Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 2001. Graduate Programme in Social and Political Thought. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 327-341). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ82827.

Thesis--Uppsala. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 179-184).

Thesis (M.A.)--Acadia University, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 169-172). Also available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.

Thesis--Heidelberg. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 213-215).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 2005. Graduate Programme in Political Science. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 190-206). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNR11627

No description available.

Orientador: Mauricio Chalfin Coutinho / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Economia / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-23T03:25:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Loureiro_PedroMendes_M.pdf: 3728498 bytes, checksum: c0fdc61b9b9518ae171e0f867839bd64 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 / Resumo: Encaminha-se com este trabalho uma discussão do pensamento de Bob Jessop, focada na transição que propõe para a forma estatal contemporânea e em sua compreensão da relação entre o econômico e o político. Com vistas a tanto, primeiramente se apresenta de maneira esquemática como o autor entende a conformação tendencial do Schumpeterian workfare postnational regime (SWPR) a partir da crise do fordismo e de sua forma estatal, o Estado nacional keynesiano de bem-estar (ENKBE). Em seguida, apresenta-se o processo de construção teórica de Jessop e suas principais posições metateóricas, para então propor leitura de sua obra que destaca como o autor constrói uma compreensão crescentemente complexa da relação entre o político e o econômico. Vê-se como um ponto central nisso a recusa de tomar por dada a unidade substantiva de seguidas dimensões das formações sociais, a exemplo do poder de Estado e das formas da acumulação de capital. Neste processo, o autor mobiliza cada vez mais numerosos conceitos estratégicos de grau de abstração intermediário a indicar a possiblidade contingente de garantir-se tal unidade. Interpreta-se, igualmente, que as reformulações que leva a cabo são centralmente motivadas pela tentativa de evitar o politicismo. Feito isso, cobrem-se debates recentes relacionados à transição do ENKBE para o SWPR, bem como se discutem certas agendas de pesquisa associadas ao tema. Por fim, apresenta-se reavaliação da proposta de transição de Jessop sob a luz da evolução teórica do próprio autor e das questões que emergem dos debates contemporâneos. Sugere- se que as críticas de funcionalismo, estruturalismo e determinismo econômico que lhe foram dirigidas podem ser evitadas se feita referência a sua obra mais ampla. Neste sentido, argumenta se que sua narrativa da emergência da forma estatal contemporânea pode ser melhor apreciada se vista como parte de uma agenda de pesquisa em aberto, que necessariamente deve transitar entre dimensões abstratas-simples e concreto-complexas. Indicam-se também algumas reorientações que se consideram mais frutíferas, nomeadamente: i) estudar o pós-fordismo no quadro de um "capitalismo variegado"; ii) desenvolver explicitamente um quadro teórico evolucionário para a interpretação da relação entre o político e o econômico; e iii) enxergar a articulação entre as diferentes formas do capital sob um único regime de acumulação a se desenvolver em cada tempo e espaço, e não através de regimes concorrentes / Abstract: We herein discuss the work of Bob Jessop, focusing on the transition he proposes to the contemporary state form and on his understanding of the relationship between the economic and the political. In order to do so, we first schematically present how the author suggests that the Schumpeterian workfare post-national regime (SWPR) tendentially emerges out of the crisis of Fordism and its state form - the Keynesian welfare national state (KWNS). We then present Jessop's theory-building process and his main meta-theoretical positions. Following this, we propose a reading of the author's works that highlights how he develops a growingly complex understanding of the relationship between the economic and the political. A central point in this regards how he successively comes to deny the a priori substantive unity of various aspects of social formations, such as state power and the forms of capital accumulation, while in the same process mobilising an ever-greater number of middle-range strategic concepts that indicate the contingent possibility of securing such unity. We also suggest that most of Jessop's theoretical shifts and reformulations in this dimension are fundamentally motivated by attempts at avoiding politicism. Having done so, we cover recent debates and research agendas related to the transition from the KWNS to the SWPR. We finally reassess Jessop's proposed transition in light of his own theoretical evolution and of the issues that emerge from the contemporary debates. We suggest that the critiques some authors have voiced of functionalism, structuralism and economic determinism might be avoided if one refers to Jessop's oeuvre as whole. In this sense, we propose that the latter's account of the emergence of the current state form can be better appreciated if seen as part of an open research agenda, which must spiral through abstract-simple and concrete-complex levels. We also propose some shifts to this agenda, namely: i) to investigate post-Fordism in the framework of a 'variegated capitalism'; ii) developing an explicitly evolutionary theoretical approach to the relationship between the economic and the political; and iii) to study the articulation of the different forms of capital under a single regime of accumulation in each space and time, and not through competing regimes / Mestrado / Teoria Economica / Mestre em Ciências Econômicas

M.A. (Sociology) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

No description available.

This study was an examination of businesses that became big businesses in the United States during the time period between the years of 1861 and 1890, a period of time frequently referred to as the “big business era.” The purpose of the study was to identify actions taken by businesses that enabled them to become and remain big businesses. A secondary purpose of the study was to show that these actions were explained by theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber. The results of the study showed that businesses which took specific actions were able to become and remain big businesses and these actions were explained by the theories of Marx and Weber. The results of the study demonstrate the ability of classical sociological theory to explain macro-level social change.