States in Crisis

States in Crisis

University of Milan
June 27-29, 2013

Mini-Conferences

SASE received a record number of submissions for mini-conference themes this year. We are pleased to announce those selected for our 2013 annual meeting!

Submissions to the SASE conference must be made through one of the mini-conferences below (or through a research network). Paper and session abstracts as well as full papers for grant, prize, and stipend applications must be submitted to all networks by January 14, 2013. Candidates will be notified by February 15, 2013. Please note that mini-conferences require an extended (~1,000 word) abstract, and ask that you submit a full paper by June 1st. For further information, please contact the organizer of the mini-conference  to which you are submitting.

Mini-conferences are based around a selected number of focused themes, and have open submissions for panels and papers, based on an extended abstract (approx. 1000 words). Each mini-conference will consist of 2 to 6 panels. Each panel will have a discussant, meaning that selected participants must submit a completed paper by June 1st. If a paper proposal cannot be accommodated within a mini-conference, organizers will forward it to the program committee, who will pass it on to one of the networks as a regular submission. Click the title of each mini-conference for a full description of the theme.

1. Cities in Crisis: The Urban Political Economy of the Global Recession

This mini-conference seeks contributions that address the following thematic strands, although we will consider contributions exploring other, related questions:
- Cities and late neoliberalism: ‘late neoliberalism’ is understood here to mean a specific form of neoliberalism structurally permeated by a multidimensional condition of crisis; most notably, crises of legitimation (discursive-moral crisis), accumulation (economic-capitalist crisis), governance (political-administrative crisis). How are reactions to these multiple crises reshaping the urban experience in societies across the globe? How can this help us rethink the political economy of capitalist develoment and the way in which neoliberalism is commonly understood?
- Cities and the austerity-growth dialectic: in times of crisis, municipal governments are expected to implement austerity measures while simultaneously devising strategies of economic regeneration. How do urban political and economic elites deal with this apparent contradiction? What adaptation mechanisms, governance strategies and institutional capacities are being deployed in this context?
- Cities and financialization: the financialization of home, infrastructure and, more broadly speaking, urban re/development, were distinctive features of the expansionary era of neoliberalism. Post-credit-crunch city landscapes have been marked by foreclosures, repossessions, and ghost residential spaces, as well as overleveraged local governments and looted municipal treasuries. How are local governments, urban residents, and the housing sector responding to the disastrous failures of financialization?
- Cities and alternative models: cities can be spaces of despair, but cities can also be spaces of hope in which grassroots experiments may mature and eventually transcend the local context. If it is true that challenges to hegemonic models rise from alternative models at the local scale, what role can and do specific cities and communities play in such alternative models? How do city residents and local governments try to work outside the box of late neoliberalism?

Organizers: Manuel Aalbers, Ugo Rossi

  • switch to list view stand1

2. Social Protection Transformations, Development, and the Role of the State around the World: Challenges, Drivers, and Responses

Over the past three decades, the socio-demographic and economic conditions underpinning the expansion and consolidation of welfare systems have changed considerably. Family structure, gender balance, inter-generational relationships, and the age pyramid have all been transformed in ways that affect welfare arrangements dramatically – both those in place and those in the making. Production systems have changed and the economy become more tertiary and more global, while labor markets have become increasingly flexible and informal, altering employment patterns and workplace organization. International and supranational institutions have gained strength and influence, and are able to influence domestic political debates and governmental policy choices. At the same time, emerging economies have grown faster than any others world wide, reducing poverty and creating opportunities to remake the state in East Asia and Latin America. The result, one might say, has been less welfare for advanced capitalist countries and more welfare for emerging economies.

This mini-conference seeks contributions that examine such transformations across the globe – their consequences for social protection as well as subsequent policy responses – with particular reference to social security, social assistance, labor market policies, and social services (including health and care policies). What kinds of strategies and policy options have predominated and with what impact? Which factors can explain differences across countries? What has been the role of economic conditions, fiscal space, corporatist arrangements, and democratic record (among other relevant socio-political, institutional, fiscal and economic factors) in shaping specific policy options? What role have international organizations played with regard to the state in promoting social policy reforms, and with what ideological orientations? How have policies set to address new gender issues in social and labor market incorporation? Are there new distributional coalitions underpinning current policy arrangements? Has the economic crisis been a catalyst for change or has it reinforced traditional patterns of social protection?
 
More broadly, papers should address one, or more, of the following topics: a) the relationship between labor market transformation and social protection and the “decoupling” of the two; attempts at maintaining the integrative function of the welfare state; b) welfare state sovereignty, autonomy, and capacity, the impact of these on social protection; c) the politics of change to social protection (retrenchment, expansion, and adaptation) across the globe, with focus on the role of ideas, ideology, and political competition, as well as the emergence of coalitions advocating for change in social protection arrangements; (d) changes in the production systems that support the welfare system.


Although papers may focus on national cases from Western countries, Latin America, or Asia, we particularly welcome comparative papers that address these issues in different countries, both within and across continents, as well as those focusing on conceptual or methodological issues.

Organizers: Camila Arza, Matteo Jessoula, Stefano Sacchi, Clemente Ruiz, Flavio Gaitan, Moises Balestro

  • switch to list view stand1

3. The Political Economy of Skills and Inequality

Rising socio-economic inequality is a common trend across advanced industrial democracies and its causes and consequences are still poorly understood. Certainly, the recent economic crisis has exacerbated the trend, in particular in countries most affected by the crisis, but the increase set in much earlier in the 1980s and even before. Nor is this trend simply explained by a return to markets because there has not been large-scale retrenchment of established welfare states.

In their influential book The Race between Education and Technology, Goldin and Katz (2008) provide an authoritative economic explanation for the US case based on the crucial role of skill formation and technological change. From this perspective, the recent rise in inequality can be explained by the interaction between skill-biased technological change and the relative decline in the supply of high-skilled workers. Technological change (potentially reinforced by economic globalization) leads to rising demand for high-skilled workers, while the number of high-skilled university graduates appears to have reached a limit after several decades of educational expansion. The result is a sharp rise in inequality.

The purpose of this mini conference is to question and “contextualize” this important, but also narrow economic perspective. First, the Goldin-Katz evidence shows convincingly that much of the increase in wage inequality in the US is due to investment in education not keeping up with demand, but they do not explain why governments are not filling this gap. Nor can they explain why this trend is much less important, or even absent, in other countries. Second, the Goldin-Katz analysis does not take into account the role of socio-economic institutions, in particular skill formation and collective wage bargaining institutions, that influence the quantity and quality of skill supply, as well as the demand for skilled workers. This is almost certainly an important component in explaining cross-national variation in inequality. Third, institutions that affect demand and supply are (implicitly) treated as exogenous, but policy-makers and organized interests can (and do) deliberately engage in institutional design of skill formation systems in order to influence the supply of skills. Fourth, the authors do not explain why governments do not compensate for rising inequality through more redistributive taxes and transfers. Finally, Goldin-Katz do not have much to say about the long-run consequences of inequality on political power, and hence the possibilities for future spending and redistribution.

What we seek, then, are “thick” political-institutional explanations of the observed rise in inequality, the cross-national variance in this rise, and the different forms that growing inequality has taken. Contributions may address questions such as the following:

1.) Causes of inequality: The Goldin-Katz argument is largely based on the case of the United States, which may have contributed to its neglect of other types of skill formation systems. It also has little to say about forces of change such as post-industrialization and globalization. We therefore welcome contributions that analyze the link between structural transformations, skill formation, labor market and welfare state institutions and inequality from a broadly comparative perspective. To what extent does the institutional set-up of the political economy influence the supply and demand of skills and what are the implications for inequality? The focus should largely be on advanced industrial democracies, though we may also consider comparisons with emerging market economies and developing countries.
2.) Consequences of inequality: The rising trend in inequality has deep implications for the future development of political economies and representative democracy in general. One prominent counter-hypothesis to Goldin and Katz is that the recent increase in inequality reflects the weakening political power and influence of individuals in the lower half of the income distribution. Thus, we are interested in how the rise in inequality affects the political economy of redistribution. Again, we value a broadly comparative perspective (across countries and/or over time). Does inequality affect patterns of political participation and mobilization as well as party competition? Is this effect of inequality mediated by political and socio-economic institutions? How are citizens’ perceptions and preferences with regard to the welfare state and redistribution affected?
3.) Micro-macro linkages and feedback effects: Recent research on policy feedback emphasizes the impact of policies and institutions on the micro-level of individual attitudes and policy preferences. We welcome papers that apply this perspective to the study of skills and inequality. How do welfare state institutions and past levels of inequality influence popular support for redistribution? What is the role of public opinion as a driver of welfare state change? To what extent do educational institutions have effects on redistributive preferences?

We welcome papers from all methodological perspectives (qualitative and quantitative). However, papers should have a broadly comparative perspective, and we value theoretical as much as empirical rigor.

Organizers: Marius Busemeyer, Torben Iversen

  • switch to list view stand1

4. Dealing with Immigration in Times of Economic Crisis

Crises impact migration directly, through changing labor market needs, and indirectly, through changes in related policies. The mini-conference, Dealing with immigration in times of economic crisis, will center on induced change in policies and social institutions, not on general changes in migration patterns during the economic crisis. The leading question will be if and how migrants and foreign resident populations are affected by crisis-related changes in policies. The focus on policies does not mean analysis will be limited to specific (migration) policies, as indirect impacts through labor market reforms and social policies (health, education) will also be included.
In order to gain a systematic overview of induced policy change concerning immigration, we established four panels (Labor market, Integration, Public Opinion, and Migration policies) and several research questions to be addressed. Each panel will have a discussant, meaning that selected participants must submit a completed paper in advance, by June 1, 2013.
A. Labor market panel
Do structural reforms improve or worsen the working conditions of migrants? Are changes in employment policies used for fostering return migration? Is policy change selective in terms of high or low skilled migration? If more and better job opportunities are available in other countries, is induced labor mobility frequent among the foreign resident population?
B. Integration panel
Active integration policies are even more important during economic crises, as many immigrants face higher risks of unemployment, lower salaries and social exclusion. At the same time, public budget cutbacks and increasing expenditures in general social policies may put integration efforts under pressure. How do states handle this dilemma? And if so, do they change their priorities in a selective way or simply decide to keep the formal policy basis and reduce resources lineally?
C. Public opinion panel
Are changes in public opinion considerably different between immigration countries during the present economic crisis? Are these changes fostered by political parties? Does public opinion react particularly in economic terms (e.g. job competition) or more by stressing cultural differences in general (e.g. religion)?
D. Migration policies panel
Do immigration countries change their migration policies or do they keep them formally while changing how they are implemented and reinforced? Is irregular migration dropping, and if so, is this drop due to policy changes or simply a result of market forces? As the impact of the economic crisis on national labor markets is unequal, is irregular migration channeled through new migration routes?

Organizers: Ana María López-Sala, Dirk Godenau

  • switch to list view stand1

5. Public Sector Retrenchment and Restructuring: Implications for Public Service Workers and Work

Throughout Europe, the 2008-09 crisis and austerity measures thereafter have heralded significant change in public sector employment, including substantial job losses, pay freezes, and measures to restructure pension provision. While economic crisis has accelerated the pace of change, in many countries public service workforces had already been re-shaped in response to the discourses of ‘new public management’ and ‘lean’ production.

This stream will bring together contributions analysing what is happening to public sector work, particularly focusing on the impact of the crisis on the labour process of public service workers and the quality of public service employment. We welcome both conceptual and empirical papers from a range of academic disciplines, as well as from policy-makers and practitioners. Research questions might include (but are not limited to):
• What is happening to human capital development and skills formation for public sector workers?
• Is work intensifying in public service organisations for those left in employment?
• How are human resource policies, including closer attention to performance management, impacting on worker effort and experience in the public sector?
• How might employees’ experiences of work be affected by the challenges in reconciling producer and consumer priorities in public service delivery?
• How have the introduction of ‘Lean’ reforms and other NPM-oriented strategies affected employees’ roles and experiences of job quality in a period of austerity?
• What strategies are workers adopting to resist or influence changes in their nature of their work, and how effective are these strategies proving to be?

Organizers: Patricia Findlay, Colin Lindsay, Johanna Commander

  • switch to list view stand1

6. Professions in Crisis

States seek to avoid and manage social and economic crises by delegating control over services and oversight to professions and professionals. This happens over a wide range of issue-areas, from health care to law, and professional groups, from educators to financial regulators and economists. At the national level, states legitimate and protect many professions by guarding standards and access. At the international level, we find an extension of national dynamics, including how professionals staff international organizations. By contrast, at the transnational level we see the rise of professional groups that operate under the radar, or beyond the control, of the state. Transnational professionals have been active in transforming much of the wiring of capitalist enterprises that make crises more likely, as well as mounting campaigns to point out unprofitable and unpopular potential crises.

This mini-conference talks to the theme of ‘professions in crisis’ in two senses. The first crisis is an immediate, ‘fast-burning’, crisis that induces a period of high uncertainty, leading professionals to battle over solutions against a background of increased political salience of the issues at hand. The recent financial crisis, for example, highlighted professional conflicts among groups seeking regulatory solutions, and also brought to surface brewing tensions between increased market-based pressure on professional groups and what the state (and taxpayer) is willing to pay for. Professionals can use professions as a resource and source of mobilization during periods of high uncertainty, with important consequences for the scope and depth of regulation across a range of issue-areas.

The second crisis is a prolonged one, a ‘slow-burning’ crisis that professionals work to highlight but are unable to gain the political attention. For example, transnational groups of demographers and health professionals point to intensifying long-term socio-economic pressures on societies and the fiscal purse. At the same time, other transnational professional groups are devising ways of hiding money away from that same purse. Many professionals are ‘scaling up’ to the transnational level, involving new forms of organizing and institutionalizing.

This mini-conference explores professions in crisis and brings together a number of leading scholars in economic sociology, political economy, organization studies, and international relations. Themes to be addressed by the proposed papers include:

1. Professional competition and coordination to address short and long-term socio-economic problems;
2. The rise of transnational professions and hybrid and quasi- professions;
3. The relationship between change in professions, professionals, and professionalisation and change in organizational and institutional forms associated with the state and modern capitalism.

Organizer: Leonard Seabrooke

  • switch to list view stand1

7. The Transformation of Higher Education Systems at a Time of Economic Crisis

Both the political economy and the neo-institutionalist literatures have so far paid little attention to the transformation of Higher Education (HE) systems. This is especially surprising at a time when, on the one hand, capitalist systems are experiencing a major crisis that affects all sectors including higher education and research, and, on the other hand, higher education and research systems are expected to produce, transfer and diffuse knowledge that can fuel (refuel) advanced economies.
Furthermore, the last thirty years have seen a globalization of HE which has taken the form of a world-wide diffusion of the Western type of tertiary institutions, while Universities in Europe have undergone enormous transformation. Overall, changes which have taken place in this field are connected to the increasingly crucial role of HE systems in advanced economies and are basically ways to respond to pressing needs for greater openness of these systems to the external environment.

A first general question for this mini-conference is, therefore, the following: how can the study of HE systems – of their recent dramatic changes as well as their persisting differences – be highlighted by using broader political economy views of the relations between state and market, including the international capitalist crisis and the transformation of institutions developed at an earlier stage?

A second broad question concerns the driving forces and the constellations of actors responsible for the deep transformation of HE systems and institutions in the last decades. Do the differences between national systems and between universities within a national system persist, suggesting that institutional contexts and power relations matter, or is a general process under way leading to a global market of HE? In the latter case, what is the role of public actors in the emergence of global reforms (such as the Bologna Process) and the development of similar policy instruments (such as policies for excellence) and how can these forms of public intervention effectively reduce national divergences? These questions hold for Western countries but also for emerging ones.  

In fact, HE has not just been deeply transformed; it has undergone a process of globalization, which leads us to the third general question. What structural factors and power relations can we detect under this process of globalization? What issues does it affect: curricula? Research agendas and methods? Academic labour markets? Higher education and research policies? The way HE and research institutions are run and structured?

Finally, the consequences of these transformations should be addressed: do they affect the national innovation systems and do they meet the needs in competences and knowledge of contemporary societies? Do they transform the relationships between higher education, research and society? Do they participate to the increase/reduction in inequalities among groups and/or territories?

Organizers: Christine Musselin, Marino Regini

  • switch to list view stand1

8. Economic Culture in the Public Sphere

As recent economic crises highlight, economic policy is a central concern of public sphere discussions. Cultural understandings of economic processes are highly consequential for economic policy formulation and legitimation. Whereas economy and culture were once considered distinct domains, social scientists now examine how economic interpretations generated by cultural processes--  such as authorization, justification, categorization, commensuration, symbolization, narration, and performance-- influence micro, meso, and macro-economic action. This mini-conference will assemble new contributions to our understanding of economic culture in the public sphere in order to assess how public understandings of "the economy" and economic policies are constructed and challenged.
We invite theoretical and empirical examinations of economic culture in the public sphere, especially but not exclusively, in economic crises that have increased uncertainty and human vulnerabilities across the globe. Some of the questions the mini-conference will address include the following:
• What are the processes whereby different publics have interpreted the economic crisis and have proposed solutions to it?
• How have discussions of the causes, consequences, and solutions to the crisis revealed differences in the meanings of the market for different constituencies?
• What are the political, cultural, and institutional features of public sphere discussions aimed at setting national and regional economies on firmer footing?
• In what ways are public sphere discussions reformulating economic theories about how national economies work, and how are these reformulations affecting financial legislation?
• More broadly, how are public debates over fairness, distribution, and non-economic priorities shaping labor movement strategies, corporate responses, and/ or public policies?  
As states intervene through stimulus or austerity, they create and rely on public sphere discussions to justify their actions and to create confidence for the course of their actions. Likewise, as businesses confront labor unrest and public relations crises, they too face the challenge of justifying how they operate. The bases of these justifications across a variety of capitalist systems and the micro-level reactions to these crisis by labor and other social movement actors offer opportunities for fruitful comparative examinations of culture, economics, and the public sphere.
Submissions for panels will be open to all scholars on the basis of an extended abstract. Selected participants must submit a completed paper to discussant and organizers by June 1, 2013. If a paper proposal cannot be accommodated within the mini-conference, it will be forwarded to the most appropriate research network as a regular submission.

Organizers: Lyn Spillman, Frederick F. Wherry, Nina Bandelj

  • switch to list view stand1

9. Social Change, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Activity

Contemporary research on social entrepreneurship and social innovation found its inspiration at the grassroots. Scholars interested in fundamental social change studied the efforts of pioneering social entrepreneurs working with the least advantaged people and communities. The commonalities in these efforts were a fresh view of market processes to drive social change in the context of intractable social problems such as poverty and environmental degradation. Over the years, some of the pioneering efforts studied have turned into established markets, new industries, and broader institution arrangements in sourcing, production, and governance, e.g., microfinance, fair-trade, or more recently crowd funding and mobile services). But most scholarship in this tradition remains preliminary, often locked within earlier conceptions on the role of entrepreneurship and innovation in processes of economic growth.

This Miniconference aims to capture the next generation of studies exploring innovation and entrepreneurship for social change. It springs from recent efforts to bring a deeper appreciation of the theoretical changes generated by early research in this area on our understanding of the role of individuals, the features of organizing, and the forms social change. This new scholarship provokes us to rethink or reuse familiar concepts of social change and systems impact with novel practical preoccupations (Dorado & Ventresca, 2012; J. Mair, Marti, & Ventresca, 2012; Johanna Mair & Marti, 2009). It also both challenges and enhances legacy theoretical perspectives with novel questions about the emergence, resilience, and diffusion of social entrepreneurship and innovation (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Dacin, Dacin, & Matear, 2010; Nicholls, 2006; Westley, Patton, & Zimmerman, 2007). But to this point, this research has progressed only far enough to demonstrate that our theories and questions are often inadequate for a full and fresh understanding of these phenomena. Much work remains!

We take advantage of SASE's uniquely interdisciplinary character and format to convene researchers who represent this range of approaches and traditions of theory and evidence. We want to attract theoretical essays and empirical explorations that consider social change, innovation, and entrepreneurship as a platform to refine our understanding of what social change means and how it works. We are equally interested in work that investigates the contexts for how what we know about social change can serve practitioners engaged in this area of social initiatives. We call for papers that

· Work across the gamut of theoretical approaches currently being explored in this area (e.g., institutional theories of change, legitimacy, and governance, resource mobilization theory, entrepreneurial leadership and opportunity recognition, and social network analysis).

· Bring approaches currently under-developed in studies of social innovation and entrepreneurship, including collective action, civic engagement, identity theory, institutional leadership, and comparative/historical studies.

· Start from perspectives in heterodox economics, history, and partner social sciences disciplines.

· Explore topics ranging from community-based entrepreneurship to the role of profit-seeking in “Bottom of the Pyramid” initiatives, from inclusive business model to franchising of social innovations, from market development to grassroots institutional reform, from donor to profit-based sustainability models

· Make use of varied units/levels of analysis ranging from individual, to organizational to community, national and global, as well as cross-level studies.

· Further, we welcome perspectives ranging from institutional logics, to complexity, to entrepreneurial resourcefulness, to social change, to technology innovation.

In short, we invite interesting papers (Davis, 1971) from a wide range of disciplines and perspectives. If we haven’t thought of a perspective and listed it above, that could well mean that we will find it more rather than less interesting. So please consider sending us your very best stuff. We promise you a vibrant conversation and exchange of ideas among a group of people with a common set of passions and a divergent set of ideas.

Organizers: Ted Baker, Silvia Dorado, Alex Nicholls, Ana Maria Peredo, Marc J. Ventresca

  • switch to list view stand1

Special Mini-Conference on Finance, States, and the Economy

Given the overwhelming impact that financialization and financial markets have had on the state in the past decades - not to mention on the current economic crisis - it should come as no surprise that SASE received an overwhelming number of excellent proposals for mini-conferences relating to this theme. In order to address the broadest possible range of questions relating to this complex and fascinating topic, the program committee asked five groups of mini-conference theme organizers to come together and offer a single mini-conference on finance, states, and the economy. Original theme proposals have been tailored down to fit into panels within this mini-conference track, and will therefore only be considering individual paper submissions.  

a. Central Banks, States, and Markets after the Crisis: Blurred Boundaries and Unchartered Territories

Within the context of the financial crisis of 2008 in core capitalist countries and the sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone, central banks have emerged as powerful institutions playing roles far exceeding their traditional functions of lenders of last resort and politically independent, technocratic institutions. In addition to external commentators in academia, media and fund management, economists at the Bank for International Settlement and the IMF (BIS 2012, IMF 2012, Singh and Stella 2012, Borio 2011) are increasingly questioning both the theoretical soundness and policy ambitions of central bank balance sheet policies. We have now an open ended commitment by central banks to generate growth and employment (U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England) and to save the euro and the eurozone banking (European Central Bank). The right-wing in the U.S. and the Conservatives in the U.K. are the most outspoken opposition to this new central bank activism. In the U.S. the Fed and Bernanke actions are condemned as a new form of state intervention in markets and in the U.K. the conservatives demand political accountability and a new mode of governance for the Bank of England. On the other hand, the conditionality that the ECB demands in exchange for purchasing sovereign bonds is criticized as a technocratic intervention into democratic politics that goes far beyond its original mandate.

In this mini-conference we invite articles that investigate:

a) central banks’ transformation from a rhetorical neutrality to active risk taking in a political vacuum during a major crisis of capitalism;

b) social and economic institutional character of central banks before and after the crisis;

c) changing roles of central banks in the global political economy;

d) cognitive and theoretical status of central bank practice;

Organizers: Ismail Ertürk, Daniela Gabor, Zeev Rosenhek

  • switch to list view stand1

b. Finance, Public Policy, and the Economy

This panel will explore the connection between finance, public policy, and the economy.   Public policies in the 20th century were reflective of two major ideologies of the role of government in the economy.  The Keynesian interventionists supported public policies that explicitly promoted economic growth and prosperity, while the neo-liberal free market ideologues held that government intervention only deterred economic prosperity and individual freedom.

Policymakers and citizens struggle to reconcile the desire for policies that promote employment, economic prosperity, and social welfare, while limiting the cost and size of government.  Many governments seem to be more beholden to financial markets than to their own citizens, while many citizens seem to believe that private finance should continue to provide funds for government expenditures that they want collectively, but are unwilling to pay for individually.  Private finance and public policies both have a profound influence on a nation's economy, employment, and social welfare.  Both have undergone substantial changes in the past three decades.  With many states struggling with increased borrowing costs, pressures from debt holders for fiscal austerity and structural changes, and increasing economic and social inequality, many are now questioning the role of finance and financial, and the ability of governments to support long-term economic prosperity and develop public policies that really meet the needs of individuals.  Several important research questions arise from these changes:  What is the role of government and public policy in the financial and economic health of a nation?  What is the connection between private finance and public expenditures?  How can economic prosperity be best achieved?

The purpose of this panel is to explore and reconsider the connections between finance, financial institutions, public policy, and the economy.  Papers may consider: Public Policy and Economic Growth; Finance and Capitalism; Recent trends in Finance; Impact of Budget Cutbacks and Fiscal Austerity on the Economy; The Role of Financial Institutions in Society; Financial Regulation; and Financial Structures and Innovation.

Organizer: Beth-Anne Schuelke-Leech

  • switch to list view stand1

c. Financial Participation and Profit Sharing

In the SASE Mini-Conference, we would like to discuss financial participation in an adequately broad and interdisciplinary way. We are particularly interested in questions such as:
-There is a great variety of financial participation schemes among companies. How do di erent forms of financial participation work? What are employers' motivation introducing nancial participation schemes?
-In the economic and financial crisis, the discussion about goals and functions of employee financial participation became a new focus. Is financial participation a proper `trade' for companies and employees during a global crisis? Do employee buy-outs provide a solution for companies in crisis?
-Social partners have a crucial role in introduction and development of employee financial participation. What are the positions and roles of trade unions and work councils on financial participation?
-During the socio-economic transformation the New Member States of the European had the chance to choose employee financial participation as an institution. Under which conditions did they follow this path and how did financial participation develop?
-`A Piece of the Cake for Social Justice' is the slogan of an European initiative and platform to promote financial participation in Europe. Does financial participation address social justice?
-The relationship between financial participation and productivity has been a main focus among researchers, but have not been answered finally.
-Research on industrial democracy has a long tradition. Which role do worker-owned enterprises like Mondragon play in the discussionabout employee financial participation? What are their advantages and disadvantages?

Organizers: Wenzel Matiaske, Simon Fietze

  • switch to list view stand1

d. Rethinking Islamic Finance: Markets, Firms and Institutions

The ongoing global financial crisis has reopened academic debates that question the everyday practices and knowledge bases of investors, financial firms, and regulatory bodies. It has also given new momentum to the search for alternatives to the existing global financial order. One such alternative that has been put forward is Islamic finance. Deriving its core principles from the jurisprudential body of knowledge known as the Sharia, Islamic finance has grown into a global, one trillion US dollar market, in competition with conventional financial markets, instruments and institutions.  We invite contributions to expand our empirical understanding of this social phenomenon.  Priority will be given to papers that use new empirical research to address social theory.

Organizers: Aaron Z. Pitluck, Lena Rethel

  • switch to list view stand1

e. States within the Categories of Financial Stability

This mini-conference seeks to explore the place of the state within the concepts through which financial stability is thought, represented and enacted as policy and practice by public and private actors. Although the concepts of financial regulation, of monetary policy and of professional financial practice all refer to some broadly defined commonly shared economic and financial theories, they are nevertheless produced and applied in concrete situations in a great variety of divergent and sometimes conflicting ways. In the current neo-liberal frame that officially inspires most financial regulation and financial theory, the role of states is to guarantee financial stability by ensuring the respect of the rules of “market efficiency”, i.e. the transparency in the access of “information” and the freedom and atomicity of “investors”. The category of “qualified” investors, which mainly designates the companies in the financial industry, singles out this industry as the locus where financial stability needs to be produced, enforced and protected. But the concepts with which this is grasped and performed come from a complex interrelation between regulatory, academic, legal and professional milieus, with some specific actors operating in many of them at the same time.

Organziers: Benjamin Lemoine, Sabine Montagne, Horacio Ortiz

  • switch to list view stand1