Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T05:24:34.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Co-determination in Germany*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Herbert J. Spiro
Herbert J. Spiro
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the Labour Government began to nationalize industries in Great Britain, swarms of social scientists descended upon that island. They wanted to study this “great experiment,” which many of them viewed as the trail-blazer for an inevitable trend in all modern industrial societies. That was nine years ago. Now it seems that the nationalization dogma has lost most of its force even in Labour circles. But another great experiment has been in progress on the Continent, in West Germany: Mitbestimmung, the scheme under which labor participates in the management of private industrial corporations. In part it was born out of British disillusionment with socialism's erstwhile cure-all. Because of its novelty and uniqueness, it is attracting increasing attention from social scientists. But this time, the different disciplines are unevenly represented. Economists, and especially experts in labor relations, have shown the most interest. When they run across a student of politics in pursuit of the same quarry, they often express surprise. And the Germans, who are being visited, interviewed, questioned, polled, and subjected to every conceivable form of social scientific scrutiny, react even more strongly. They are positively puzzled: “You are not a Nationaloekonom? But then surely an Industrie- or Betriebssoziologe, or perhaps a Jurist ….” The political scientist is an animal of which few of them have heard. And fewer still can imagine off-hand why he would want to concern himself with co-determination.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 1954, pp. 1114 - 1127
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Cf. the author's “Responsibility in Citizenship, Government, and Administration”, in Public Policy, ed. Friedrich, Carl J. and Galbraith, J. Kenneth (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), Vol. 4, pp. 116–33Google Scholar.

2 The German Corporation Law of 1937, which is still applicable to the Akliengesellschaft, provides for three governing bodies: the general stockholders' meeting, which usually takes place once a year; the supervisory board of directors, which is elected by the general meeting, meets about four times annually, and lays down the long-range policies of the corporation; and the managing board of directors (Vorstand), which is appointed by the supervisory board and usually has two or three members, who either function collegially or are presided over by a Generaldirektor. Membership on one of these boards excludes membership on the other.

3 Cf. Decker, G., “Zum Begriff der Wirtschaftsdemokratie”, Die Arbeit, Vol. 4, pp. 827 ff. (1927)Google Scholar; Leipart, T., Auf dem Wege sur Wirtschaftsdemokratie (Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar; Naphtali, Fritz, Wirtschaftsdemokratie (Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Bowen, Ralph Henry, German Theories of the Corporative State (New York, 1947)Google Scholar, ch. 3 “Social Catholicism,” and passim. Also Cronin, John F., Mitbestimmung im Streit der Meinungen (Bad Nauheim, 1953), pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar

5 Gesetz über die Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer in den Aufsichtsräten und Vorständen der Unternehmen des Bergbaus und der Eisen und Stahl erzeugenden Industrie, May 21, 1951; Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, October 11, 1952.

6 Cf. the author's “Ein Amerikaner zur Mitbestimmung”, Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte, Vol. 4, pp. 527–30 (Sept., 1953)Google Scholar.

7 Cf. Carl J. Friedrich, The New Image of the Common Man, and the author's review of Cronin, op. cit., in Gewerktchaftliche Monatshefie, Vol. 4, p. 511 (Aug., 1953)Google Scholar.

8 Cf. Cronin, Mitbestimmung im Streit der Meinungen (cited in note 4); Briefs, Goetz, Zwischen Kapitalismus und Syndikalismus (Munich, 1952)Google Scholar; Böhm, Franz, Das wirtschaftliche Mitbestimmnngsrecht der Arbeiter im Betrieb, in Ordo, Vol. 4 (Düsseldorf, 1951)Google Scholar; Ortlieb, H. D., “Der Kampf um Wirtschaflsdemokratie und Mitbestimmung,” Wirtschaftsdienst (Hamburg), Dec., 1952Google Scholar; McKitterick, and Roberts, , Workers and Management—The German Co-determination Experiment, Fabian Research Series No. 160 (London, 1953)Google Scholar; McPherson, W. H., “Co-Determination: Germany's Move toward a New Economy”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 5, pp. 20–32 (Oct., 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 The author hopes to deal with some of them in a broader focus in later publications. Cf. also his “Vom menschlichen und sozialen Wert der Mitbestimmung,” Sonderbeilage Nr. 70, Informationen, Gesellschaft für soziale Betriebspraxis, Düsseldorf, Feb. 1, 1954Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.