President Donald Trump received considerable support from the traditionally Democratic states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. High support in these statues is why President Trump won the 2016 presidential election. In fact, Republican candidates have won the above three states in presidential elections as far back as the 1982 election when Ronald Reagan was a candidate. It’s clear that these traditionally Democratic states have supported democratic presidents in elections over the past 30 years.

These Rust Belt states have traditionally been heavily influenced by labor unions. As a result, union members—who have traditionally supported the Democratic Party—have changed their behaviors. Commentators have pointed out that this was a decisive factor in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, in the Rust Belt region, including the three states above, union executives tended to support Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton. Union members and their families, however, tended to support Donald Trump. How can we explain the divergence in attitudes over Donald Trump between union leadership and union members? In other words, why did union members vote for Donald Trump, when union leaders advised them not to? Answering these questions is important not just for understanding the 2016 presidential election, but also for understanding the changes that have occurred in unions and the influence of these changes on American politics as anti-global actors since the 1990s. For this reason, this paper examines the division between union members and union leadership over support for President Trump by focusing on changes in the organizational structures of American labor unions since the 1990s.

Since 1990, unions in the United States have transitioned from business unionism to social unionism following the New Voice movement. These changes have sought to improve declining membership rates and revitalize the labor movement by developing new strategies. The social unionism labor movement combines various social movements. However, as the legitimacy of social unionism becomes recognized and vested interests are acquired, opposing forces may become stronger. Movements actively promoted by social unionism, such as environmental protection and gender equality, are generally middle-class movements whose members are highly educated. Therefore, there is potential for strong opposition from workers who are still rooted in male authoritarianism. The American labor movement, which sought to move from business unionism to social unionism, also faced this dilemma. This was manifested in the division between union executives and union members over their support or rejection of President Trump. This disagreement is not exclusive to American unions. Indeed, this is a difficult problem faced by unions around the world. Therefore this paper deals with a problem that has important implications for unions in other countries.

抄録全体を表示

我が国の戦後から 2001 年の中央省庁再編時までの経済成長の指針として大きな役割を果たした「経済計画」については、その果たしてきた役割につき様々な議論がある。 本稿はオーラルヒストリーの手法を用い、過去に経済計画の策定等に従事した経験のある旧経済企画庁の職員に対するインタビューを実施し、当時における経済計画に対する意識の把握、および現在から振り返ってみたときの考えなどの整理を行うものである。 インタビューからの結果によれば、経済計画及び計画の調査審議を行なっていた経済審議会の機能・役割の評価として強調されていたのは、①経済審議会におけるコンセンサス形成のための委員のステークホルダーとしての機能の重要性と、②各省の政策に関して中長期的に整合性のあるようにチェックすることの重要性、の２点であった。 また、併せて上記インタビューとは別に、策定当事者とは異なる観点から見た経済計画について、現在の視点から経済学、行政学、政治学の学識経験者の方々からの評価も述べてもらった。 第三者である学識経験者からのコメントも踏まえて、オーラルヒストリーで得られた指摘をもとに経済計画の果たした役割と同計画の教訓をどのように生かせるのかに関する考察を今後も深めてゆきたい。

抄録全体を表示