Category Archives: Workshop

CfP: The Emergence of the Business School in Europe: Social, Economic, and Scientific Contexts (1818-1939)

CEFRES Platform Workshop for Young Scholars

Deadline for submission: February 28, 2017
Decision notification due: March 15, 2017
Submission of papers: May 15, 2017
Date & Place: CEFRES, Prague, June 6, 2017
Language of the workshop: English

Organizer: Mátyás Erdélyi (CEFRES & CEU)
Partners: CEFRES and Department of Historical Sociology of the Faculty of Humanities, Charles University

Confirmed discussants: Marianne Blanchard (University of Toulouse, ESPE Midi-Pyrénées /CERTOP); Marcela Efmertová (ČVUT) ; Jiří Hnilica (Charles University, Faculty of Pedagogy); Victor Karady (Central European University, Department of History)

Please send a paper title, a 400 word-long abstract, and a short academic CV to: matyas.erdelyi@cefres.cz. A limited number of accommodation grants are available.

Call for papers

The emergence of business or trade education makes an essential, although seldom recognized, part of the overall modernization of European societies in the nineteenth century. The significant growth of business schools in the middle of the nineteenth century can be directly connected to the second phase of industrialization and, consequently, to the growing needs of a professionally trained workforce in industry and trade. The present workshop is interested in the history of all types of business education – schools teaching uniquely business courses and other vocational-technical schools offering business courses (e.g. the Technische Hochschulen). It thus seeks to provide a comparative overview of the emergence of business education in its historical context focusing on the following problem areas: the business school in the educational field, its economic context, its social environment, and its scientific pretensions in the Europe between 1818 and 1938.

The workshop will bring together junior researchers (PhD candidates and early career researchers) engaged in the field of the history of science, social history, economic history, the history of ideas, or sociology.

A) The Institutionalization and Systematization of Business Education

In the educational context, the emergence of business education can be studied in relation to the general systematization of secondary and higher education, as part of the social transformation of the educational system in the nineteenth century, and as one of the main forms of institutional diversification. We are interested in case studies of institutions and national systems of business education that reflect upon the historical development and the functioning of business schools, the legislative, economic, cultural environment of their foundation, the origins of the curriculum, the transfer and influence of institutional patterns in the European context, the conflict between state and private institutions, the professionalization of business education (professional associations, teacher training colleges, professional journals, publication of textbooks), and the scope of the business schools and their positioning in relation to other forms of education.

B) The Business School in the Economic Context

This problem area seeks contributions that address the following general questions: what is the contribution of business education to economic transformation, industrialization, and the rise of capitalism? How business methods influence the cognitive content of vocational education; how the connections between the business school and the world of business could be comprehended (direct involvement of businessmen in the management of schools, recruitment patterns in business favoring or not favoring certain qualifications, professors co-employed in schools and business enterprises)? What are the career patterns of business school graduates and how to analyze the connection between the emergence of the large enterprise, the separation of ownership management, and the rise of vocational education?

C) The Business School in Society

The main concept here is the social transformation of secondary and higher education, which refers to the social functions the educational system performed in the frame of larger social change (mobility, social legitimation, etcetera). The aura of secondary and higher education could enhance the social recognition of certain professions (most importantly trade); and most business schools became an important avenue of social mobility as it granted access to secondary education and provided bourgeois social prerogatives to its graduates. We invite contributions dealing with recruitment patterns of business schools (social and denominational) in relation to other educational institutions, the social representation and prestige of the school, the business school as an avenue of mobility, its function in the shift from an emphasis on hereditary rights to meritocracy, the evaluation of the gender proportions in business schools.

D) The Business School and Science

This section of the workshop concentrates on the status and production of knowledge transmitted in business schools. Their emergence is intertwined with a claim over the scientificity of the ‘sciences of trade’ (sciences commerciales, Handelswissenschaften, obchodní nauka, kereskedelmi tudományok). However, there is an increasing gap between the theory and practice of business in the educational setting. It is not by chance that contemporaries vehemently discussed whether the instruction of business and trade should be comprehended as a Bildung or as a vocational training. Contributions may address the following problem areas: how the scientificity of business management is enhanced through the educational system and vice versa; how to conceptualize the contention between theoretical knowledge and practical skills in the field of business education; how the interaction of scientists and business reshape scientific epistemologies, methods, and tools; who the agents are and where the knowledge production of business management takes place.

Workshop: Urban district, a research topic in interdisciplinary perspective

TEMADate and Venue: CEFRES, Na Florenci 3, 16th March, 2016.

A young researcher workshop on “Neighbourhoods”, organized by Luďa Klusáková (Institute of World History of the Faculty of Arts of Charles University). All contributions will be discussed by Prof. Lydia Coudroy de Lille.

Language: English.

Program

10:00–11:00  Prof. Lydia Coudroy de Lille (Université Lumière, Lyon)

  • Introduction – Conceptualization of the notion „urban district“ and her personal approach to the research area

11:00 Mgr. Natallia Linitskaya, PhD candidate in the 4th year of study program: Between city and work shops: house, job and leisure in the tractor work shops neighborhood in Minsk, 1946-1960s.

12:00 Mgr. Tereza Horáčková, PhD student in the 1st year of study program: Les Vietnamiens à Prague :  « SAPA » – un espace de cohésion socio-culturel et des économies informels.

13:00 Lunch

14:00
Prof. Luďa Klusáková: Urban district in the perspective from the TEMA network.

14:20
Anna Pestova (TEMA MA 1st year): Gentrification projects Užupis (in Vilnius) and Kalamaja (in Tallinn).

15:00 
Stesha Sashnikova (TEMA MA 2nd year):  Creation of new public places as an important direction of urban development of Petrograd district in the beginning of the 20th century.

15:30
Sami Bayram (TEMA MA 2nd year): The Role of Public Institutions in the transformation of Pera into a cultural district of Istanbul.

16:00
Conclusions of the workshop.

Private actors in politics and policy-making: Trespassers producing norms?

CEFRES Platform Workshop for Young Scholars

Deadline for Submission: 29 February 2016.
Decision notification due: 14 March 2016.
Date & Place: 12 May 2016, at CEFRES on Národní 18, conference room on the 7th floor.
Organizers: Jana Vargovčíková (CEFRES & FF UK) and Kateřina Merklová (FF UK)

Please send your CV, paper title and a 500 words-long abstract to: jana.vargovcikova@cefres.cz.

The workshop will include among its discussants Hélène Michel (SAGE, Institut d´Études Politiques in Strasbourg) and Michael Smith (CERGE-EI, Czech Academy of Sciences).

For non-Czech participants, accommodation in Prague can be provided by the organizers.

Call for Papers

Political activities of private actors have long since been an object of study in many disciplines of social sciences. In political science and sociology, the notion of “interest group” has served as a particular way of conceptualizing private actors when they try to influence public decision-making (Courty 2006; Grossman and Saurugger 2006). In the face of a growing diversity of entities undertaking such activities (e.g. individual companies, their associations, think-tanks, hybrid networks of companies and NGOs), some suggested that the definition of the term should be extended to encompass this variety of actors (Gray and Lowery 1996; Saurugger 2004) while others have highlighted the specificities of the role companies (Mclaughlin, Jordan, and Maloney 1993; Coen 1997; Hart 2008; Ciepley 2013; Landemore and Ferreras 2015) or lobbyists (Heinz et al. 1993; Kersh 2002; Michel 2005; Courty and Michel 2012) play as actors in politics. The distinction between the private and the public spheres, however, remains a common analytical ground to these works, even when they conclude by observing how the two interlock.

The interweaving relationships of public and private actors have been studied and theorized at least since the works of Arthur Bentley and later pluralist and neo-corporatist theories of state-society relationships (Truman 1959; Schattschneider 1960; Schmitter 1974), theories pointing to rent-seeking behaviour of private actors (Tullock 2005) as well as studies of transnational politics emphasizing the role of private actors in it (Mansbach and etc 1976). In recent decades however, a body of literature has emerged that documents a growth in private actors’ involvement in politics and policy at multiple levels of government, which it relates to the changes in modes of governance towards more horizontality and flexibility in creating policy-making fora (Rhodes 1997; Héritier 2002; Hall and Biersteker 2002; Stone 2013; Peters 2009), but also to the state’s changing regulatory modes and capacities (Majone 1994; Lascoumes and Le Galès 2004; Lascoumes and Le Galès 2007).

While some contend these developments testify to a “retreat of the state” (Strange 1996) or “hollowing out of the state” (Rhodes 1994), others consider that when outsourcing parts of their responsibilities, states are indeed keeping control over the process, and remain, in fine, agents of authority delegation and “accomplices” of the growing role of private actors (Wright 1994; Knill and Lehmkuhl 2002; Green 2013). Still, this rising part taken by private actors in politics and policy has to be read in the context of what has come to be labelled as a crisis of representation. As public authorities are striving to ground more firmly their legitimacy, they are opening windows of opportunity for actors still deprived of a formalized role in politics to negotiate their place in the public sphere.

As the dichotomy underpinning most of this literature suggests, when private actors develop activities in order to influence the production of norms, they can be seen as transgressing borders between the private and the public sphere.

Our workshop will focus on the management, the implications, and the meanings of such transgressions, both analytical and normative:

(1) since norm-production and oversight have been key elements of the classical distinction between the public and private spheres at least from the formation of modern state, the very foundations of such distinction may be questioned with private actors’ increasing involvement in public decision-making.

(2) the analytical distinction, however, cannot entirely be separated from a normative one, the private actors’ involvement sometimes leading to a transgression of norms of democratic decision-making founded on publicity, legitimacy, equality and accountability.

The ambivalence in the perceptions of their role also seems to be growing sharper: On the one hand, private actors are increasingly providing not only technical, but also legal and legislative expertise, be it via expert groups or through the outsourcing of legal work by parties and administrations. They are labelled as partners of public authorities in the Public-Private Partnership projects, as collaborators (Donahue and Zeckhauser 2006), stakeholders or become entrepreneurs of norm-creation themselves (Green 2013). In reaction to broader pressures for companies to take responsibility over their impacts on society and the environment, CSR strategies have become a common exercise for large firms. Growing out of the CSR concept, the notion of corporate citizenship appeared in managerial literature and debates on the purpose of multinational firms, and initiated claims of rights based on these new ways of legitimation (Champion and Gendron 2005; Gendron 2014).

On the other hand, accounts multiplied of private actors’ involvement in financing political parties, of their seeking public procurement contracts through practices of clientelism or corruption, and of their growing investments in lobbying. After decades of reluctance, the criminal liability of companies has entered criminal codes of most European countries: today, companies, and not only “deviant” individuals working for them, can be accountable for white-collar crime (Lascoumes, 1997). Correspondingly, the “fight against corruption” has been institutionalized at both transnational and national levels (Favarel-Garrigues 2009). As contextual as perceptions of corruption might be (Heidenheimer and Johnston 2001; Lascoumes 2011), countless scandals and affairs related to corruption (Thompson 2000; Offenstadt et al. 2007; Rayner 2007; Blic and Lemieux 2005) have stirred public indignation in the recent decades.

Our workshop will bring together junior researchers (advanced PhD students and post-docs in political science, law, sociology and economics) who seek to address the changing role of private actors in norm-production. We particularly welcome papers, empirical or theoretical, related to Central and Eastern European contexts.

Areas of interest include but are not limited to the following:

1. How do private actors manage these transgressions both internally (vis-à-vis their shareholders and employees), and externally (public communication, interactions with public actors)? How do they adapt their practices to the rules of the public sphere? How in turn do they transform these very rules?

2. What role do intermediaries such as consultants, lobbyists, lawyers or advisors play in managing the transgressions between the private and public spheres, both as analytical and as normative categories?

3. How do various public actors manage private actors’ transgressions in the political sphere?

4. What does the growing involvement of private actors in politics and policy mean for the very dichotomy of the public and private spheres and the associated dichotomy of public and private actors? How can we grasp the impact of such developments on our understanding of democratic governance?

Scientific Committee

Hélène Michel (SAGE, Institut d´Études Politiques in Strasbourg), Michael Smith (CERGE-EI, Czech Academy of Sciences), Zdeňka Mansfeldová (Institute of Sociology, Czech Adacemy of Sciences), Ondřej Císař (Institute of Sociology, Czech Adacemy of Sciences), Ondřej Slačálek (Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague).

References

Blic, Damien de, and Cyril Lemieux. “Le scandale comme épreuve.” Politix 71, no. 3 (September 1, 2005): 9– 38.

Champion, Emmanuelle, and Corinne Gendron. “De la responsabilité sociale à la citoyenneté corporative: L’entreprise privée et sa nécessaire quête de légitimité.” Nouvelles pratiques sociales 18, no. 1 (2005).

Ciepley, David. “Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation.” American Political Science Review 107, no. 1 (February 2013): 139–58.

Coen, David. “The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 4, no. 1 (January 1, 1997): 91–108.

Courty, Guillaume. Les groupes d’intérêt. Paris: La Découverte, 2006.

Courty, Guillaume, and Hélène Michel. “Groupes D’intérêt et Lobbyistes Dans L’espace Politique Européen : Des Permanents de L’eurocratie.” In Le Champ de l’Eurocratie. Une Sociologie Politique Du Personnel de l’UE, edited by Didier Georgakakis, Etudes politiques., 213–40. Paris: Economica, 2012.

Donahue, John D., and Richard J. Zeckhauser. “Public-Private Collaboration.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, edited by Michael Moran, Martin Rein, and Robert E. Goodin, 496–525. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Favarel-Garrigues, Gilles. “Présentation.” Droit et société n° 72, no. 2 (September 29, 2009): 273–84.

Gendron, Corinne. “L’entreprise Citoyenne Comme Utopie Économique : Vers Une Redéfinition de La Démocratie ?” Lien Social et Politiques, no. 72 (2014).

Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

Green, Jessica F. Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.

Grossman, Emiliano, and Sabine Saurugger. Les Groupes D’intérêt : Action Collective et Stratégies de Représentation. Armand Colin, 2006.

Hall, Rodney Bruce, and Thomas J. Biersteker. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Hart, David M. “The Political Theory of the Firm.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, December 31, 2008. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1406640.

Heidenheimer, Arnold J., and Michael Johnston, eds. Political Corruption: Concepts and Contexts. 3rd edition. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Heinz, John P., Edward O. Laumann, Robert L. Nelson, and Robert H. Salisbury. The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Héritier, Adrienne. “New Modes of Governance in Europe: Policy Making without Legislating?” In Reihe Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 81. Wien: Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien, 2002.

Kersh, Rogan. “Corporate Lobbyists as Political Actors: A View from the Field.” In Interest Group Politics, 225–48. Washington: CQ Press, 2002.

Knill, Christoph, and Dirk Lehmkuhl. “Private Actors and the State: Internationalization and Changing Patterns of Governance.” Governance 15, no. 1 (January 1, 2002): 41–63.

Landemore, Hélène, and Isabelle Ferreras. “In Defense of Workplace Democracy Towards a Justification of the Firm–State Analogy.” Political Theory, September 18, 2015.

Lascoumes, Pierre. Élites irrégulières: Essai sur la délinquance d’affaires. Paris: Gallimard, 1997.

———. Une démocratie corruptible : Arrangements, favoritisme et conflits d’intérêts. Paris: Seuil, 2011.

Lascoumes, Pierre, and Patrick Le Galès. Gouverner par les instruments. Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, 2004.

———. “Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation.” Governance 20, no. 1 (January 1, 2007): 1–21.

Majone, Giandomenico. “The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe.” West European Politics 17, no. 3 (July 1, 1994): 77–101.

Mansbach, Richard W., and etc. Web of World Politics: Non-State Actors in the Global System. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1976.

Mclaughlin, Andrew m., Grant Jordan, and William A. Maloney. “Corporate Lobbying in the European Community.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 31, no. 2 (June 1, 1993): 191–212.

Michel, Hélène, ed. Lobbyistes et lobbying de l’Union européenne : Trajectoires, formations et pratiques des représentants d’intérêts. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2005.

Offenstadt, Nicolas, Luc Boltanski, Elisabeth Claverie, and Stéphane Van Damme. Affaires, scandales et grandes causes : De Socrate à Pinochet. Paris: Stock, 2007.

Peters, Anne. Non-State Actors as Standard Setters. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Rayner, Hervé. Dynamique du scandale : De l’affaire Dreyfus à Clearstream. Paris: Editions Le Cavalier Bleu, 2007.

Rhodes, R. A. W. “The Hollowing Out of the State: The Changing Nature of the Public Service in Britain.” The  Political Quarterly 65, no. 2 (April 1, 1994): 138–51.

Rhodes, R. A. W. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1997.

Saurugger, Sabine. Européaniser les intérêts. Les groupes d’intérêts économiques et l’élargissement de l’Union européenne. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2004.

Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

Schmitter, Philippe C. “Still the Century of Corporatism?” The Review of Politics 36, no. 1 (January 1, 1974): 85–131.

Stone, Diane. Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance: The Private-Public Policy Nexus in the Global Agora. [S.l.]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Strange, Susan. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. 1st edition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Thompson, John B. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. 1 edition. Cambridge : Malden, MA: Polity, 2000.

Truman, David Bicknell. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. A. Knopf, 1959.

Tullock, Gordon. The Rent-Seeking Society. The Selected Works of Gordon Tullock, v. 5. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005.

Wright, Vincent. “Reshaping the State: The Implications for Public Administration.” West European Politics 17, no. 3 (July 1, 1994): 102–37.

Central Europe at the Crossroads

PhD Workshop in Prague co-organized by  “Passages” PhD program (Eur’ORBEM, Paris Sorbonne University), the Faculty of Arts of Charles University and CEFRES

Date and Venue: 14 April 2016 at CEFRES (Na Florenci 3) and 15 April 2016 (at FF UK).
Languages: French and English.

Call for papers

These two graduate research days in Prague aim to offer an overview of Central Europe through cultural transfers and intertextuality, considering the connections the countries of that region have shared with both Western and Eastern Europe: they thereby play a central role in the organisation of European geopolitical, literary and cultural spaces.

From this point of view, the capital of the Czech Republic holds a special place in Europe. For centuries the region has been both a laboratory and a source of inspiration for European literature and European poetic programmes. This “two-way traffic” of political, social and cultural influences characterises Central Europe as a space where many dynamics meet.

We will consider the conditions of this meeting, firstly by focusing on the exchanges which make up the transnational aspect of this crossroads and secondly in the perspective of confrontation and borders, which have greatly contributed to establishing its current geopolitical features.

The fact that the region is ill defined, and may be looked on as simply a forgotten space between the East and the West, means it should be seen as a supranational or even supra-political cultural entity.

During the Cold War, the writers and intellectuals Milan Kundera and György Konrád perceived Central Europe (Mitteleuropa) as an artistic entity which was part of a certain tradition. Arguing that there exists a specific space between the East and the West, Imre Kertész considers that the literary world’s “spiritual imagination” constitutes a genuine example of cultural continuity through its intertextuality.

Secondly, we will consider this region, whose borders have overcome many changes, with respect to the hostilities and animosities (military ones, but also ethnic and social ones) which marked its history during the modern era.

This area of friction situated at the crossroads between the Slavic worlds and other peoples inspired an original conception of the border, centre and borderlands, such as those of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

We should also mention this region’s external borders and ask ourselves about the boundaries of Central Europe and its relationship with the Eastern and Western worlds surrounding it. External transfers may be seen as a indication of the strangeness, the shifts, but also of the dialogues that take place with other European regions.

These two aspects outline the guidelines which we intend to follow during these two days, meaning firstly the internal definition of Central Europe as an autonomous cultural space and secondly, its conception as a privileged meeting point between the Western and Eastern cultural spaces.

Contacts : Jean Boutan jean.boutan@gmail.com;

Claire Delaunay claire__delaunay@hotmail.fr.

Exchange and Circulations: Cultural Contacts and Processes of Transfer

Conveners: Charlotte Krauss (IKG 56, Freiburg University) and Clara Royer (CEFRES).

Within the last 30 years, the research on cultural transfer – with its emphasis on processes of selection, distribution and reception – has proven itself as a productive research area. The questions concerning the responsibility of actors, paths of communication and rooms of encounters and transfers have taken on greater significance. The semantic reinterpretation of cultural objects, as a result of every transfer, has been proven to be an essential part of the analysis in reference to the aspects of time and space. Depending on the context, cultural goods take up different meanings, and thus the change of setting (dépaysement) can be used as a key term in the study of transfer.

Although Germany and France were first the focus of interest, the paradigm of cultural transfer nowadays has been expanded to other regions, which previously had been examined only peripherally (Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, etc.). The research of cultural relationships is a core theme of CEFRES (French Research Center in Humanities and Social Sciences) in Prague and of the International Graduation School 1956 “Cultural Transfer and Cultural Identity” of the University Freiburg, which is primarily researching the relationships between Germany and Russia beginning from the late 17th century. The workshop “Exchange and Circulations,” which is organized with the cooperation of both institutions, focuses on the topic of cultural exchange and theoretical concepts, and is looking forward to receiving proposals that may relate to the following areas:

  • Circulation of cultural goods and artifacts
  • Actors and networks of cultural transfer
  • Spaces of exchange: Voyages, migration, professional networks, etc.
  • Theoretical concepts and methods of transfer

Length of papers: 20 minutes.

Language: English.