Modelli o stili di sindacalismo in Europa
Modelli o stili di sindacalismo in Europa
复制标题
欧洲的辛达卡主义风格模型
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Guglielmo Meardi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guglielmo Meardi
传统的国家工会模式比较类型学，无论是基于社会学功能主义还是基于制度主义，都有一些日益明显的局限性。他们夸大了工会类型的内部一致性、同质性和连续性;他们忽视了跨境影响、模仿和联系的作用;他们仍然无法对后共产主义国家的工会进行分类。有些类型学还有种族中心主义的额外限制。这篇文章为分类学的经验和理论效用辩护，至少在抽象层次清晰的情况下。然而，必须重新审视类型学，以解决现有的四个限制。另一种，跨国类型学的建议，分析区分社会行动的机构。由此产生的“类型”表明了一些意想不到的跨国相似性和国内多样性，由于它们的活力，应该被贴上“风格”而不是“模式”的标签。鉴于小国和大国在集体行动和联合行为方面存在一些结构性差异，在现阶段，类型学只关注“扩大”欧盟中的六个最大国家：德国、英国、法国、意大利、西班牙和波兰。
Traditional comparative typologies of national trade union models, whether based on sociological functionalism or on institutionalism, have a number of limitations that are becoming ever more apparent. They exaggerate the internal coherence, homogeneity and continuity of union types; they neglect the role of cross-border influences, imitation, and linkages; they are still unable to classify unions in post-communist countries. Some typologies have the additional limit of ethnocentrism. This article defends the empirical and theoretical utility of taxonomy, at least when the level of abstraction is clear. However, typologies must be revisited in order to address the existing four limitations. An alternative, transnational typology is suggested, which analytically distinguishes social action from institutions. The resulting "types" point to some unexpected cross-national similarities and intra-national diversity, and for their dynamism deserve the label of "styles" rather than "models". Given some structural differences in collective action and association behaviour between small and large countries, the typology focuses only, at this stage, on the six largest countries in the "enlarged" EU: Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland.