Author :
Abstract
Karşılaştırmalı sosyal politika, öncelikle toplum kavramını ele alarak detaylı bir araştırmaya başlamıştır. Bu araştırma kapsamında toplumun tanımı, toplumu oluşturan öğeler ve toplum kavramının içeriğini ele almıştır. Toplumların tanımlanması çok zordur çünkü; sınırları kolaylıkla tanımlanamamaktadır. Toplum bilimciler arasında bu konu hala tartışmalı olarak devam etmektedir ve nihai bir sonuca varılamamıştır. Bir toplumun boyutları ekonomik, kültürel, politik ve diğer yönlerden çakışmaz. Bu nedenle karşılaştırmalı sosyal bilimciler, insan olan kalıplı karmaşa ile başa çıkmak zorundadır. Sosyal politika bilimi, toplumu oluşturan öğelerden birisinin devlet kavramı olduğunu ileri sürmüştür. Ancak toplum bilimcilerin yaptıkları incelemeler sonucunda, devletin toplumu oluşturan öğelerden birisi olmadığına kanaat getirilmiş ve bu iki terim karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Son yıllarda devlet ve toplum kavramlarının ortaya çıkması ile eleştirel bir incelemeye gereksinim duyulmuştur. Toplum kavramı, hem kurucu unsurlar arasındaki ilişki açısından hem de ekonomik, kültürel ve politik ilişkilerin pratikte tutarlı bir şekilde işlememesinden ötürü küreselleşme fikrinin etkisi giderek daha belirgin hale gelmiştir. Devlet kavramı, daha kesin bir çalışma nesnesi gereksinimini karşılamaya doğru gitmektedir. Devlet merkezli yaklaşımlar bu nedenle, nüfusların refahının neden ve nasıl değiştiğine dair girişimlerle karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Devletlerin çeşitli modellerde piyasa, aile, topluluk ve sivil toplum gibi genellemeler üretme eğilimi kurumlarla etkileşime girmesini sağlamaktadır. Yapılan bu çalışmada, sosyal bilimler alanında yaygın olarak kullanılan derleme çalışma modellerinden olan “belgesel kaynak derlemesi modeli” kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda öncelikli olarak konu ile ilgili literatürde yer alan çalışmalara ulaşılmış, ulaşılan araştırma bulguları derlenerek rapor haline getirilmiştir. Son olarak, araştırmanın literatürdeki boşluğu doldurması amaçlanmıştır.
Keywords
Abstract
Comparative social policy began a detailed study by addressing the first concept of society. The definition of the emergence of this research and the name of the concept in question were discussed. Societies are very difficult to define because; What is written cannot be identified. This issue is still controversial among social scientists and no final conclusion has been reached. It does not coincide with a troublesome social cultural, political and other aspects. These comparative social scientists must deal with the stereotypical complexity that is human. The science of social politics is probably someone's second word for word for society. However, social scientists have done their research, it has been concluded that the state is included in the society and these two terms have been analyzed comparatively. With the emergence of the latest news and society concepts, a critical analysis is needed. The effect of the idea of globalization has become more evident after the concept of society and the relationship between concepts as well as economic, cultural and political relations have not worked in practice. The concept of the state moves towards meeting a more precise object of study. State-centered people face initiatives as to this is the reason for the well-being of populations and how they are changing. The tendency of states to produce generalizations in various models, such as family, community and civil society, enables them to enter into interference with institutions. Adhesion, "documentary source compilation model", which is one of the compilation study models widely used in social sciences, was used. In this context, first of all, studies in the literature on the subject were reached, and the findings of the research were compiled and made into a report. Finally, the research is aimed to fill the gap in the literature.
Keywords
- Albrow, Martin (1996), The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity, Cambridge: Polity.
- Albrow, Martin (1996), The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity, Cambridge: Polity. Albrow, Martin (1999), Sociology: The Basics, London: Routledge.
- Alcock, Pete and Gary Craig (eds) (2001), International Social Policy: Welfare Regimes in the Developed World, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
- Anderson, Bridget (2000), Doing the Dirty Work: The Global Politics of Domestic Labour, London: Zed Books.
- Baldwin, Peter (1996), ‘Can we define a European Welfare State model?’ in Bent Greve (ed.),Comparative Welfare Systems: The Scandinavian Model in a Period of Change, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 29–44.
- Barton, Len and Felicity Armstrong (2001), ‘Disability, education and inclusion: cross-cultural issues anddilemmas’, in Gary Albrecht, Katherine Seelman and Michael Bury (eds), Handbook of Disability Studies, London: Sage, pp. 693–710.
- Berger, Peter (ed.) (1998), The Limits of Social Cohesion: Conflict and Mediation in Pluralist Societies, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
- Craig, Gary and Marjorie Mayo (eds) (1995), Community Empowerment: A Reader in Participation and Development, London: Zed Books.
- Crow, Graham (1997), Comparative Sociology and Social Theory: Beyond the Three Worlds,Basingstoke: Macmillan.
- Crow, Graham (2002), Social Solidarities: Theories, Identities and Social Change, Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.
- Deakin, Nicholas (2001), In Search of Civil Society, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
- De Swaan, Abram (1988), In Care of the State: Health Care, Education and Welfare in Europe and the USA in the Modern Era, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Durkheim, Emile (1982), The Rules of Sociological Method, London: Macmillan.
- Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (ed.) (1996), Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies, London: Sage.
- Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (2001), ‘A welfare state for the 21st century’, in Anthony Giddens (ed.), The Global Third Way Debate, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 134–56.
- Gershuny, Jonathan (2000), Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Postindustrial Society, Oxford: OxfordGiddens, Anthony (2001), ‘Introduction’, in Anthony Giddens (ed.), The Global Third Way Debate, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1–21.
- Guillen, Ana and Santiago Álvarez (2001), ‘Globalization and the Southern welfare states’, in Robert Sykes,Bruno Palier and Pauline Prior (eds), Globalization and European Welfare States: Challenges and Change, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 103–26.
- Hann, Chris, Caroline Humphrey and Katherine Verdery (2002), ‘Introduction’, in C.M. Hann (ed.), Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia, London: Routledge, pp. 1-28.
- Hochschild, Arlie Russell (2001), ‘Global care chains and emotional surplus value’, in Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens (eds), On The Edge: Living with Global Capitalism, London: Vintage, pp. 130–46.
- Inglehart, Ronald (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Keane, John (1998), Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Kennett, Patricia (2001), Comparative Social Policy, Buckingham: Open University Press.
- Kumar, Krishan (2001), 1989: Revolutionary Ideas and Ideals, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lash, Scott and John Urry (1987), The End of Organized Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- 27.Lister, Ruth (1997), Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
- Mabbett, Deborah and Helen Bolderson (1999), ‘Theories and methods in comparative social policy’, inJochen Clasen (ed.), Comparative Social Policy: Concepts, Theories and Methods, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 34–56.
- Mann, Michael (1993), The Sources of Social Power, volume II: The rise of Classes and Nationstates,1760– 1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Mann, Michael (2000), ‘Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the nation-state?’ in David Held andAnthony McGrew (eds), The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 136–47.
- Marshall, Gordon (1997), Repositioning Class: Social Inequality in Industrial Societies, London:Sage. 32.Marshall, T.H. (1963), Sociology at the Crossroads and Other Essays, London: 33
- Heinemann. Mény, Yves (2001), ‘Five (hypo)theses on democracy and its future’, in Anthony Giddens (ed.), The Global Third Way Debate, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 259–68.
- Mills, C. Wright (1970), The Sociological Imagination, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
- Papastergiadis, Nikos (2000), The Turbulence of Migration: Globalization, Deterritorialization and Hybridity, Cambridge: Polity.
- Pierson, Christopher (1996), The Modern State, Routledge: London.Porter, Marilyn (2001), ‘Something borrowed, something blue: learning from women’s groups in Indonesia’, Sociological Research Online, 6 (2), www.socresonline.org.uk/6/2/contents.html.
- Ragin, Charles (1987), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Roberts, Bryan (1995), The Making of Citizens: Cities of Peasants Revisited, London: Arnold. Sainsbury, Diane (ed.) (1999), Gender and Welfare State Regimes, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Scott, Alison (1994), Divisions and Solidarities: Gender, Class and Employment in Latin America, London: Routledge.
- Scott, James (1998), Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Sklair, Leslie (2002), Globalization: Capitalism and Its Alternatives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Taylor, Marilyn (1995), ‘Community work and the state: the changing context of UK practice’, in GaryCraig and Marjorie Mayo (eds), Community Empowerment: A Reader in Participation and Development, London: Zed Books, pp. 99–111.
- Therborn, Göran (1995), European Modernity and Beyond: The Trajectory of European Societies, 1945– 2000, London: Sage.
- 45.Townsend, Peter (1993), The International Analysis of Poverty, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
- Turner, Bryan (1999), Classical Sociology, London: Sage.
- Urry, John (2000), Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century, London:Routledge.
- Wallerstein, Immanuel (1999), The End of the World as we Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Westergaard, John (1995), Who Gets What? The Hardening of Class Inequality in the Late Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Williams, Raymond (1983), Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, London: Flamingo.
