首页> 外文学位 >The political origin of employment protection: A comparative study of the United States, Germany, and South Korea.
【24h】

The political origin of employment protection: A comparative study of the United States, Germany, and South Korea.

机译:就业保护的政治渊源:对美国,德国和韩国的比较研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Why do countries have different levels of employment protection that make dismissals difficult? The recent comparative political economy literature is divided over whether labor protection is an outcome of class struggles or employers' rational choices. This dissertation provides an alternative explanation focusing on the role of counter-majoritarian political institutions. While theories and empirical evidence do not support the argument that some employers may support employment protection as government regulation, the power-of-labor-resources model is also limited because it does not explain the deviant cases where politically weak labor co-exists with strong employment protection. This study offers an analytical model in which vote-maximizing politicians respond to the popular pressure to establish employment protection that mainly comes from organized labor and/or the rising risk of middle-class job loss. It is argued that even if the popular pressure is strong, political institutions designed to limit the rule by the many---federalism and judicial review---constrain the popular demand for employment protection to become legislation. The empirical chapters examine the United States as a weak-employment protection case, Germany as a strong-employment protection case, and South Korea as a moderately strong-employment protection case. They demonstrate that the American political system where political power is dispersed to different branches and levels of government forestalled the rise of employment protection, while South Korea's highly concentrated political system responded to the public perception of declining job security by maintaining restrictions of layoff. Germany represents a distinct model of federalism where labor legislation is centralized and subnational governments rely on extensive measures of fiscal equalization. In this type of federalism voters can readily attribute the responsibility of providing job security to the central government. Therefore, the German federalism has not provided effective checks on the popular pressure for employment protection.
机译:为什么国家/地区的就业保护水平不同,导致解雇困难?关于劳动保护是阶级斗争的结果还是雇主的理性选择,最近的比较政治经济学文献存在分歧。本文针对反霸权政治机构的作用提供了另一种解释。尽管理论和经验证据不支持某些雇主可能支持将就业保护作为政府法规的论点,但劳动力资源能力模型也受到限制,因为它不能解释政治上较弱的劳动力与强者并存的异常情况。就业保护。这项研究提供了一种分析模型,在这种模型中,票数最大化的政客应对普遍建立就业保护的压力,这种压力主要来自有组织的劳动力和/或中产阶级失业的风险上升。有人认为,即使民众压力很大,旨在通过许多规则(联邦制和司法审查)来限制规则的政治制度也限制了民众对就业保护的要求,使之成为立法。实证章节将美国视为弱势就业保护案例,将德国视为强势就业保护案例,将韩国视为中等强势就业保护案例。他们表明,政治权力分散到不同部门和政府级别的美国政治体系阻止了就业保护的兴起,而韩国高度集中的政治体系则通过维持裁员限制来回应公众对工作安全性下降的看法。德国代表了联邦制的一种独特模式,在这种模式下,劳动立法是集中的,而地方政府则依靠广泛的财政均等措施。在这种联邦制中,选民可以很容易地将提供工作保障的责任归于中央政府。因此,德国联邦制没有对民众就业保护压力进行有效的检查。

著录项

  • 作者

    Park, June.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Pittsburgh.;

  • 授予单位 University of Pittsburgh.;
  • 学科 Political Science General.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2007
  • 页码 292 p.
  • 总页数 292
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号