葡萄牙、罗马尼亚的原始二元论、劳动法与临时工(1920 - 1960年)

0 ANTHROPOLOGY
Sociology Lens Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI:10.1111/johs.12485
Adrian Grama
{"title":"葡萄牙、罗马尼亚的原始二元论、劳动法与临时工(1920 - 1960年)","authors":"Adrian Grama","doi":"10.1111/johs.12485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article argues that any historical explanation of the emergence of dualism in the labor market should take labor law seriously for two intertwined reasons: first, because before there could be a dualism of insiders and outsiders in the market, there was an original dualism inscribed in statutory legislation covering employment contracts; and second because before there could be a neat distinction between a primary and a secondary sector, there was a prevailing legal hierarchy that rewarded the stability of the most stable employees while concomitantly rescinding protection from casual workers. The article asks how these original dualisms were overcome during the better half of the twentieth century, and what mechanisms might explain the eventual collapse of the legal distinctions between various types of employees and the differential distribution of rights that came with it. Empirically, the article draws comparatively on the social and legal history of Portugal and Romania from the 1920s to the 1960s to propose a historically rich and conceptually fresh interpretation of the emergence of “standard employment” on the two peripheries of Europe.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":101168,"journal":{"name":"Sociology Lens","volume":"38 1","pages":"2-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Original Dualisms Labor Law and Casual Work in Portugal and Romania (1920s–1960s)\",\"authors\":\"Adrian Grama\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/johs.12485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>This article argues that any historical explanation of the emergence of dualism in the labor market should take labor law seriously for two intertwined reasons: first, because before there could be a dualism of insiders and outsiders in the market, there was an original dualism inscribed in statutory legislation covering employment contracts; and second because before there could be a neat distinction between a primary and a secondary sector, there was a prevailing legal hierarchy that rewarded the stability of the most stable employees while concomitantly rescinding protection from casual workers. The article asks how these original dualisms were overcome during the better half of the twentieth century, and what mechanisms might explain the eventual collapse of the legal distinctions between various types of employees and the differential distribution of rights that came with it. Empirically, the article draws comparatively on the social and legal history of Portugal and Romania from the 1920s to the 1960s to propose a historically rich and conceptually fresh interpretation of the emergence of “standard employment” on the two peripheries of Europe.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology Lens\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"2-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology Lens\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/johs.12485\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology Lens","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/johs.12485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,对劳动力市场二元论出现的任何历史解释都应该认真对待劳动法,原因有两个:首先,因为在市场中出现内部人与外部人的二元论之前,在涉及劳动合同的法定立法中就已经有了最初的二元论;其次,在第一产业和第二产业之间没有明确的区别之前,普遍存在着一种法律等级制度,这种制度奖励最稳定的雇员,同时取消对临时工的保护。这篇文章询问了这些最初的二元论是如何在20世纪上半叶被克服的,以及什么样的机制可以解释各种类型的雇员之间的法律区别的最终崩溃以及随之而来的权利的差异分配。在经验上,本文比较地借鉴了葡萄牙和罗马尼亚从20世纪20年代到60年代的社会和法律历史,对“标准就业”在欧洲两个边缘地区的出现提出了历史丰富和概念新颖的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Original Dualisms Labor Law and Casual Work in Portugal and Romania (1920s–1960s)

This article argues that any historical explanation of the emergence of dualism in the labor market should take labor law seriously for two intertwined reasons: first, because before there could be a dualism of insiders and outsiders in the market, there was an original dualism inscribed in statutory legislation covering employment contracts; and second because before there could be a neat distinction between a primary and a secondary sector, there was a prevailing legal hierarchy that rewarded the stability of the most stable employees while concomitantly rescinding protection from casual workers. The article asks how these original dualisms were overcome during the better half of the twentieth century, and what mechanisms might explain the eventual collapse of the legal distinctions between various types of employees and the differential distribution of rights that came with it. Empirically, the article draws comparatively on the social and legal history of Portugal and Romania from the 1920s to the 1960s to propose a historically rich and conceptually fresh interpretation of the emergence of “standard employment” on the two peripheries of Europe.

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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信