Despite property being a basic institution in capitalist societies it is rarely addressed directly and seldomly linked to media transformation outside of critical scholarship. This introduction gives an overview over the contributions in this special issue. The special issue is part of a revived interest in property in the social sciences and goes back to an intensive paper workshop hosted by this journal, which took place at the Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria on 29 September 2023. The contributions are organised in three themes: property and the transformation of media in digital capitalism, public media in the twenty-first century and their limits, and media ownership beyond the legal form.
Ownership has been a core research theme in parts of media and communication science since its establishment as a distinct research field. In particular, scholars in the field of political economy of the media, media sociology and media industry studies typically pay close attention to the role ownership has on various media and communication processes. In this article, we argue, however, that media ownership has been treated largely as a black box ignoring the inner workings and dynamics of it. Filling this void, we reach out to research on ownership from the field of political economy, sociology as well as social and legal philosophy to discuss two options to conceptually grasp the 'inner workings of property'. To showcase the importance of this conceptual redefinition, the article discusses the implications of unpacking property in the realm of digital capitalism.
ZusammenfassungDieser Beitrag untersucht die Berichterstattung zur Vermögens- und Erbschaftsbesteuerung im frühen 21. Jahrhundert (2000 bis 2018) in sieben deutschen Tages- und Wochenzeitungen (Welt am Sonntag, Die Zeit, Der Spiegel, Die Welt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitungundtaz).Der Artikel ist in der Tradition der Politischen Ökonomie der Medien verortet, die die mediale Verbreitung von Diskursen über gesellschaftliche Prozesse als konstitutiv auch für Präferenzen zu wirtschaftspolitischen Fragen ansieht. Medien geben nicht nur Informationen weiter, sondern tragen zur Konstruktion der sozialen Realität bei, indem die Diskurse in die Bevölkerung diffundieren. Internationale empirische Forschungen zur Medienberichterstattung über ökonomische Ungleichheit und die diesbezüglichen Umverteilungsmaßnahmen bilden die Grundlage der hier vorgestellten Studie.Die Analyse stützt sich auf Methoden der Korpuslinguistik und kommt zu vier zentralen Ergebnissen: erstens zeigt sich im Zeitverlauf, dass die Intensität der Berichterstattung von starken zeitlichen Schwankungen gekennzeichnet ist. Eine systematische Zunahme der Berichterstattung ist dabei aber nicht festzustellen, obwohl die Thematik im Kontext der stark ausgeprägten Vermögensungleichheit steht, deren verstärkte Debatte besteht. Der inhaltliche Fokus liegt zweitens auf der (partei)politischen Ebene, hat eine eindeutig monetäre Dimension, und lässt einen Zusammenhang mit gesellschaftspolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Diskursen, die im Kontext der Vermögens- und Erbschaftsbesteuerung stehen (z. B. ökonomische Ungleichheit, Umverteilungswirkungen usw.), auffällig wenig erkennen. Die Analyse einzelner, ausgewählter Zeiträume verstärkt drittens den Befund, dass die (partei)politische Ebene dabei im Vordergrund steht, da Kontroversen im politischen Raum und Reformdebatten die dominanten Anlässe der Berichterstattung darstellen. Viertens ergibt die Analyse der einzelnen Zeitungen, dass die Ausrichtung der Berichterstattung in allen Zeitungen durchaus ähnlich ausgerichtet ist; einige Differenzen ergeben sich hinsichtlich unternehmensbezogener Aspekte (Die Welt, Welt am SonntagundFAZ), Details zur Ausgestaltung der Steuern (Süddeutsche Zeitung) sowie dem Zusammenhang zwischen Erbschafts- und Vermögenssteuern mit Krisenentwicklungen und dem Klimawandel (taz).
A clear sign of the heightened interest in economic inequality was the surprising popularity of Thomas Piketty's book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, presenting a dense synopsis and major contribution to the economics of inequality. This article investigates discourses on inequality in news media, through the highly controversial debate raised by Piketty's best-selling book, in selected print media in four European countries.We conceive of the media as having an impact on the perceptions and knowledge of economic processes, thus influencing preferences of the public for economic policy making. This is in line with Veblen, who terms the press an "educational system." Regarding the topics of inequality, we will show that media coverage leads to a biased picture of both inequality and the role of redistribution policies to possibly curb such a development.
peer-reviewed ; The continued rise of socio-economic inequality over the past decades with its connected political outcomes such as the Brexit vote in the UK, and the election of Donald Trump are currently a matter of intense debate both in academia and in journalism. One significant sign of the heightened interest was the surprise popularity of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the twenty-first Century. The book reached the top of the bestseller lists and was described as a 'media sensation', with Piketty himself as a 'rock star economist'. This paper, drawing from a major international and cross-disciplinary study, investigates the print media treatment in four European countries of economic policy proposals presented in Capital. Applying social semiotic and critical discourse analysis, we specifically focus on articles which are in disagreement with these proposals and identify five categories of counterarguments used against Piketty: authorisation, moralisation, rationalisation, portrayal of victimhood and inevitability. Providing textual and linguistic examples we demonstrate how the use of linguistic resources normalises and conventionalises ideology-laden discourses of economic means (taxation) and effects, reinforcing particular views of social relations and class as common sense and therewith upholding and perpetuating power relations and inequalities.
The continued rise of socio-economic inequality over the past decades with its connected political outcomes such as the Brexit vote in the UK, and the election of Donald Trump are currently a matter of intense debate both in academia and in journalism. One significant sign of the heightened interest was the surprise popularity of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the twenty-first Century. The book reached the top of the bestseller lists and was described as a "media Sensation", with Piketty himself as a "rock star Economist". This paper, drawing from a major international and cross-disciplinary study, investigates the print media treatment in four European countries of economic policy proposals presented in Capital. Applying social semiotic and critical discourse analysis, we specifically focus on articles which are in disagreement with these proposals and identify five categories of counterarguments used against Piketty: authorisation, moralisation, rationalisation, portrayal of victimhood and inevitability. Providing textual and linguistic examples we demonstrate how the use of linguistic resources normalises and conventionalises ideology-laden discourses of economic means (taxation) and effects, reinforcing particular views of social relations and class as common sense and therewith upholding and perpetuating power relations and inequalities.
n/a ; Please see http://hdl.handle.net/10344/7675 for the more recent version of this paper ; .The continuous rise of socio-economic inequality over the past decades with its connected political outcomes such as the Brexit vote in the UK, and the election of Donald Trump are currently a matter of intense debate both in academia and in journalism. A significant sign of the heightened interest was the surprise popularity of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. The book reached the top of the bestseller lists and was described as a 'media sensation' and Piketty himself as a 'rock star economist'. This paper, drawing from a major international and cross-disciplinary study, investigates the print media treatment in four European countries of economic policy proposals presented in Capital. Applying social semiotic and critical discourse analysis, we specifically focus on articles which are in disagreement with these proposals and identify five categories of counterarguments used against Piketty: authorisation, moralisation, rationalisation, portrayal of victimhood and inevitability. Providing textual and linguistic examples we demonstrate how the use of linguistic resources normalises and conventionalises ideology-laden discourses of economic means (taxation) and effects, reinforcing particular views of social relations and class as common sense and therewith upholding and perpetuating power relations and inequalities. ; PUBLISHED ; peer-reviewed
Given the background of rising economic inequalities, the topic has reentered the field of economic science. Yet the problem of how economic inequality is being mediated to the public is not discussed in economics at all, and hardly mentioned in communication studies. Through an analysis of recent empirical studies on the coverage of inequality in the media, we debate the role mass media play as information providers. Assessing the underlying assumptions and the methodological approaches guiding the respective empirical findings, we can highlight the merits of this body of work and identify open questions for further research. The last part of the article provides a discussion of (currently rather neglected) political economy theories that offer rich theoretical approaches to study media, power, and inequality.
Given the background of rising economic inequalities, the topic has reentered the field of economic science. Yet the problem of how economic inequality is being mediated to the public is not discussed in economics at all, and hardly mentioned in communication studies. Through an analysis of recent empirical studies on the coverage of inequality in the media, we debate the role mass media play as information providers. Assessing the underlying assumptions and the methodological approaches guiding the respective empirical findings, we can highlight the merits of this body of work and identify open questions for further research. The last part of the article provides a discussion of (currently rather neglected) political economy theories that offer rich theoretical approaches to study media, power, and inequality.
Trade unions and environmental movements are often seen as political opponents most prominently discussed in the form of the "jobs vs. environment dilemma". Based on historical examples of the conflict relations between trade unions and environmental groups in the Austrian energy sector, this paper showcases how the relationship between the two groups has changed from enmity to first attempts at alliance building. Drawing from analysis of union documents and problem-centred interviews conducted with Austrian unionists, it shows that newly emerging alliances between unions and environmental movements contain the seeds for a broad societal movement that can help overcome the paradigm of growth and actively engage in the creation of policies that support a social-ecological transformation.
Since the rise of platform labor, food delivery, and ride hailing workers have become a visible part of cityscapes, unlike platform workers in the domestic sector. The invisibilization and economic devaluation of reproductive tasks, especially in the private sphere, has a long history.Although platforms are not likely to yield a radical transformation in this sector, qualitative changes concerning the invisibility of work outsourced by households can be observed. In this contribution, we draw from the analytical framework of (in)visibility of/in platform-mediated work and map it against our research findings on a key platform in domestic cleaning in Europe, including netnographic data and interviews with workers and clients. Using the framework as a heuristic tool leads us to a more nuanced understanding of (in)visibility in platform-mediated cleaning in perceptible, institutional, and individual terms. Moreover, we argue that the interrelations between these three layers of (in)visibility offer novel insights for making sense of worker organizing and collective action, the practices related to leaving the platform, and the issue of workers' occupational identity of domestic cleaners. As such, the study contributes to the current debates on platform labor and domestic work, including the value-visibility relation and the role of digital platforms therein.
AbstractIn Germany, at first glance there is general political agreement between the green-progressive camp and the capitalist-industrial centre-right on the need for the eco-social transformation. However, there are considerable gaps between ambitions to implement policies towards an eco-social transformation and its actual implementation. As this Special Issue (SI) shows, the acceptance of green welfare systems or adding social policies to the green transition projects is not matched by substantial policies. The Special Issue offers eight original research papers on ideas, actors and conflicts and multi-level governance of the "Politics of Germany's eco-social transformation". Current trends point to a deepening marketization of green policies, a reluctance in lifestyle changes and dissonance in the design of concrete eco-social policies. The authors contribute to a better understanding of the political affordances and challenges of the eco-social transformation in Germany.
