失败的指示:在两次世界大战期间国际劳工组织的社会服务国际调查中定义、比较和量化社会政策

J. Berten
{"title":"失败的指示:在两次世界大战期间国际劳工组织的社会服务国际调查中定义、比较和量化社会政策","authors":"J. Berten","doi":"10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.175-201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"»Gescheiterte Indikatorisierung: Definition, Vergleich und Quantifizierung von Sozialpolitik durch den International Survey of Social Services der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation in der Zwischenkriegszeit«. Despite social policy being one of the most quantified policy fields today, there is no singular indicator or set of indicators of social policy quality or performance on the global level that is universally accepted and influential, comparable to GDP in the economy. The article analyses and explains the unsuccessful indicatorisation in the ILO’s International Survey of Social Services of the interwar years. During this first elaborate study of social policies worldwide by an international organisation, difficult issues of defining, comparing, and quantifying social policy had to be solved for the first time. Theoretically, a sociology of knowledge approach on indicatorisation is utilised that highlights how social policy was questioned and evaluated. This illustrates the demanding work of comparing including a politicized knowledge production, identifying conditions and hindrances of defining and quantifying the 'social'. It is observed that different interests of participants, epistemic cultures, and practices, as well as bureaucratic procedures resulted in the mere inclusion of a provisional indicator of cost and little quantified data in the final Survey. Empirically, the article relies on an in-depth analysis of historical ILO documents.","PeriodicalId":47073,"journal":{"name":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","volume":"44 1","pages":"175-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Failed Indicatorisation: Defining, Comparing and Quantifying Social Policy in the ILO's International Survey of Social Services of the Interwar Period\",\"authors\":\"J. Berten\",\"doi\":\"10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.175-201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"»Gescheiterte Indikatorisierung: Definition, Vergleich und Quantifizierung von Sozialpolitik durch den International Survey of Social Services der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation in der Zwischenkriegszeit«. Despite social policy being one of the most quantified policy fields today, there is no singular indicator or set of indicators of social policy quality or performance on the global level that is universally accepted and influential, comparable to GDP in the economy. The article analyses and explains the unsuccessful indicatorisation in the ILO’s International Survey of Social Services of the interwar years. During this first elaborate study of social policies worldwide by an international organisation, difficult issues of defining, comparing, and quantifying social policy had to be solved for the first time. Theoretically, a sociology of knowledge approach on indicatorisation is utilised that highlights how social policy was questioned and evaluated. This illustrates the demanding work of comparing including a politicized knowledge production, identifying conditions and hindrances of defining and quantifying the 'social'. It is observed that different interests of participants, epistemic cultures, and practices, as well as bureaucratic procedures resulted in the mere inclusion of a provisional indicator of cost and little quantified data in the final Survey. Empirically, the article relies on an in-depth analysis of historical ILO documents.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"175-201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.175-201\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Social Research-Historische Sozialforschung","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.44.2019.2.175-201","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

《社会政治的定义、分析与量化》,《国际社会服务调查》,《国际社会服务调查》。尽管社会政策是当今量化程度最高的政策领域之一,但在全球范围内,没有一种单一指标或一套指标可以与经济中的国内生产总值相比,被普遍接受和具有影响力。本文分析和解释了国际劳工组织在两次世界大战之间的国际社会服务调查中不成功的指示。在由一个国际组织对世界范围内的社会政策进行的第一次详尽的研究中,必须第一次解决定义、比较和量化社会政策的困难问题。从理论上讲,利用指示性的知识社会学方法,强调社会政策是如何受到质疑和评估的。这说明了比较的要求工作,包括政治化的知识生产,确定定义和量化“社会”的条件和障碍。可以观察到,参与者的不同利益、认知文化和实践,以及官僚程序,导致在最终调查中仅仅包括一个临时成本指标和很少的量化数据。在实证方面,本文依赖于对国际劳工组织历史文件的深入分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Failed Indicatorisation: Defining, Comparing and Quantifying Social Policy in the ILO's International Survey of Social Services of the Interwar Period
»Gescheiterte Indikatorisierung: Definition, Vergleich und Quantifizierung von Sozialpolitik durch den International Survey of Social Services der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation in der Zwischenkriegszeit«. Despite social policy being one of the most quantified policy fields today, there is no singular indicator or set of indicators of social policy quality or performance on the global level that is universally accepted and influential, comparable to GDP in the economy. The article analyses and explains the unsuccessful indicatorisation in the ILO’s International Survey of Social Services of the interwar years. During this first elaborate study of social policies worldwide by an international organisation, difficult issues of defining, comparing, and quantifying social policy had to be solved for the first time. Theoretically, a sociology of knowledge approach on indicatorisation is utilised that highlights how social policy was questioned and evaluated. This illustrates the demanding work of comparing including a politicized knowledge production, identifying conditions and hindrances of defining and quantifying the 'social'. It is observed that different interests of participants, epistemic cultures, and practices, as well as bureaucratic procedures resulted in the mere inclusion of a provisional indicator of cost and little quantified data in the final Survey. Empirically, the article relies on an in-depth analysis of historical ILO documents.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erosion of Solidarity in France and Welfare Conventions: The New Role of Complementary Health Insurance. Economics of Convention Meets Canguilhem “Targeting Lifestyle" Conditions: What Justifications for Treatment? Medicine and economic knowledge : the relevance of career in the study of transformations in the healthcare system Perspectives on the economics and sociology of health. Contributions from the institutionalist approach of economics of convention – an introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1