of economic conflicts.

For determining the differences between social conflict and economic crisis, the authors use the methods of deduction and comparative analysis; for determining the common features of conflict and crisis of socio-economic system, the authors use the method of induction, synthesis, analysis of causal connections (logical analysis), and the methodology of the systemic approach. Also, the method of formalization (graphic presentation of authors’ conclusions) is used.

Comparative analysis of conflict and crisis of socio-economic system according to the existing scientific ideas is performed, and it substantiates that traditional differentiation of social conflicts and economic crises contradicts the scientific ideas on integrity of socio-economic systems in the integrity of the public and economic components. Based on the theory of systems, common features of conflict and crisis of socio-economic system are determined. It is shown that conflict is a wider notion than crisis, which is a private manifestation/example of conflict. An algorithm of conflict’s transition into crisis of socio-economic system is presented.

The universal scientific category should be “economic conflict,” which has the features of social conflict and economic crisis. The offered notion specifies the categorical tools of economics and provides a possibility to study previously neglected social effects of crises of economic systems as manifestations of conflicts in them. The obtained conclusions allowed for systematization of scientific knowledge in the sphere of contradictions of socio-economic systems. Due to this, it is possible to study cyclic fluctuations of these systems within multi-disciplinary studies at the joint of social and economic science and within the economic theory.

This chapter describes a theory of intergroup leadership. Research on reducing prejudice and intergroup conflict identifies a number of conditions, such as empathy, shared goals, crossed categorization, recategorization, and intergroup contact, which can be beneficial. It also identifies social identity threat as a stumbling block – processes intended to reduce conflict often threaten people’s sense of having a unique and distinctive social identity and thus provoke a defensive reaction that sustains conflict. But social psychology says little about the role of group leadership in conflict resolution.

I summarize what we know from social psychology about conditions that attenuate intergroup conflict; then focus on social identity and influence processes to present a new theory of leadership across conflicting groups.

Prejudice and intergroup conflict reduction rests on effective messaging and influence, which is often a matter of intergroup leadership where a leader must bridge and integrate warring factions within a superordinate entity. The challenge of intergroup leadership is to construct an intergroup relational identity that focuses on collaboration and avoids identity threat. I describe a model of intergroup leadership and discuss strategies, such as identity rhetoric, boundary spanning and leadership coalition-building, that such leadership should adopt to effectively reconstruct social identity to reduce conflict and prejudice between groups.

This is a development and extension of a more narrowly focused theory of intergroup leadership in organizational contexts. It will be of value to social psychology, the behavioral and social sciences, and those seeking to reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict through leadership.

The present paper attempts to map the discursive relations between conflict and settlement as reflected in the realms of law and mediation during the second half of the 20th century, offering a 21st century model to combine the mediation drive to settle through reaching inter-subjective transformation with the legal drive to escalate and promote social conflict. Contemporary mediation, according to this model, should involve on the one hand “negotiating for justice,” according to the familiar models of problem solving and transformation, and on the other hand “fighting for law”: acknowledging the self-referential and ideological quality of conflicts, while emphasizing the pragmatic need to end them through an interpretive public act that involves value judgments.

In a study of conflict in organizations, Lindenberg’s relational signaling theory is used to develop hypotheses on the impact of relationship strength, network embeddedness, and organizational change on social escalation. Social escalation is defined as the involvement of one or more third parties in a conflict. An empirical test is conducted with data on 67 conflicts involving 22 managers, gathered during three years of ethnographic fieldwork and a longitudinal network study in a management team of a German paper factory. Multilevel analysis indicates that strong ties between conflicting parties decrease the level of social escalation, whereas informal power advantage of one party increases the chances for social escalation. Both effects disappear over time. It is argued that the dissolving impact of relationships and networks is due to the disappearance of so-called solidarity frame-stabilizing activities in the firm. The results highlight the context-dependence of network effects and escalation processes.

The relationship between intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion is a longstanding concern in sociology and related disciplines. Past work suggests that intergroup conflict shapes emotional bonds between group members, promotes in-group and out-group stereotyping, encourages self-sacrifice for the group, and changes the social structure of groups. Conflict thus plays an important structural role in organizing social interaction. Although sociologists contributed much to the beginnings of this research tradition, sociological attention to the conflict–cohesion link has waned in recent decades. We contend that despite advances in our understanding of the conflict–cohesion hypothesis, more remains to be done, and sociologists are especially equipped to tackle these unanswered questions. As such, we encourage sociologists to revisit the study of intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion and offer some possibilities for furthering our understanding of this phenomenon. After reviewing and evaluating the relevant literatures on the conflict–cohesion hypothesis, we consider ways in which a broad range of current theories from the group process tradition – including theories of status, exchange, justice, identity, and emotion – could contribute to understanding the conflict–cohesion hypothesis and how those theories could benefit from considering the conflict–cohesion hypothesis. In doing so, we make a case for the continuing importance of sociology in explaining the link between intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesion.

The purpose of the work is to determine the signs of conflicts in social effects of crises of economic systems and to determine perspectives of studying crises on the basis of the concept of economic conflicts.

For determining the signs of conflicts in social effects of crises of economic systems, this work uses the method of qualitative break-even analysis, the methods of systemic, problem, and structural and functional analysis, and the method of formalization (table presentation of authors’ conclusions).

It is substantiated that social causes and social manifestations and consequences of crises of economic systems have signs of conflicts – violation of balance of socio-economic phenomena and processes and the following negative reaction of economic subjects. Causal connections of distribution of conflicts within social effects of crises of economic systems are determined and a preferable method of their regulation is offered.

A new method of state regulation of socio-economic system for overcoming its crisis and crisis management is offered. An advantage and essential difference of this method from the traditional one is influence on social cause of crisis (not on its economic and social consequences), due to which it is possible to quickly overcome the crisis and reduce the risk of its renewal.