Doctoral Dissertation Research: Private Social Benefits and Working Class Politics: A Comparative-Historical Analysis

SES-1002813 Vivek ChibberMichael McCarthy纽约约克大学当前围绕美国工人阶级投票偏好和政治行为的争议强调了一个历史难题：为什么美国的产业工人从未像其他地方那样支持工人阶级政党？与以前的工作在这个问题上，这个项目的目的是了解的作用，私人社会提供的大公司通过的世纪之交。当其他发达资本主义国家在这一时期发展了公共社会福利政策时，美国？美国对福利的独特做法过去是，现在也是，其特点是私人社会福利。收入和风险不平等的增加以及由企业福利产生的工人-雇主凝聚力的增加是否有助于解释工业工人阶级的相对弱势？美国工人阶级政党的选举支持美国工业城市对私人社会条款的不均衡采用是否有助于解释世纪早期美国某些基于阶级的政治的发展？本项目将通过两个层面的比较历史分析来回答这些问题。首先，研究者比较了1870 - 1929年间美国、英国和德国私人和公共社会供给以及工业工人阶级政治的发展。然后，研究者分析了同一时期宾夕法尼亚州两个钢铁重镇新城堡和伯利恒的公共和私人社会供给以及工业工人阶级政治的发展。前者见证了支持美国社会党的激进工人阶级运动的出现，而后者的工人阶级在政治上仍然沿着种族宗教路线分裂。这样一个项目将为美国工业工人阶级维斯于欧洲和澳大利亚同行的政治保守主义提供另一种解释。在这样做的时候，这项研究试图填补一个重要的空白。过去的研究无法解释美国市政层面的内部变化。更广泛的影响虽然本项目将解释为什么大多数产业工人在世纪之交没有采取基于阶级的政治，但它也将表明为什么他们在选定的工业城市这样做。但是，如果该项目？的假设被证明是正确的，它也将表明，私人的社会供应是因果关系，更强的雇主偏好通过公司，而不是国家，为经济需要工作。通过这样做，研究将提供有用的概念，了解当前的争议有关工人阶级和工会的政治行为。

SES-1002813Vivek ChibberMichael McCarthyNew York UniversityCurrent controversies surrounding American working-class voting preferences and political behavior underscore a historical puzzle: why is it that industrial workers in the US never supported a working-class political party to the extent that they did elsewhere? Unlike previous work on this question, this project aims to understand the role of private social provisions adopted by large firms around the turn of the 20th century. While other advanced capitalist countries developed public social welfare policies by this time, America?s unique approach to welfare was, and is, characterized by private social benefits. Does increased income and risk inequality and increased worker-employer cohesion generated by firm-based benefits help account for the relative weakness of the industrial working-class? electoral support for working-class parties in the US? Does the uneven adoption of private social provisions across US industrial municipalities help account for the development of some class-based politics in the US in the early 20th century? This project will answer these questions through comparative-historical analysis at two levels of scale. First, the researcher compares the development of private and public social provisions and industrial working-class politics in America, Britain, and Germany between 1870 and 1929. Then, the researcher analyzes the development of public and private social provisions and industrial working-class politics in two Pennsylvania steel-towns, New Castle and Bethlehem in the same time period. The former saw the emergence of a radical working-class movement that supported the American Socialist Party, while the working class in the latter remained politically divided along ethno-religious lines. Such a project will offer an alternative explanation for industrial working-class political conservatism in the US vis-à-vis its European and Australasian counterparts. In doing so, this study seeks to fill an important gap. Past research is unable to explain internal variation in the US at the municipal level.Broader Impacts While this project will explain why most industrial workers did not adopt class-based politics around the turn of the 20th century, it will also show why they did in select industrial municipalities. However, if the project?s hypotheses are proven correct, it will also demonstrate that private social provisions are causally related to stronger employer preferences for working through the firm, rather than the state, for economic needs. By doing so, the research will provide useful concepts for understanding current controversies concerning working-class and union political behavior.