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

纽约大学当前围绕美国工人阶级投票偏好和政治行为的争议突显了一个历史谜题：为什么美国的产业工人从来没有像在其他地方那样支持工人阶级政党？与以前关于这个问题的工作不同，这个项目旨在了解大公司在20世纪之交采用的私人社会条款的作用。在其他发达资本主义国家制定公共社会福利政策的同时，美国S独有的福利方式过去是，现在也是以私人社会利益为特征的。企业福利带来的收入和风险不平等加剧以及工人-雇主凝聚力增强，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纳，是否有助于解释20世纪初美国一些以阶级为基础的政治的发展？本项目将通过两个规模的比较历史分析来回答这些问题。首先，研究人员比较了1870年至1929年间美国、英国和德国私人和公共社会条款的发展以及工业工人阶级政治的发展。然后，研究人员分析了同一时期宾夕法尼亚州的两个钢铁城镇纽卡斯尔和伯利恒的公共和私人社会条款和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，而后者的工人阶级仍然按照种族-宗教界限在政治上分裂。这样一个项目将为美国相对于欧洲和澳大拉西亚同行的工业工人阶级政治保守主义提供另一种解释。通过这样做，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在市政层面上的内部差异。布罗德影响虽然这个项目将解释为什么大多数产业工人在20世纪之交没有采用基于阶级的政治，但它也将解释为什么他们在选定的工业城市这样做。然而，如果S项目的假设被证明是正确的，它还将证明，私人社会保障与雇主更倾向于通过公司而不是国家来满足经济需求存在因果关系。通过这样做，这项研究将为理解当前关于工人阶级和工会政治行为的争议提供有用的概念。

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.