Democrats and Republicans in Anthropology and Sociology: How Do They Differ on Public Policy Issues

The motivation for Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue: Freedom is Something We Do Together is based on two observations: first, sociology as a field is populated with scholars on the left and second, (few but still) classical liberals and libertarian scholars are found in neighboring social science fields, such as economics, political science, and political philosophy. Can scholarship benefit if sociology and classical liberal ideas are in dialogue? To answer the question, the book gathers sociologists, criminologists, demographers, and political scientists that care about classical liberal ideas, or are willing to engage their sociological thinking with classical liberal ideas. Not all authors would identify themselves as classical liberals. These contributors discuss sociological topics through the lens of classical liberalism, asking how issues such as class, gender, or race relations can be viewed with a different perspective. Chapters also delve into the intersection of sociology and classical liberalism, exploring where viewpoints conflict and where they align.

Sweden’s institutionalized employment protection legislation, ‘LAS’, is interesting theoretically because parts of it are semi-coercive. The semi-coerciveness makes it possible for firms and unions under collective agreements to negotiate departures from the law. Thus, the law is more flexible than the legal text suggests. The present study explores intended and unintended consequences of LAS as experienced by managers of smaller manufacturing companies. The results suggest that managers support the idea of employment protection in principle but face a difficult balancing act in dealing with LAS. From their point of view, the legislation’s institutional legitimacy is low, producing local cultures of hypocrisy and pretense. The article gives insights into how institutions aimed at specific, intended behavior sometimes end up producing unintended consequences fostering the opposite.

The article in total can be read here.

Occupations are segregated with respect to sex, even in modern, egalitarian societies. There are strong pressures to eliminate segregation and therefore strong reasons to correctly theorize why segregation persists. The dominant view underpinning most public policies is essentially that environmental factors nudge women and men into different occupational paths. Nudging, however, ignores research suggesting that psychological traits that influence occupational choice differs between women and men, on average.

Some of the most well-documented and persistent average sex differences between men and women suggest that the taken-for-granted assumption that an egalitarian society would exhibit a more or less equal distribution of men and women across the occupational landscape may be mistaken. Rather, models of occupational choice informed by individual differences in preferences, broadly understood, would help us better explain how men and women behave in the labor market. Differences in occupational preferences will affect choices. Therefore, differences in proportions of women and men across professions may be in line with an egalitarian society and the well-being and best interest of both men and women in society.

The article can be read here.