Search

Der Forschungsbericht, unter der Leitung von Prof. Dr. Matthieu Leimgruber in einem Forschungsteam der Universität Zürich entstanden, zeigt in drei Teilen den parallelen Aufstieg Emil Bührles als Rüstungsunternehmer, gesellschaftlicher Netzwerker sowie Kunstsammler und Mäzen. Erstmals werden dabei die Verflechtungen und Wechselwirkungen von Waffen, Kapital und Kunst gemeinsam untersucht. Sprachlich überarbeitete Fassung der am 17. November 2020 an der Medienkonferenz präsentierten Version, siehe DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4536879. Externer Anhang zum Forschungsbericht siehe DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4536865. -The report, realized by a research team supervised and led by Prof. Dr. Matthieu Leimgruber at the University of Zurich, shows in three parallel parts Emil Bührle's rise as an arms industrialist, social networker, art collector and cultural philanthropist. For the first time, the interconnections and interactions between weapons, capital and art are examined together. Linguistically revised version of the version presented at the media conference on November 17, 2020, see DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4536879. External appendix to the research report, see DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4536865

This chapter considers the intellectual roots of the welfare state in changing views about states and their competences from the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth centuries. This happens in particular national contexts, with differing patterns of both democratization and bureaucratization. From the beginning, we can observe patterns of international learning and policy transfer. This process is traced through a number of national cases: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the English-speaking nations, Sweden and the United States. Although the welfare state has come to be identified with social citizenship and ‘social justice’, its ideational and normative roots are much more diverse and contested than this. And although the welfare state came to be identified with social democrats, especially after 1945, its origins more usually lie with liberal, or even conservative, forces and ideas.

Dieses Dokument enthält die Tabellen, Abbildungen und archivalischen Quellen zum Forschungsbericht "Kriegsgeschäfte, Kapital und Kunsthaus. Die Entstehung der Sammlung Emil Bührle im historischen Kontext" (Universität Zürich, Historisches Seminar – Forschungsstelle für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Lehrstuhl Prof. Dr. Matthieu Leimgruber), in Auftrag gegeben von Stadt und Kanton Zürich, Version 3.2021. E-Book-Version siehe DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4530015. -This document contains the Tables, Figures and Archival Sources that constitute the Appendix for the research report "Kriegsgeschäfte, Kapital und Kunsthaus. Die Entstehung der Sammlung Emil Bührle im historischen Kontext" (Universität Zürich, Historisches Seminar – Forschungsstelle für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Lehrstuhl Prof. Dr. Matthieu Leimgruber), commissioned by the City and Canton of Zurich, Version 3.2021. E-Book version see DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4530015

Der Forschungsbericht, unter der Leitung von Prof. Dr. Matthieu Leimgruber in einem Forschungsteam der Universität Zürich entstanden, zeigt in drei Teilen den parallelen Aufstieg Emil Bührles als Rüstungsunternehmer, gesellschaftlicher Netzwerker sowie Kunstsammler und Mäzen. Erstmals werden dabei die Verflechtungen und Wechselwirkungen von Waffen, Kapital und Kunst gemeinsam untersucht. Fassung präsentiert an der Medienkonferenz vom 17. November 2020. Diese Fassung wurde sprachlich überarbeitet und im März 2021 als E-Book- und Print-on-Demand-Ausgabe neu publiziert, siehe DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4530015. -The report, realized by a research team supervised and led by Prof. Dr. Matthieu Leimgruber at the University of Zurich, shows in three parallel parts Emil Bührle's rise as an arms industrialist, social networker, art collector and cultural philanthropist. For the first time, the interconnections and interactions between weapons, capital and art are examined together. Version presented at the media conference on November 17, 2020. For the linguistically revised version, published in March 2021 (ebook and print on demand), see DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4530015

This chapter proposes a historical framework for understanding the OEEC/OECD. After presenting key modes of governance, it provides an overview of the organization’s trajectory since 1948. The periodization we propose is linked to the mandates of successive Secretary-Generals, dates that coincided with deeper transformations of the organization’s set-up, tasks, and overall outlook: The OEEC’s focus on reconstruction and European integration (1948–1961), the OECD as the center of Atlantic cooperation and Keynesian growthmanship (1961–1969), the crisis-ridden 1970s and the OECD’s shift of economic ideology of neo-liberalism (1969–1984), the deepening of liberalization and the search for a post-Cold-War role (1984–1996), and the focus on enlargement and the management of globalization (1996–2016). The conclusion discusses the OECD as a (geo)political platform, expert think tank, and identity-generating Club.

This chapter explores the trajectory of social policy development in Switzerland and its interactions with state-building and military conflict from the Franco-Prussian war of the early 1870s to the end of the Cold War. This analysis confirms that, despite the fact that Switzerland has remained untouched by war for more than 150 years, military preparation and the world wars have had a crucial impact in the shaping of the distinctive public–private mix that distinguishes the Swiss welfare state from its immediate neighbours. Periods of war thus coincided not only with an expansion of state social insurance but also witnessed the consolidation of existing private social provision. The chapter also highlights how Switzerland’s distinctive militia-based conscription contributed to forge a male-centred social citizenship that lasted for decades after 1945.