Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Nichols, Laura 2014. Social desire paths: a new theoretical concept to increase the usability of social science research in society. Theory and Society, Vol. 43, Issue. 6, p. 647.

    Beckert, Jens 2013. Imagined futures: fictional expectations in the economy. Theory and Society, Vol. 42, Issue. 3, p. 219.

    Beckert, Jens 2012. Die sittliche Einbettung der Wirtschaft. Von der Effizienz- und Differenzierungstheorie zu einer Theorie wirtschaftlicher Felder. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, Vol. 22, Issue. 2, p. 247.


Interest-Seeking as Sense-Making: Ideas and Business Interests in the New Deal

  • Sascha Münnich (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 21 September 2011

This article addresses the question of how ideas and interests can be linked in policy analysis. The juxtaposition of the two concepts is criticized from a sociological point of view. Instead, ideas are a substantial element of interest formation. Cognitive and normative worldviews shape the transformation of objective socio-economic positions into subjective, situational action orientations. Interests can be traced back to the interplay between structural positions, situational problems and their idea-based interpretation.

It is then shown how these conceptual arguments can bring forward a prominent debate in welfare state analysis: the role of business in the emergence of the American welfare state in the New Deal. While struggling with the question whether the supportive role of some business leaders in the Social Security Act of 1935 reveals substantial interest changes or strategical adaption, both sides of the debate suffer from an objectivist concept of interest. This one-sided concept of interest comes at the cost of leaving open the question of why business interests changed in the direction of unemployment insurance and not in the direction of other feasible institutional options such as price regulation or public works. These options would also have provided a solution to the problem American employers were facing. Analysis of social reform discourses between 1911 and 1935 shows that the partial reorientation of business people cannot be sufficiently explained without taking into account the growing legitimacy of liberal- corporatist ideas among employers in the 1920s.


Comment l’analyse d’une politique peut-elle combiner la prise en compte du volet idéologique et des intérêts en jeu ? La sociologie accepte mal la juxtaposition des deux notions. Pourtant la transformation des positions socio-économiques objectives en orientations subjectives de l’action en situation résulte bien d’une combinaison des visions cognitive et normative. On peut remonter des intérêts au croisement entre positions structurelles, enjeux situés et interprétations idéologiques. On prend ici le débat américain, exemplaire pour le rôle du monde des affaires, au sujet du welfare state à l’époque du New Deal.

L’examen de l’appui apporté par certains leaders du grand patronat au Social Security Act de 1935 révèle de substantiels changements dans la vision des intérêts, ou bien une adaptation stratégique. Cependant les deux camps opposés restent attachés à une définition objectiviste de l’intérêt. Or des options autres que l’assurance chômage auraient été possibles : encadrement des prix ou programme de grands travaux. L’analyse des textes produits entre 1911 et 1935 montre que la reformulation partielle opérée par le patronat exige de prendre en compte la légitimation croissante du modèle libéral-corporatiste au cours des années 1920.


Dieser Artikel kritisiert aus soziologischer Sicht die häufig beobachtbare Entgegensetzung von Ideen aus Interessen. Ideen sind vielmehr ein Bestandteil der Interessenformierung. Interessen basieren auf einem Zusammenspiel von drei Faktoren: Der strukturellen sozialen Position des Handelnden, dem situativen Handlungskontext und den verfügbaren Ideen, mit deren Hilfe der Akteur seine Ziele definiert und konkretisiert.

Im zweiten Teil wird gezeigt, dass ein solches erweitertes Interessenkonzept dabei helfen kann, die viel umstrittene Rolle der Arbeitgeber in der Entstehung des amerikanischen Wohlfahrtsstaates zu verstehen. In der Diskussion, ob die Unterstützung einiger Unternehmer für die Arbeitslosenversicherung im Social Security Act von 1935 substantiell oder strategisch gewesen ist, arbeiten beide Seiten mit einem objektivistisch verkürzten Interessenbegriff. Dabei gerät aus dem Blick warum die Interessen der Unternehmer sich in Richtung der Arbeitslosenversicherung bewegten und nicht in eine der anderen Policy-Optionen. Eine Analyse der sozialreformerischen Diskurse zwischen 1911 und 1935 zeigt, dass die partielle Neuorientierung der amerikanischen Unternehmer nicht hinreichend erklärt werden kann ohne die wachsende Legitimation eines liberal-korporatistischen Weltbildes einzubeziehen.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

John L. Campbell , 1998. Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy Theory and Society, 27, pp. 377-409.

Colin Crouch and Henry Farrell , 2004. “Breaking the Path of Institutional Development? Alternatives to the New Determinism”, Rationality and Society 16, pp. 5-43.

Abraham Epstein , 1933. “Do We Need Public Unemployment Insurance? Yes”, inThorsten Sellin and Donald Young , eds., The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science. (Philadelphia, The American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 21-29).

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson , 2002. “Business Power and Social Policy: Employers and the Formation of the American Welfare State”, Politics & Society, 30, pp. 277-325.

Peter A. Hall , 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State. The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain”, Comparative Politics, 25, pp. 275-296.

Peter A. Hall and David Soskice , 2001. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism” inPeter A. Hall and David Soskice , eds., Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage.(Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-70).

Torben Iversen and John D. Stephens , 2008. “Partisan Politics, the Welfare State, and Three Worlds of Human Capital Formation”, Comparative Political Studies 41, pp. 600-637.

William E. Leuchtenburg , [1953] 1993. The Perils of Prosperity. 1914-1932 (Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press).

Isabela Mares , 2001. “Firms and the Welfare State: When, Why and How Does Social Policy Matter to Employers?” inPeter A. Hall and David Soskice , eds., Varieties of Capitalism (Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 184-212).

Vivien A. Schmidt , 2002. “Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment?Comparative Political Studies, 35, pp. 168-193.

Vivien A. Schmidt , 2008. “Discoursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse”, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, pp. 303-326.

Brian Steensland , 2006. Cultural Categories and the American Welfare State: The Case of Guaranteed Income Policy, American Journal of Sociology, 111, pp. 1273-1326.

Richard Swedberg 2005. Can there be a Sociological Concept of Interest? Theory and Society 34, 359-390.

Peter A. Swenson , 1997. Arranged Alliance: Business Interests in the New Deal, Politics & Society, 25, pp. 66-116.

Peter A. Swenson , 2002. Capitalists against Markets: the Making of Labor Markets and Welfare States in the United States and Sweden (Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press).

Kathleen Thelen , 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science, pp. 369-404.

Margaret Weir , 2005. “Innovation and Boundaries in American Employment History”, Political Science Quarterly, 107, pp. 249-269.

Ann Swidler , 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies”, American Sociological Review 51, pp. 273-286.

Josh Whitford , 2002. “Pragmatism and the Untenable Dualism of Means and Ends: Why Rational Choice Theory does not Deserve Paradigmatic Privilege”, Theory and Society, 31, pp. 325-363.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie
  • ISSN: 0003-9756
  • EISSN: 1474-0583
  • URL: /core/journals/european-journal-of-sociology-archives-europeennes-de-sociologie
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *