Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:09:47.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interest-Seeking as Sense-Making: Ideas and Business Interests in the New Deal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2011

Sascha Münnich
Sascha Münnich*
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institute, Köln [sm@mpifg.de].
Get access

Abstract

This article addresses the question of how ideas and interests can be linked in policy analysis. The juxtaposition of the two concepts is criticized from a sociological point of view. Instead, ideas are a substantial element of interest formation. Cognitive and normative worldviews shape the transformation of objective socio-economic positions into subjective, situational action orientations. Interests can be traced back to the interplay between structural positions, situational problems and their idea-based interpretation.

It is then shown how these conceptual arguments can bring forward a prominent debate in welfare state analysis: the role of business in the emergence of the American welfare state in the New Deal. While struggling with the question whether the supportive role of some business leaders in the Social Security Act of 1935 reveals substantial interest changes or strategical adaption, both sides of the debate suffer from an objectivist concept of interest. This one-sided concept of interest comes at the cost of leaving open the question of why business interests changed in the direction of unemployment insurance and not in the direction of other feasible institutional options such as price regulation or public works. These options would also have provided a solution to the problem American employers were facing. Analysis of social reform discourses between 1911 and 1935 shows that the partial reorientation of business people cannot be sufficiently explained without taking into account the growing legitimacy of liberal- corporatist ideas among employers in the 1920s.

Résumé

Comment l’analyse d’une politique peut-elle combiner la prise en compte du volet idéologique et des intérêts en jeu ? La sociologie accepte mal la juxtaposition des deux notions. Pourtant la transformation des positions socio-économiques objectives en orientations subjectives de l’action en situation résulte bien d’une combinaison des visions cognitive et normative. On peut remonter des intérêts au croisement entre positions structurelles, enjeux situés et interprétations idéologiques. On prend ici le débat américain, exemplaire pour le rôle du monde des affaires, au sujet du welfare state à l’époque du New Deal.

L’examen de l’appui apporté par certains leaders du grand patronat au Social Security Act de 1935 révèle de substantiels changements dans la vision des intérêts, ou bien une adaptation stratégique. Cependant les deux camps opposés restent attachés à une définition objectiviste de l’intérêt. Or des options autres que l’assurance chômage auraient été possibles : encadrement des prix ou programme de grands travaux. L’analyse des textes produits entre 1911 et 1935 montre que la reformulation partielle opérée par le patronat exige de prendre en compte la légitimation croissante du modèle libéral-corporatiste au cours des années 1920.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel kritisiert aus soziologischer Sicht die häufig beobachtbare Entgegensetzung von Ideen aus Interessen. Ideen sind vielmehr ein Bestandteil der Interessenformierung. Interessen basieren auf einem Zusammenspiel von drei Faktoren: Der strukturellen sozialen Position des Handelnden, dem situativen Handlungskontext und den verfügbaren Ideen, mit deren Hilfe der Akteur seine Ziele definiert und konkretisiert.

Im zweiten Teil wird gezeigt, dass ein solches erweitertes Interessenkonzept dabei helfen kann, die viel umstrittene Rolle der Arbeitgeber in der Entstehung des amerikanischen Wohlfahrtsstaates zu verstehen. In der Diskussion, ob die Unterstützung einiger Unternehmer für die Arbeitslosenversicherung im Social Security Act von 1935 substantiell oder strategisch gewesen ist, arbeiten beide Seiten mit einem objektivistisch verkürzten Interessenbegriff. Dabei gerät aus dem Blick warum die Interessen der Unternehmer sich in Richtung der Arbeitslosenversicherung bewegten und nicht in eine der anderen Policy-Optionen. Eine Analyse der sozialreformerischen Diskurse zwischen 1911 und 1935 zeigt, dass die partielle Neuorientierung der amerikanischen Unternehmer nicht hinreichend erklärt werden kann ohne die wachsende Legitimation eines liberal-korporatistischen Weltbildes einzubeziehen.

Keywords

Ideas and InterestsCulture and PoliticsEmployers IdeologyWelfare StateNew DealIdées et intérêtsCulture et politiqueIdéologie patronaleÉtat-providenceNew DealIdeen und InteressenKultur und PolitikArbeitgeber IdeologieWohlfahrtsstaatNew Deal
Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , August 2011 , pp. 277 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amenta, Edwin, et al. ., 1987. “The Political Origins of Unemployment Insurance in Five American States”, Studies in American Political Development 2, pp. 137-182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, John B., 1914. “Introductory Note: Organization to Combat Unemployment”, American Labor Legislation Review 4, pp. 209-220.Google Scholar
Andrews, John B., 1915. “A Practical Program for the Prevention of Unemployment in America”, American Labor Legislation Review 5, pp. 171-194.Google Scholar
Andrews, John B., 1920. “Unemployment Prevention and Insurance”, American Labor Legislation Review 10, pp. 233-240.Google Scholar
Beckert, Jens, 2002. Beyond the Market. The Social Foundations of Economic Efficiency (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Blyth, Mark, 2002. Great Transformations. Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Dietmar, 1999. “Interests or Ideas? An Overview of Ideational Concepts in Public Policy Research ”, in Braun, Dietmar and Busch, Andreas, eds., Public Policy and Political Ideas (Cheltenham /Northampton, Edward Elgar, pp. 11-29).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, Robert H., 1991. The Discovery of Poverty in the United States, Philanthropy and society (New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers).Google Scholar
Callon, Michel, 1998. “Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics” in Callon, Michel, ed., The Laws of the Markets (Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 1-57).Google Scholar
Campbell, John L., 1998. Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy Theory and Society, 27, pp. 377-409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Susan B. et al. ., 2006a. Historical Statistics of the United States. Earliest Times to the Present. Part B: Work and Welfare, vol. 2 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
Carter, Susan B, 2006b. Historical Statistics of the United States. Earliest Times to the Present. Part C: Economic Structure and Performance, vol. 3 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Commons, John R., 1934. Myself (New York, MacMillan).Google Scholar
Commons, John R., [1934] 1961. Institutional Economics. Its Place in Political Economy. (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Commons, John R., [1921] 1966. “Unemployment. Compensation and Prevention”, in Rutherford, Malcom and Samuels, Warren J., eds., John R. Commons. Selected Essays (Routledge, pp. 288-298).Google Scholar
Commons, John R., Lescohier, Don D. and Brandeis, Elizabeth, 1935. History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932, vol. III: Working Conditions / Labor Legislation (New York, Macmillan).Google Scholar
Cox, Robert H., 2001. “The Social Construction of an Imperative. Why Welfare Reform Happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but Not in Germany”, World Politics, 53, pp. 463-498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crouch, Colin and Farrell, Henry, 2004. “Breaking the Path of Institutional Development? Alternatives to the New Determinism”, Rationality and Society 16, pp. 5-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahrendorf, Ralf, [1957] 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
Davis, Allen F., 1994. Spearheads for Reform. The Social Settlements and the Progressive Movement 1890-1914 (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press).Google Scholar
Department of Manufacture of the US Chamber of Commerce, 1930. Report of the Conference Employment Stabilization (Washington, Chamber of Commerce).Google Scholar
Domhoff, G. William, 1996. State Autonomy or Class Dominance? Case Studies on Policy Making in America (New York, de Gruyter).Google Scholar
Draper, Ernest G., 1932. “Industry Needs Unemployment Reserves”, American Labor Legislation Review, 22, pp. 29-32.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile, [1893] 1997. The Division of Labor in Society (New York, The Free Press).Google Scholar
Epstein, Abraham, 1933. “Do We Need Public Unemployment Insurance? Yes”, in Sellin, Thorsten and Young, Donald, eds., The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science. (Philadelphia, The American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 21-29).Google Scholar
Haas, Peter M., 1992. “Introduction” in Haas, Peter, M., ed., Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination. International Organization Special Issue (Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, pp. 1-35).Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. and Pierson, Paul, 2002. “Business Power and Social Policy: Employers and the Formation of the American Welfare State”, Politics & Society, 30, pp. 277-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. and Pierson, Paul, 2004. “Varieties of Capitalist Interests and Capitalist Power: A Response to Swenson”, Studies in American Development 18.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State. The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain”, Comparative Politics, 25, pp. 275-296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David, 2001. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism” in Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David, eds., Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage.(Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-70).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Colin, 2006. “Constructivist Institutionalism”, in Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, Sarah A. and Rockman, Bert A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 56-74).Google Scholar
Henderson, Charles R., 1913. “Insurance against Unemployment”, American Labor Legislation Review, 3, pp. 172-184.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer L., 2006. “How Ideas Affect Actions” in Goodin, Robert E. and Tilly, Charles, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 284-295).Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. Rogers and Streeck, Wolfgang, 1994. “Countries and Sectors: Concluding Remarks on Performance, Convergence, and Competitiveness”, in Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, Schmitter, Philippe C. and Streeck, Wolfgang, eds., Governing Capitalist Economies. Performance and Control of Economic Sectors (Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 270-300).Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben and Stephens, John D., 2008. “Partisan Politics, the Welfare State, and Three Worlds of Human Capital Formation”, Comparative Political Studies 41, pp. 600-637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, Bob, [1993] 2007. “Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare State? Preliminary Remarks on Post-Fordist Political Economy”, in Vij, Ritu, ed., Globalization and Welfare. A Critical Reader (New York, Palgrave pp. 106-119).Google Scholar
Katz, Michael B., 1996. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, BasicBooks).Google Scholar
King, Desmond S., 1995. Actively seeking work? The politics of unemployment and welfare policy in the United States and Great Britain (Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Leiby, James, 1978. A History of Social Welfare and Social Work in the United States, 1815-1972 (New York, Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Leiserson, William M., 1914. “Public Employments Offices in Theory and Practice”, American Labor Legislation Review 4, pp. 314-331.Google Scholar
Leuchtenburg, William E., [1953] 1993. The Perils of Prosperity. 1914-1932 (Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein, 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments” in Lipset, Seymour Martin, ed., Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (New York, The Free Press, pp. 1-64).Google Scholar
Lubove, Roy, 1986. The Struggle for Social Security 1900-1935 (Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Malcom, Salais, Robert and Whiteside, Noël, 1994. Aux sources du chômage (1880-1914) (Paris, Editions Belin).Google Scholar
Mares, Isabela, 2001. “Firms and the Welfare State: When, Why and How Does Social Policy Matter to Employers?” in Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David, eds., Varieties of Capitalism (Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 184-212).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Wesley C., 1913. Business Cycles (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
National Association of Manufacturers, 1935. The Social Security Bill (New York, National Association of Manufacturers).Google Scholar
National Conference on Unemployment, 1914. “Proceedings of the National Conference of Unemployment”, American Labor Legislation Review, 4, pp. 221-401.Google Scholar
National Industrial Conference Board, 1933. Essentials of a Program of Unemployment Reserves (New York, National Industrial Conference Board).Google Scholar
Nelson, Daniel, 1969. Unemployment Insurance: the American Experience, 1915-1935 (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Ohio Commission on Unemployment Insurance, 1932. Report (Columbus, F.J. Heer Printin.Google Scholar
Orloff, Ann S., 1988. “The Political Origins of America’s belated Welfare State”, in Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann S. and Skocpol, Theda, eds., The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton, Princeton University Press, pp. 37-80).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orloff, Ann S., 1993. The Politics of Pensions. A Comparative Analysis of Britain, Canada, and the United States 1880-1940 (Madison/London, University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Parsons, Craig, 2002. “Showing Ideas as Causes: The Origins of the European Union”, International organization, 56, pp. 47-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, [1937] 1979. The Social System (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul, 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependency and the Study of Politics”, American Political Science Review, 94, pp. 251-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President’s Conference on Unemployment, 1923. Report and Recommendations of a Comittee of the President’s Conference on Unemployment (New York, McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
Ringe, Nils, 2005. “Policy Preference Formation in Legislative Politics. Structures, Actors, and Focal Points”, Annual Review of Political Science, 49, pp. 731-745.Google Scholar
Rodgers, Daniel T., 1998. Atlantic Crossings. Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, Belknap Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N., [1963] 2005. America´s Great Depression, 5th. Auflage (Auburn, Mises Institute Press).Google Scholar
Rubinow, I. M., [1913] 1916. Social Insurance. With Special Reference to American Conditions (New York, Henry Holt & Co).Google Scholar
Rubinow, I. M., [1934] 1976. The Quest for Security (New York, Arno Press).Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A., 1993. “Policy Change over a Decade or More” in Sabatier, Paul A. and Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., eds., Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach. (Boulder, Westview Press, pp. 13-39).Google Scholar
Schlabach, Theron F., 1969. Edwin E. Witte. Cautious Reformer (Madison, State Historical Society of Wisconsin).Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Arthur M., [1957] 2002. The Age of Roosevelt. The Crisis of the Old Order. 1919-1933, The Age of Roosevelt (Boston/New York, Houghton Mifflin Company).Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien A., 2002. “Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment?” Comparative Political Studies, 35, pp. 168-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien A., 2008. “Discoursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse”, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, pp. 303-326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, Alfred, [1932] 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World (Chicago, Northwestern University Press).Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg, 2008. “The Problem of Sociology”, in Frisby, David P., ed., Georg Simmel. Englischsprachige Veröffentlichungen 1893-1910 (Frankfurt a. Main, Suhrkamp, pp. 27-37).Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda and Ikenberry, G. John, 1983. “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State in Historical and Comparative Perspective”, Comparative Social Research, 6, pp. 87-148.Google Scholar
Steensland, Brian, 2006. Cultural Categories and the American Welfare State: The Case of Guaranteed Income Policy, American Journal of Sociology, 111, pp. 1273-1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmetz, George, 1993. Regulating the Social. The Welfare State and Local Politics in Imperial Germany (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swedberg, Richard 2005. Can there be a Sociological Concept of Interest? Theory and Society 34, 359-390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, Peter A., 1997. Arranged Alliance: Business Interests in the New Deal, Politics & Society, 25, pp. 66-116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, Peter A., 2002. Capitalists against Markets: the Making of Labor Markets and Welfare States in the United States and Sweden (Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, Peter A., 2004. “Varieties of Capitalist Interests: Power, Institutions, and the Regulatory Welfare State in the United States and Sweden”, Studies in American Development, 18, pp. 1-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swidler, Ann, 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies”, American Sociological Review 51, pp. 273-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swope, Gerard and Frederick, J. George, 1931. The Swope Plan. Details, Criticisms, Analysis (New York, The Business Bourse).Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen, 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science, pp. 369-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topalov, Christian, 1994. “The Invention of Unemployment. Language, Classification and Social Reform. 1880-1910” in Palier, Bruno, ed., Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Europe, Vol. 1., Oxford Conference. France - United Kingdom (mire, pp. 493-507).Google Scholar
US Chamber of Commerce, 1933. Unemployment Reserve Legislation. Report of the Committee of the Department of Manufacture. (Washington, us Chamber of Commerce).Google Scholar
US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 1934. Unemployment Insurance. Hearings before a Subcommittee to the Committee of Ways and Means (Washington, Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 1935. Economic Security Act. Hearings on H.R. 699-0. January, 21st - February, 12th 1935 (Washington, Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
US Senate, 1932. Unemployment Insurance. Report of the Select Committee to Investigate Unemployment Insurance (Washington, US Printing Office).Google Scholar
US Senate, Committee on Commerce, 1928. Expansion of Public Works during Periods of Unemployment and Industrial Depression. Hearings (Washington, Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
US Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, 1921. Relieving Periods of Unemployment by a System of Public Works. Hearings (Washington, Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
US Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, 1929. A Resolution Providing for an Analysis and Appraisal of Reports on Unemployment and Systems for Prevention and Relief Thereof (Washington, Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
US Senate, Select Committee on Unemployment Insurance, 1931. Hearings before a Select Committee on Unemployment Insurance. Pursuant to S. Res. 483. A Resolution Establishing a Select Comittee to Investigate Unemployment Insurance Systems (Washington, Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
Wacquant, Loïc D. J., 1992. Toward a Social Praxeology: The Structure and Logic of Bourdieu’s Sociology, in Bourdieu, Pierre and Wacquant, Loïc D. J., eds., An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-60).Google Scholar
Weber, Max [1915] 1961. “The Social Psychology of the World Religions”, in Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C. Wright, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 267-301).Google Scholar
Weber, Max, [1905] 1982. “Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis”, in Winckelmann, Johannes, ed., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre von Max Weber. (Tübingen, Mohr, pp. 146-216).Google Scholar
Weber, Max, Roth, Günther and Wittich, Claus, [1922] 1978. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive sociology (Berkeley Univ. of California Press).Google Scholar
Weir, Margaret, 2005. “Innovation and Boundaries in American Employment History”, Political Science Quarterly, 107, pp. 249-269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, Margaret and Skocpol, Theda, 1985. “State Structures and the Possibilities for ‘Keynesian’ Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States”, in Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-163).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, Josh, 2002. “Pragmatism and the Untenable Dualism of Means and Ends: Why Rational Choice Theory does not Deserve Paradigmatic Privilege”, Theory and Society, 31, pp. 325-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Bénédicte, 2006. Arbeitslosigkeit in Deutschland. Zur Entstehung einer sozialen Kategorie (Frankfurt a. Main/New York, Campus).Google Scholar