Advertisement

„Varieties of Capitalism“ und Sozialpolitik: Thesen und empirische Befunde

  • Thomas PasterEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel gibt einen Überblick über Beiträge des „Varieties of Capitalism“ Ansatzes zur Sozialpolitikforschung. Der „Varieties of Capitalism“ Ansatz inspirierte die Bildung neuer Thesen in zwei Bereichen: (a) Thesen zu den Auswirkungen staatlicher Sozialpolitik auf industrielle Produktion und Qualifikationssysteme; und (b) Thesen zu den politischen Grundlagen von Sozialpolitik, mit Fokus auf die Präferenzen von Arbeitgebern und auf Klassenallianzen. Das Kapitel evaluiert die empirische Evidenz für diese Thesen auf Basis der Forschungsliteratur. Die Literatur wird unterteilt in Studien zur historischen Entstehung des Sozialstaats und Studien zur Reformpolitik seit den 1980ern.

Schlüsselwörter

Varieties of Capitalism Sozialpolitik Vergleichende Politische Ökonomie Unternehmen Arbeitgeberinteressen 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Abelshauser, Werner. 2005. The dynamics of German industry: Germany’s path toward the new economy and the American challenge. Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  2. Abelshauser, Werner. 2011. Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Von 1945 bis zur Gegenwart. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, Michael Patrick. 1991. Capitalist response to state intervention: Theories of the state and political finance in the New Deal. American Sociological Review 56(5): 679 – 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amenta, Edwin und Sunita Parikh. 1991. Capitalists did not want the social security act: A critique of the „capitalist dominance“ thesis. American Sociological Review 56(1): 124 – 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BDA. 1994. Sozialstaat vor dem Umbau. Leistungsfähigkeit und Finanzierbarkeit sichern. Köln: Bundesvereinigung der deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände.Google Scholar
  6. BDA. 1998. Sozialpolitik für mehr Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Beschäftigung. Ordnungspolitische Grundsätze der Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitsgeberverbände. Köln: Bundesvereinigung der deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände.Google Scholar
  7. BDA. 2008. Autonomie stärken – Organisationsstrukturen modernisieren. Reformvorschläge zur sozialen Selbstverwaltung. edited by BDA. Berlin: BDA.Google Scholar
  8. Block, Fred. 2007. Understanding the diverging trajectories of the United States and Western Europe: A neo-Polanyian analysis. Politics & Society 35(1): 3 – 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyer, Robert und J. Rogers Hollingsworth. 1996. Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brosig, Magnus. 2011. Sozialpolitik als Hilfe für die Wirtschaft ? Deutsche Arbeitgeber und die Systeme der Arbeitslosenversicherung. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform 57(3): 313 – 337.Google Scholar
  11. Domhoff, G. William. 1990. The power elite and the state: How policy is made in America. Social institutions and social change. New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Domhoff, G. William. 1996. State autonomy or class dominance ? Case studies on policy making in America, social institutions and social change. New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Eichenberger, Pierre und Dennie Oude Nijhuis, Hrsg., im Erscheinen. Business interests and the development of the modern welfare state. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Emmenegger, Patrick und Paul Marx. 2011. Business and the development of job security regulations: the case of Germany. Socio-Economic Review 9(4): 729 – 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Estévez-Abe, Margarita, Torben Iversen und David Soskice. 2001. Social protection and the formation of skills: A reinterpretation of the welfare state. In Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Hrsg. Peter A. Hall und David Soskice, 145 – 183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, Colin. 1991. New deal, old deck: Business and the origins of social security, 1920 – 1935. Politics & Society 19(2): 165 – 207.Google Scholar
  17. Gordon, Colin. 1994. New deals: business, labor, and politics in America, 1920 – 1935. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gourevitch, Peter. 1984. Breaking with orthodoxy: the politics of economic policy responses to the depression of the 1930s. International Organization 38(1): 95 – 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gourevitch, Peter. 1986. Politics in hard times. Comparative responses to international economic crises. Ithaca und London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hacker, Jacob S. und Paul Pierson. 2002. Business power and social policy: Employers and the formation of the American Welfare State. Politics & Society 30(2): 277 – 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, Peter A. und David Soskice. 2001a. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Hrsg. Peter A. Hall und David Soskice, 1 – 68. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, Peter A. und David Soskice. 2001b. Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers und Robert Boyer. 1997a. Contemporary capitalism: the embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers und Robert Boyer. 1997b. Coordination of economic actors and social systems of production. In Contemporary capitalism. The embeddedness of institutions, Hrsg. J. Rogers Hollingsworth und Robert Boyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Höpner, Martin und Lothar Krempel. 2003. The politics of the German company network. MPIfG Working Paper 03(9), Cologne.Google Scholar
  26. Jacoby, Sanford M. 1999. Modern manors: welfare capitalism since the new deal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, J. Craig und Barbara G. Brents. 1991. Capitalists and social security: What did they really want ? American Sociological Review 56(1): 129 – 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinderman, Daniel. 2005. Pressure from without, subversion from within: The twopronged German employer offensive. Comparative European Politics 3(3): 432 – 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kinderman, Daniel. 2014. Challenging varieties of capitalism’s account of business interests: The new social market initiative and German employers’ quest for liberalization, 2000 – 2014. MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/ 16, Cologne.Google Scholar
  30. Korpi, Walter. 1978. The working class in welfare capitalism: Work, unions and politics in Sweden. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  31. Korpi, Walter. 1983. The democratic class struggle. London, Boston: Routledge & K. Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Lindbeck, Assar. ed. 1994. Turning Sweden around. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lindbeck, Assar. 1997. The Swedish experiment. Journal of Economic Literature XXXV (3): 1273 – 1319.Google Scholar
  34. Mares, Isabela. 1997. Is unemployment insurable ? Employers and the development of unemployment insurance. Journal of Public Policy 17(3): 299 – 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mares, Isabela. 2000. Strategic alliances and social policy reform: Unemployment insurance in comparative perspective. Politics & Society 28(2): 223 – 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mares, Isabela. 2001a. Firms and the welfare state: When, why, and how does social policy matter to employers ? In Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Hrsg. Peter A. Hall und David Soskice, 145 – 183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mares, Isabela. 2001b. Strategic bargaining and social policy development. In Comparing welfare capitalism. Social policy and political economy in Europe, Japan and the USA, Hrsg. Bernhard Ebbinghaus und Philip Manow, 52 – 75. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Mares, Isabela. 2003. The politics of social risks. Business and welfare state development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mares, Isabela. 2004a. Economic insecurity and social policy expansion: Evidence from interwar Europe. International Organization 58(04): 745 – 774.Google Scholar
  40. Mares, Isabela. 2004b. Warum die Wirtschaft den Sozialstaat braucht. Ein historischer Ländervergleich. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  41. Martin, Cathie Jo und Duane Swank. 2011. Gonna party like it’s 1899: Party systems and the origins of varieties of coordination. World Politics 63(1): 78 – 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin, Cathie Jo und Duane Swank. 2012. The political construction of business interests: Coordination, growth, and equality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Menz, Georg. 2005. Old bottles – new wine: The new dynamics of industrial relations. German Politics 14(2): 196 – 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paster, Thomas. 2009. Choosing lesser evils: The role of business in the development of the German welfare state from the 1880s to the 1990s. Dissertation, European University Institute.Google Scholar
  45. Paster, Thomas. 2010. Die Rolle der Arbeitgeber in der Sozialpolitik. In Handbuch Arbeitgeber- und Wirtschaftsverbände in Deutschland, Hrsg. Wolfgang Schroeder und Bernhard Weßels, 342 – 362. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  46. Paster, Thomas. 2011. German employers and the origins of unemployment insurance: Skills interest or strategic accommodation ? MPIfG Discussion Paper 2011(05), Cologne.Google Scholar
  47. Paster, Thomas. 2012. The role of business in the development of the welfare state and labor markets in Germany: Containing social reforms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Quadagno, Jill S. 1984. Welfare capitalism and the social security act of 1935. American Sociological Review 49(5): 632 – 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sinn, Hans-Werner. 2003. Ist Deutschland noch zu retten ? München: Econ.Google Scholar
  50. Skocpol, Theda und Edwin Amenta. 1985. Did capitalists shape social security ? American Sociological Review 50(4): 572 – 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Streeck, Wolfgang. 1997. Beneficial constraints: On the economic limits of rational voluntarism. In Contemporary capitalism. The embeddedness of institutions, Hrsg. J. Rogers Hollingsworth und Robert Boyer, 197 – 219. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Swenson, Peter. 1989. Fair shares: unions, pay, and politics in Sweden and West Germany. London, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Swenson, Peter A. 1991. Bringing capital back in, or social democracy reconsidered. Employer power, cross-class alliances, and centralization of industrial relations in Denmark and Sweden. World Politics 43(4): 513 – 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swenson, Peter A. 2002. Capitalists against markets: the making of labor markets and welfare states in the United States and Sweden. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Thelen, Kathleen Ann. 2001. Varieties of labour politics in the developed democracies. In Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Hrsg. Peter A. Hall und David Soskice, 71 – 103. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Thelen, Kathleen Ann. 2014. Varieties of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Tone, Andrea. 1997. The business of benevolence: industrial paternalism in progressive America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Touwen, Jeroen. 2014. Coordination in transition: The Netherlands and the world economy, 1950 – 2010. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  59. VDA. 1926. Stellungnahme zu den Grundfragen der Arbeitslosenversicherung. Berlin: Vereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände, Berlin: VDA.Google Scholar
  60. Wood, Stewart. 2001. Business, government, and pattern of labor market policy in Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany. In Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage, Hrsg. Peter A. Hall und David Soskice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations