Forced to work and liberated from work

The work-welfare nexus is essential in all social policy regimes. The question is in what situations individuals should be entitled to social welfare benefits and in which situations they should be obliged to work. Social welfare law and administrative practices define mechanisms that separate the deserving poor from people able to work. This article analyses the functions and character of these "separation mechanisms" in Sweden during three periods in history: a) in rural society in the late 19th century; b) in industrial society during the successful years of the Swedish model from World War II until the late 1970s; and c) the present, including the period of welfare retrenchment and reconsideration since the early 1980s. The conclusion is that Swedish social policy has always been strongly work-oriented, but the specific form and content of the work ethic has varied under the influence of different ideologies and handled in different social policy institutions. Under specific conditions the work line has been either generous or restrictive and it has been based on structural attempts to improve the opportunities to work as well as on attempts to strongly pressure the individual to work. The work line of today is seen as an interesting attempt to combine an effort to create good work through improved work conditions and an effort to reinforce elements of work enforcement in the social insurance system.     

The Division of Household Labor in Germany and Israel

We compare the patterns of household division of labor in Germany and Israel—two countries that share key elements of the corporatist welfare regime but differ in their gender regimes—and evaluate several hypotheses using data from the 2002 International Social Survey Program. Although time constraints and relative resources affect the division of household labor and women’s housework in both societies, we find that in Germany the gender order of household labor is more rigid, whereas in Israel the spouses’ linked labor market status exerts distinctive effects. We also find significant relationships between gender ideology and the division of household labor. We discuss the theoretical advantages of approaching the comparative study of gender inequality from the vantage point of family and gender regimes.     

深化对劳动和劳动价值论问题的认识

深化对劳动和劳动价值论问题的认识 ,是由马克思主义与时俱进的理论品质和劳动价值论的地位决定的 ,是迎接理论挑战和实践挑战的需要。通过深化对生产劳动、科技劳动和经济管理劳动的认识 ,有利于丰富劳动概念的内涵 ,拓展生产劳动的范围 ,明确科技和经营管理劳动不仅是生产性劳动 ,而且在价值和社会财富的创造中发挥着巨大的作用。     

论企业的联合产权制度性质

企业是一个以资源、能力与知识为基础的由要素所有者联合与劳动所有者联合相结合以创造、控制、分配 合作剩余的专业化生产性组织。联合产权制度是现代企业制度的普遍形式,也是现代企业制度的根本性质。     

劳动力权的民法溯源及其法制化

劳动力权早在个体小生产时期就已得到了民法的默认,在社会化大生产中,劳动力权开始凸现。经济法将全面创造劳动力权,以保障社会化生产的需要。     

对转型期中国劳动关系影响的分析

对于转型期中国劳动关系影响的分析,学术界目前大多是从劳动关系内外部因素影响的角度来加以研究的,但却忽视了处于转型期的中国劳动关系对以上诸因素的反作用分析。转型期的中国劳动关系对劳动关系内部构成因素即企业、劳动者和政府有重大影响。     

试论艺术人类学本性观的理论基石

“艺术”的王国里根本就是“美的艺术”一统天下,原初的艺术———技艺,被无理地逐出艺术的家园。当代社会,“美的艺术”难以承受外部的解构和自身的消解,已摇摇欲坠,笈笈可危了。只有看到艺术和人的内在联系、看到艺术的人类学本性:艺术即人、艺术即劳动,从而实施艺术观念的人类学突围;也只有以马克思哲学和美学为指导,奠定艺术人类学本性观的理论基石,才有可能彻底解决问题     

新时代劳动幸福何以可能？

新时代劳动幸福是21世纪马克思主义的独特命题,根植于中国特色社会主义伟大实践中。在新时代背景下,劳动幸福何以可能？这是构建新时代劳动幸福亟须解决的首要理论问题。新时代劳动幸福何以可能在理论、历史与现实的三重维度考量中得以体现,以经典马克思主义劳动幸福观、中华优秀传统劳动幸福思想、中国化马克思主义劳动幸福观为其学理基础,以新民主主义革命的胜利、社会主义基本制度的建立、改革开放的持续推进为其历史条件,以中国共产党领导人民在经济、政治、文化、社会、生态等方面取得历史性成就为其现实基础。立足习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想,厘清新时代劳动幸福何以可能对推进该领域研究具有重大的理论和现实意义。     

圣西门劳动幸福思想及其当代启示

圣西门在实业制度理论中阐述了他的劳动幸福思想,揭示了特权阶级和实业阶级的矛盾,批判了封建主义社会和资本主义社会中劳动的不合理性。他始终将劳动者的幸福作为其创建实业社会的宗旨和目的,体现了圣西门对劳动人民的关怀。圣西门劳动幸福思想建立在实业制度理论基础上,主要包括劳动创造幸福、旧制度下劳动不幸福及实业制度是通往劳动幸福之路三个部分。圣西门创造性地将劳动和幸福结合起来,具有重要的理论价值,对我国培育正确的劳动观念、推动社会发展、实现共同富裕具有重要启示。     

关系化用工:农业规模经营的社会基础

农业规模经营是中国乡村振兴进程中的关键议题。农业规模经营在快速发展的同时也呈现出用工效益的差异,从而使一些规模农业经营主体陷入困境。采用嵌入性视角探讨农业规模经营中用工模式嵌入社会关系的逻辑及其影响。研究发现,农业规模经营陷入困境的主要原因在于市场化用工无法有效解决农业规模经营中的劳动监督问题。而将市场规则嵌入关系规则的关系化用工使得雇佣双方产生了利他倾向,进而在很大程度上调动了工人内在的劳动积极性,从而使农业规模经营主体摆脱经营失败困境。关系化用工的实现依赖于农业规模经营主体在用工选择、生产管理和日常生活中充分发挥社会关系的积极作用,但社会关系范围和程度都是有限度的。因此,农业规模经营的健康发展不仅需要处理好经济关系,而且需要处理好社会关系。