Suchergebnisse

This chapter examines cross-national differences in individual values, attitudes, and behaviors. The central question raised is how social-structural and cultural factors account for the differences found. After discussing a series of theoretical issues raised by this question, the chapter reviews the findings of four quantitative sociological research programs on modern cross-national differences. The program on individual modernity led by Alex Inkeles established that social-structural conditions associated with industrialization are linked to an increase in individuals' being open to new experience, rejecting traditional authority, and taking a rational, ambitious, orderly approach to both work and human problems. The cross-national research on the Kohn-Schooler hypothesis that self-directed work increases intellectual functioning and self-directed orientations confirmed the generality of that hypothesis and established that the social status and social class differences in these psychological characteristics found within different countries are largely the result of social-structurally determined differences in the opportunity for occupational self-direction. Eric Wright's cross-national research program on class structure and class consciousness provides evidence that in a range of countries social classes directly affect political attitudes, while acting as tangible barriers to mobility and personal relationships. The research deriving from John Meyer's theories on institutionalization highlights the importance of institutions and socially constructed views of reality for the development and maintenance of cross-national differences and similarities in cultural values and their behavioral embodiment. All four of the programs provide evidence of the continuing importance of historically determined cultural differences. All are also congruent with the hypothesis that speed of change generally decreases as we go from psychological to social-structural to cultural levels of phenomena—a possibility whose confirmation would provide a valuable tool for understanding how culture and social structure affect cross-national differences in values and behavior.

Social enterprises are given special attention from a scientific and public policy point of view. In everyday life, we see them as organizations that can provide solutions to various social problems. From an academic perspective, they represent a new research topic with its own interdisciplinary nature. They have been examined mainly from the point of view of management and organizational culture. In terms of scientific analysis, the newly developed research area of social economy and social enterprises is still in the conceptualization phase. The theoretical and methodological framework for research measurements need to be finalized. In this study, we seek to answer the question of how social economy—in particular, the perception of social enterprises in international and Romanian literature—is changing as a result of economic and social changes in space and time. We examine the factors along which definitions of the social enterprise within social economy are attempted, and the indicators that facilitate the investigation of the social impact of social enterprises.

The content and structure of social values has been an area of substantial scholarship in the social sciences over the past 60 years, and is gaining attention in conservation and sustainability literatures (Dietz et al. 2005; Hicks et al. 2016). Scholars have explored basic human values, also referred to as held, core or transcendental values, which describe the
abstract principles that guide people's approaches to living in the world. Research has focused on assessing the universal content or structure of these basic values within and
across cultures (often drawing on Schwartz 1994), and their influence on attitudes and environmental behavior (often building on Stern et al. 1999). Less frequently, these basic
human values have been linked to ecosystems and their services in individual and group contexts (Hicks et al. 2016; Manfredo et al. 2016; Raymond et al. 2014; Raymond and
Kenter 2016).

When and why have employers supported the development of institutions of social insurance that provide benefits to workers during various employment-related risks? The analysis developed in this article challenges the dominant explanations of welfare state development, which are premised on the assumption that business opposes social insurance. The article examines the conditions under which self-interested, profit-maximizing firms support the introduction of a new social policy, and it specifies the most significant variables explaining the variation in employers' social policy preferences. The model is tested in three political episodes of welfare state development in France and Germany, using policy documents submitted by various employers' associations to bureaucratic and parliamentary commissions.

Exploring the complexities of social inequalities in education involves delving into various theoretical perspectives that offer nuanced insights into the origins, mechanisms, and consequences of educational disparities. Functionalist theories, as advocated by eminent sociologists like Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton, perceive education as a crucial institution for fostering social cohesion and transmitting societal norms and values. According to this perspective, education plays a pivotal role in moulding individuals to assume specific roles within society, thereby reinforcing social unity and cultural continuity. It is seen as a mechanism through which shared values and knowledge are imparted, contributing to the stability and functioning of society as a whole. In contrast, radical theories, as articulated by scholars such as Louis Althusser, Samuel Bowles, and Herbert Gintis, offer a critical examination of education as a tool for perpetuating existing social hierarchies. They argue that the educational system serves to maintain the dominance of the ruling class while simultaneously suppressing the aspirations of marginalized groups. From this viewpoint, education is viewed as a mechanism of social control, perpetuating inequality by limiting the upward mobility of individuals, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The emphasis is placed on how the structure of education reinforces and reproduces existing power dynamics within society.The conceptual framework of educational capital, prominently developed by Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron, provides a comprehensive lens through which to analyse social stratification within educational systems. Their work emphasizes that economic factors alone cannot fully account for the reproduction of social inequalities in education. Instead, they highlight the crucial roles played by cultural capital, social capital, and symbolic capital in shaping educational outcomes.Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital underscores the significance of non-economic resources such as knowledge, skills, and language proficiency in determining educational success. He argues that unequal access to cultural capital perpetuates advantages for privileged social groups, contributing to the reproduction of social inequalities across generations. Building upon Bourdieu's insights, Passeron introduces the concepts of social capital and symbolic capital. Social capital refers to the networks and relationships individuals possess, which can influence their educational opportunities and trajectories. Symbolic capital, on the other hand, pertains to the prestige and symbolic value associated with educational credentials, which can confer advantages or disadvantages in social interactions and life opportunities. In summary, these theoretical perspectives offer diverse lenses through which to understand the multifaceted nature of social inequalities in education. While functionalist theories underscore education's role in maintaining social order and stability, radical theories unveil its function in perpetuating societal divisions and reinforcing existing power structures. The educational capital framework provides a nuanced picture of how different types of capital interact to shape educational opportunities and outcomes, highlighting the complex interplay between individual agency, social structures, and cultural contexts in determining educational trajectories. In this paper, social inequalities in education are analysed through different theoretical explanations of this problem. Differences in educational success among social groups were investigated, with a focus on the influence of social background. Emphasis is placed on the influence of social origin on the educational achievements and educational aspirations of students, and in that context the most relevant theoretical understandings are indicated.

Theoretical bases of social security are presented, that, coming from logic of research, expresses ability of the state by the specially created collective insurance funds to satisfy the necessities of payers of insurance payments and relievers taking into account private and public interests.

Our modern legal system is based on the principle of
equality. But is equality perhaps not also a concept that
inadequately describes the complexity of normative orders?
Highly differentiated societies with a multitude of collective
identities and functional rationalities are in a permanent
state of tension with this legal postulate. The contributions
to this volume examine how this tension has developed in
Europe and Latin America over the last 200 years

The growing demand of the Ukrainian society to "reboot" the state actualizes the rethinking of the sources and content of the theory of the social state for the scientific justification of the post-war recovery, transformation of the economy and the socio-humanitarian space of Ukraine. The article aims to reveal the genesis of the theoretical concept of the social state and its economic interpretation based on the assessment and generalization of the assets of socio-economic thought in this area. Chronological boundaries cover the period from the birth of the ideas of a socially oriented state (XV–XVI centuries) to forming a coherent theory in the second half of the XX century. The methods of hermeneutics, comparative analysis and structural-logical synthesis are used. The results. The idea of a socially oriented state was born in the late Middle Ages. The supreme power's social justice and economic efficiency were determined by the ability to ensure the public good. John Locke substantiated the concept of private property as a necessary prerequisite for civil society and the contractual interpretation of the powers of the state. The idea of building a state that regulates public life was established in the 18th century. F. Prokopovich defined the principle of public good as the basis for creating a "regular state". The ruler's power should be limited by law and aimed at ensuring the people's education, security and welfare. Lorenz von Stein combined legal regulation and social orientation through the term "social state". Representatives of the social direction in economic theory specified the regulation mechanisms of social and economic relations. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries a view of the state as a corporate union was formed. In the 20th century, the theory of the minimal state gained popularity as the opposite of statism. At the same time, implementing the concepts of the social state and the social market economy based on neoliberalism became the basis of the booming post-war reconstruction of Germany, the revival of Western Europe and the development of European economic integration. Conclusions. The synthesized concept of the social state results from a long process of development of scientific thought regarding interpreting the unity of the state, law and economy. The rule of law is the institutional basis and a prerequisite for building a social state. The economic basis of the welfare state is a socially oriented market economy. This direction is attractive for Ukraine when choosing a vector and defining the main features of the future institutional model of the economy.