IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mpifgw/054.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Nach dem Korporatismus: Neue Eliten, neue Konflikte

Author

Listed:
  • Streeck, Wolfgang

Abstract

Der Korporatismus der Nachkriegsphase kann als Konfliktpartnerschaft zwischen Organisierungseliten von Arbeit und Kapital beschrieben werden. Deren Leistung bestand darin, ihre jeweiligen Lager zusammenzuhalten und auf mit den Eliten des jeweils anderen Lagers ausgehandelte Kompromisse zu verpflichten. In den achtziger Jahren begann sich die Lagersolidarität als Folge eines komplexen Zusammenwirkens exogener Schocks und endogener Überforderung auf beiden Seiten aufzulösen. In der Selbstbeschreibung des neuen Liberalismus erscheint die sich herausbildende post-korporatistische Gesellschaftsformation als eine von politischen Verzerrungen befreite Marktmeritokratie, in der jeder das und nur das bekommt, was er mit seiner Produktivität verdient hat. Vieles spricht jedoch dafür, daß die Entwicklung eher in Richtung auf eine Restauration betrieblicher Herrschaft und einen Machtzuwachs der Organisationseliten vor allem der großen, aus korporatistischen Bindungen und Verpflichtungen freigesetzten Unternehmen verläuft. Wenn dies so wäre, sind neuartige Verteilungskonflikte zu erwarten, deren Konturen anhand eines Vergleichs mit den liberalen Marktwirtschaften der USA und Großbritanniens umrissen werden können.

Suggested Citation

  • Streeck, Wolfgang, 2005. "Nach dem Korporatismus: Neue Eliten, neue Konflikte," MPIfG Working Paper 05/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgw:054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44269/1/550482873.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Streeck, Wolfgang, 2003. "No longer the century of corporatism: Das Ende des Bündnisses für Arbeit," MPIfG Working Paper 03/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Brigitte Zypries & Max Kley & Michael Adams & Marcus Lutter, 2004. "Is transparency in manager remuneration threatening acceptance of the Corporate Governance Code?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 57(19), pages 03-09, October.
    3. Höpner, Martin, 2004. "Unternehmensmitbestimmung unter Beschuss: Die Mitbestimmungsdebatte im Licht der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kinderman, Daniel, 2014. "Challenging varieties of capitalism's account of business interests: The new social market initiative and German employers' quest for liberalization, 2000-2014," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/16, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Joachim Möller, 2015. "Did the German Model Survive the Labor Market Reforms? [Hat das Modell Deutschland die Arbeitsmarktreformen überlebt?]," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 48(2), pages 151-168, August.
    3. Eichhorst, Werner & Weishaupt, J. Timo, 2013. "Mit Neo-Korporatismus durch die Krise? Die Rolle des Sozialen Dialogs in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz," IZA Discussion Papers 7498, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Glenn Morgan & Marco Hauptmeier, 2021. "The Social Organization of Ideas in Employment Relations," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 74(3), pages 773-797, May.
    5. Robin Siebert & Christian Herzig & Marc Birringer, 2022. "Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 617-632, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Höpner, Martin & Waclawczyk, Maximilian, 2012. "Opportunismus oder Ungewissheit? Mitbestimmte Unternehmen zwischen Klassenkampf und Produktionsregime," MPIfG Discussion Paper 12/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Höpner, Martin, 2010. "Warum betreibt der Europäische Gerichtshof Rechtsfortbildung? Die Politisierungshypothese," MPIfG Working Paper 10/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    3. Ebbinghaus, Bernhard & Eichhorst, Werner, 2006. "Employment Regulation and Labor Market Policy in Germany, 1991-2005," IZA Discussion Papers 2505, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Hubertus Schmoldt & Walther Müller-Jentsch & Wolfgang Jäger, 2004. "Is the German model of co-determination in corporations outdated?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 57(22), pages 03-12, November.
    5. Eichhorst, Werner & Kaiser, Lutz C., 2006. "The German Labor Market: Still Adjusting Badly?," IZA Discussion Papers 2215, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Kliewe, Martina, 2007. "Die Entwicklung der Corporate Finance Strukturen deutscher Unternehmen und deren Auswirkungen auf die Arbeitsbeziehungen," Working Papers on Economic Governance 26, University of Hamburg, Department of Socioeconomics.
    7. Eichhorst, Werner & Wintermann, Ole, 2005. "Generating Legitimacy for Labor Market and Welfare State Reforms: The Role of Policy Advice in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden," IZA Discussion Papers 1845, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:mpifgw:054. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpigfde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.