JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. American Sociological Association

No abstract

The 1960s represent an important chapter in U.S. business history, partly because they ushered in a new tactic of corporate combination-the predatory takeover Predatory takeovers not only facilitate the restructuring of corporate enterprises, they also alter the internal structure of the business elite. We explore the factors that led large corporations to be acquired through friendly and predatory means in the 1960s. Consistent with the "embeddedness" perspective, our results indicate that the likelihood of acquisition during this period was influenced by a firm's position in the resource-dependence network of the economy as well as the positions of its managers and directors in the firm's ownership structure and in the social network of the business elite. Specifically, firms run by central managers and directors were less susceptible to predatory takeover-ownership relationships dominated over ties among the business elite. However, consistent with traditional economic accounts, our results suggest that in the 1960s undervaluation of a firm's assets, the ratio of its stock price to earnings, its performance, and its size also influenced the likelihood of acquisition. C :orporate acquisitions have important economic and political consequences. When one corporation acquires another, it often replaces the acquired firm's top managers with its own, thereby redistributing economic resources among business elites in society. It also sometimes transfers the administrative or productive assets of the acquired firm to its own headquarters or plants in different cities, thereby redistributing eco-nomic resources among cities, states, and regions. Insofar as the control of economic resources is related to political power, these transfers of control can shape the power structure of society as well.We focus on corporate acquisitions in the 1960s. The wave of acquisitions that peaked in 1968, the second largest such wave in U.S. history (eclipsed only by the 1980s wave), was notable for its industrial character. Vigorous enforcement of antitrust policy in this period, influenced by the Celler-Kefauver of Michigan provided helpful comments on earlier drafts. The ASR editor and three anonymous reviewers provided thorough and helpful comments. Finally, special thanks to Tony and Ricki for their inquisitive spirit and to Tom-the rocks do hit the water like broken glass. [The reviewers acknowledgd by the authors are American Sociological Review, 1995, Vol. 60 (August:469-499) 469 470 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW I Uncertainty based on resource dependence is only one type of uncertainty to which firms may be subject. We are not concerned with other sorts of uncertainty (e.g., uncertainty that stems from exogenous factors like changes in state economic policies that alter the supply and demand for, and thus the prices of, inputs and outputs).

As envisioned by T.H. Marshall, social citizenship was a corrective to the injustices caused by the capitalist market. Entitlements and protections guaranteed by the welfare state would prevent social and economic exclusions that civil and political rights, on their own, simply could not. Such protections consequently would ensure social cohesion and solidarity, as well as a productive economy and market. European welfare states successfully followed this formula for the most part of the post-World War II period, however the last couple of decades witnessed significant changes. For one, the very meaning of 'work' and 'worker' on which the welfare state is based has changed - flexibility, risk, and precariousness have become defining elements of working life. The welfare state itself has gone through a transformation as well, increasingly moving away from a system of 'passive benefits' to 'social investment' in human capital. These developments are coupled with an emphasis on education in 'active citizenship', which envisions participatory individuals who are adaptable in an increasingly globalized society, and ready to contribute at local, national and transnational levels. The emergent European social project draws on a re-alignment between these strands: work, social investment, and active participation. In this article, I consider the implications of this project for immigrant populations in Europe in particular and for the conceptions of citizenship and human rights in general. In contrast to the recent commentary on the neoliberal turn and the return of nation-state centered citizenship projects in Europe, I emphasize the broader trends in the post-World War II period that indicate a significant shift in the very foundations of good citizenship and social justice. The new social project transpires a citizenship model that privileges individuality and its transformative capacity as a collective good. Thus, while expanding the boundaries and forms of participation in society, this project at the same time burdens the individual, rather than the state, with the obligation of ensuring social cohesion and solidarity, disadvantaging not only non-European migrants but also the 'lesser' Europeans. The new social project brings into focus the relationship between universalistic individual rights and their effective exercise. I conclude that rather than treating human rights and citizenship as a dichotomy we should pay attention to their entangled practice in order to understand the contingent accomplishments and possible expansions of citizenship in Europe.

No abstract