Browsing Working Papers (DBP) by Author "Kaspersen, Lars Bo"
Now showing items 1-3 of 3
-
[More information][Less information]
-
The role of the state in the development and reproduction of "the Danish model”Kaspersen, Lars Bo; Schmidt-Hansen, Ulrich (København, 2006)[More information][Less information]
Abstract: In the literature on the establishment and development of the Danish variant of corporatism, emphasis has most often been on the role of the social partners. Scholars rarely stress the crucial role which the state has played in the development of the system. We argue that several actors contributed to the development of the ‘Danish model’, but that these actors were often orchestrated by the state. At crucial moments the direction of these different actors was even determined by the state. In the first part of the article, it is argued that the state has been under-theorized and to some extent neglected in corporatist theory. In particular, we draw upon a conceptualization of the state developed by Michael Mann and Eric Nordlinger’s different forms of state autonomy. We propose a state-centered theoretical focus enabling us to grasp the role of the state in the dynamics of the corporatist system. In the second part of the article, we present an analysis of the establishment and evolution of the Danish corporatist system seen from this distinctively state-centered perspective. In the third part we look into the current system during the last decade of the 20th century. By newly- conducted empirical research, we examine the role of the state in the corporatist system during the 1990s in the labour market and within immigration integration policy. We conclude that due to its autonomous power, the state is still a key player in the corporatist system. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/7362 Files in this item: 1
-
Kaspersen, Lars Bo; Gabriel, Norman (København, 2005)[More information][Less information]
Abstract: Relational social theory can be found in the works of Hegel, Marx, Simmel, Mannheim, Mead, Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault and Bourdieu. However, one of the most consistent relational thinkers is Norbert Elias. In order to develop his figurational and relational social theory Elias makes two claims: 1) the only theoretically sustainable point of departure for a social theory is to study human beings, human society (and maybe also other animals but we leave this aside for the moment!) in a relational perspective! This claim is justified by a number of arguments among others his critique of methodological individualism, methodological holism, individual-society categories and the homo clauses perspective. 2) The other important assumption that Elias makes concerns the smallest social unit – a survival unit. In other words, the first social relation to be studied is not the single individual or a man-woman relation (family) or man-nature (subject-object). The first unit of analysis is the double relational binding of human beings in social groups. In the first order we find the relation between survival units (‘state’-‘state’). In a second order we find relations between families and individuals within each of the survival units. We accept these two claims and we intend to contribute to a further substantiation of these two claims. Moreover, we shall raise a particular problem which is not sufficiently addressed in Elias’s work or in the critical literature on Elias. In particular we shall explore the problem of survival units. Elias assumes that human societies from very early on were divided into survival units (it is plausible that this can be traced back to approx. 4 million years ago when Australopithecus afarensis and upright walking began to spread). These survival units have been demarcated; in other words, they have demarcated themselves towards other units, and units from outside have generated a demarcation. The questions we need to address concern the problem of demarcation: a) Why are these survival units demarcated towards each other? Why has this been the case for at least 4 million years? b) Why has the world not at any point been one survival unit? Is it a plausible future development? Can the world turn into one state/survival unit? We shall argue that although Elias has given an explanation for this demarcation, he has overlooked another mechanism sustaining the separation between units. Furthermore, by incorporating Hegel and Clausewitz into Elias’s relational theory we shall demonstrate that an answer to these two questions is possible. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/7361 Files in this item: 1
Now showing items 1-3 of 3