2005
DOI: 10.1007/bf02812222
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Historical insights: The early institutionalists on trade unionism and labor policy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For comparison purposes, readers should keep in mind the neoclassical analysis of unions, particularly the standard monopoly model (see Booth 1995; Hirsch and Addison 1986; Pencavel 1991). This paper also builds on previous studies by this author and those interested in an historical review of the institutional literature on unions should consult Kaufman (2007b) and citations therein. A contribution of this paper is it formalizes and graphically represents many of the history of thought ideas presented there.…”
mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…For comparison purposes, readers should keep in mind the neoclassical analysis of unions, particularly the standard monopoly model (see Booth 1995; Hirsch and Addison 1986; Pencavel 1991). This paper also builds on previous studies by this author and those interested in an historical review of the institutional literature on unions should consult Kaufman (2007b) and citations therein. A contribution of this paper is it formalizes and graphically represents many of the history of thought ideas presented there.…”
mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…7 These claims recall the arguments of John Commons and other industrial economists of the 1940s and 1950s. 8 They also fit with the long-standing focus on associations as important sources of citizen voice and countervailing power. 9 Discussion of union governance has been dominated by the effort to prove or disprove Michels' 10 claim of a tendency to oligarchy.…”
mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Much of this debate, not surprisingly, refers specifically to the relationship between unions and the unemployed, and divergent empirical findings can at least in part be explained by different evaluations of the extent to which unions and the unemployed have similar or divergent interests. For those who view unions as the vanguard of working class organization the potential distinctions in terms of short-term political interests between differently employed workers become subordinate to all that which joins variously positioned workers into a meaningful political constituency (e.g., Boeri et al 2001;Compston 1997;Kaufman 2005;Tait 2005;Therborn 1986). For others, in contrast, the precarious position of the unemployed in relation to the organized union movement constitutes a fundamental source of divergent interests that cannot be eradicated with joint mobilization (Bagguley 1991;Keyssar 1986;Lorence 1996;Marshall et al 1988;Ness 1998;Piven and Cloward 1979;Richards 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%