Suchergebnisse

Why should social inequality be the topic of a session of a history congress
rather than of a meeting of sociologists and, hence, a section of this book by
historians rather than by sociologists? Why should one raise the issue of social
inequality in a period of deep worldwide economic crisis in which the general
public is interested in other themes and in which social inequality is often
considered as a preoccupation of the past economic boom ? Why should social
inequality be treated in a series of papers on quantitative history after having
become so much a preoccupation of intellectual history and of ideological
debates? I shall briefly answer these important and unavoidable questions, then
cover the definition as well as some ideas on the long-term change of social
inequality and finally say something about the three cases which are dealt with
in the following papers, i. e. Sweden, Poland, and the U.S.

"German industrial expansion in the period 1880-1913 was significantly more rapid than that of the United Kingdom, and substantially less volatile than that of the United States. A partial explanation for the relatively stable growth path of the German economy during these years may be found in the greater relative importance and volatility of the railroad construction component of net investment in the United States. By 1880 only a little over one-third of the U.S. final rail net was in place, compared with over half in the case of Germany. Compared to Germany, railroad investment in the United States between 1880 and World War I was, on average, much larger absolutely. It was also much larger in comparison to total population, total industrial output, and in comparison to expenditures on residential construction. In addition, it was more volatile. The lesser importance and volatility of this component of autonomous expenditure in the German case partially accounts for the relative nonvolatility of the German industrial Output series." (author's abstract)

Kollektivbiographische Untersuchung der Lebensläufe der
Hochschullehrer der TH Berlin-Charlottenburg im Hinblick
auf folgende Leitfragen: Wie entwickelten sich Form und
Inhalt von Hochschullehrerpositionen im
Untersuchungszeitraum? In welcher Weise bildeten sich feste Karrieremuster heraus? Inwieweit lassen sich dabei
bestimmte Hochschullehrertypen differenzieren? Inwieweit
lassen sich - nach dem Vorbild eines Regelkreismodells der
Wissenschaft - die gewonnen Erkenntnisse in allgemeinere
Zusammenhänge einordnen?

Themen: Allgemeiner Lebensverlauf, allgemeiner
Karriereverlauf (Promotion, Habilitation, Hoschulorte,
Erstberufung, Emeritierung), spezifische
Hochschulkarriereverlauf vor Eintritt in die TH Berlin,
während der Tätigkeit an der TH Berlin und nach Ausscheiden
aus der TH Berlin (insbesondere Dauer und Art der
innegehabten Positionen), Einordnung in die
wissenschaftliche Fachsystematik.

"This paper attempts to explain the coming and going of the Great Depression purely in real-economic terms by exhibiting some long-run regularities in the evolutionary interplay between innovation and Stagnation. This interplay seems to go through long-range cycles of structural change. According to our propositions, Stagnation is the result of imbalanced technological change: for too many years there were too many rationalizing (R) innovations and too few expansionary (E) innovations. As the E/R ratio becomes too low, the socio-economic system becomes structurally unstable (crisis) and structurally ready (recovery) for a new spurt of basic innovations and a good many expansionary changes." (author's abstract)