Explore the vast range of titles available.

Based on appropriate research literatures, this article intends to answer the questions about the classification of American progressive education and the belonging of Dewey from the end of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. First, despite Cremin did not explicitly claimed the need to divide progressive education into different factions, in actuality he did. Secondly, the reasons and practices of later scholars who intentionally classified progressive education into different factions were examined. Five factions were classified: administratives, pedagogicals, libertarians, social reconstructionists, and life adjustment educators, after a series of justifications were made. Subsequently, \"the flying dragon in the sky\" was employed to explain the situation that Dewey does not belong to any faction. Finally, this article argues that the classification of progressive education should be discussed because intelligence and character development, emphasized by later-stage Dewey, is not included

Since the 1980s, federal district courts have applied a lenient standard under § 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), allowing plaintiffs to more easily notify \"similarly situated\" coworkers of an employer's potential minimum wage and overtime violations. But recent circuit court decisions have contested this lenient standard. And today, three approaches exist for sending notice to \"similarly situated\" coworkers hoping to form an FLSA collective action: one lenient, one strict, and one attempting to chart a middle ground. Challenges to the lenient standard threaten workers' abilities to vindicate their rights and uphold their inherit dignity, eroding fairness in the economy. Restoring the proper power relations between an employee and their employer is a critical element in shepherding a robust and equitable twenty-first century economy. The FLSA provides the necessary framework to do so; therefore, the courage marshaled by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the progressive movement of the New Deal era must be revived to counter the challenges of a \"Second Gilded Age\" and safeguard our democracy. This Comment argues that the Supreme Court can best protect workers most vulnerable to unjust pay by adopting the lenient notice standard set forth in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. for FLSA collective action cases, a standard used by district courts nationwide for nearly four decades. In the context of workers' rights, then, Goldilocks was wrong: A lenient standard is, in fact, \"just right.\"

This article examines how the values espoused by social movements become entrenched in political culture and spawn many new kinds of institutions, which in turn shape organizations far from movements' original targets. We demonstrate the diffuse and indirect effects of social movements, and also show that the diffusion of social-movement values is often selective-some are retained, while others are discarded. Our empirical site is the Progressive movement and the early thrift industry in California. We draw on social-movement research and organizational theory to argue that a new ideal of thrift, bureaucratized cooperation among strangers, replaced the original idea of thrift, friendly cooperation among neighbors. This shift was possible only after the modernizing temper of Progressivism gave rise to two institutions, the news media and role-model organizations, that made bureaucracy culturally appropriate. The bureaucratization of thrift occured even though it resulted in a centralization of power, which clashed with the Progressive ideal of equitably distributing power. Our study provides a compelling example of the fundamental revolution in American social organization in the twentieth century: the replacement of community-based groups by bureaucracies.

Development economics has invested substantial effort in formulating policies aimed at initiating development in underdeveloped countries, with a notable emphasis on the role of government. This article focuses on the transition from early intellectual forerunners such as John Locke, David Hume, and Adam Smith to the subsequent theories of development. Previous examinations, notably by Lewis (1988) and Sen (1983), have argued that if growth is taken as the definition of development, then Petty, Hume, and Smith are predecessors of development economics. However, a gap exists between this observation and the subsequent trajectory of development economics. This article investigates the prevalent role of the state in shaping development strategies, exploring the maturation of state duties based on modern political concepts from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and investigating the transformation in the twentieth century of government’s responsibilities, specifically in the context of the United States’ progressive movement. By tracing the historical evolution of state involvement, this article shows that the concept of “étatisme,” advocating robust state engagement in economic affairs, emerges as a pivotal but often overlooked factor in the emergence of development economics. This finding illustrates why development economists’ policies historically place such significant emphasis on government intervention in the market in underdeveloped countries.

With the tide of progressive reforms facing strong headwinds today, this essay offers a retrospective look at the progressive movement in the U.S.A. and reflects on the lessons to be learned from its triumphs and failures. The case is made that major advances in the progressive agenda came at historical junctions precipitated by dramatic events. The stretch between 1900 and 1920 saw the first wave of social reforms following the late nineteenth century recessions and upsurge in labor unrest. The New Deal took shape in the 1930s in the aftermath of the Great Depression. The Civil Rights movement burst onto the scene in the 1960s in the face of bitter attempts to shore up segregationist practices in southern states. And the 2020s spike in progressive activism gained momentum against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and the January 6 Capitol riots. Special attention is paid to the interfaces between Social Gospel theology and efforts to ground progressive rhetoric in what John Dewey called “common faith,” Robert Bellah “civil religion,” and Richard Rorty “liberal pragmatism.”

Ranked choice voting first gained a foothold in the U.S. during the Progressive Movement in the 20th century as calls for electoral reforms grew. Ranked choice voting was implemented in many cities across the U.S. in both single- and multi-seat districts. But, by the 1940s it became a victim of its own success, turning the tides of the hegemonic white male leadership in U.S. legislative bodies with the election of women. Since the 1990s, ranked choice voting has once again gained traction in the U.S., this time with the focus on implementing single seat ranked choice voting. This article will build on the existing literature by filling in the gaps on how ranked choice voting—in both forms—has impacted women’s representation both historically and in currently elected bodies in the U.S.

The progressive movement of the Catholic Church that flourished after the Second Vatican Council (1962–5) continues to exert a strong influence on Latin American politics and society. Moreover, we can now observe this movement’s influence in new areas: no longer apparent only in a strictly ecclesiastical sphere, its influence can now be felt within the ambit of civil society. This article analyzes and explains the evolution of ‘the church of the poor’ in Oaxaca from its sponsorship by the Catholic hierarchy starting in the early 1960s through its transformation into civil society organizations beginning in the 1990s.

This paper aims to fill some gaps in the literature concerning the sensitivity of segregation measures. We examine the definitions of regressive and progressive movement, and formally describe the requirements for these movements. As a result of this analysis, we relax a strong assumption established in the literature regarding these movements. Since these measures increase with regressive movement, we are interested in analyzing how the measures’ sensitivities vary as a function of the position of the strata. This analysis allows us to establish how the segregation measures behave with an increase in the number of people in one category in a stratum. We analyze these concepts in terms of the Gini index and the class of additively decomposable measures and analyze the sensitivity of the index of dissimilarity to regressive movements. Data from a national household survey are used to illustrate the results found in the paper.

In developing strategies to contest the systematic efforts to dismantle progressive social and economic policies generated through decades of activism, it is important to understand how discursive frames that were significant in social justice organizing in the United States have come to be subjugated, delegitimated, or co-opted, and have lost their power for social justice activism. Using a materialist feminist approach, I first examine the processes of subjugation and explore how movement actors choose frames within bounded discursive fields that become institutionalized, but lose critical feminist or progressive intent. I then discuss the delegitimation of a citizen's right to government support and the co-optation of progressive movement frames by conservative groups. I conclude with a materialist feminist call to attend to the multiple institutions (i.e., the state, law, market, and media) that contour the discursive field and the everyday practices of social movement organizations. This is a call for collective research, since no single case can attend to all of these dimensions and processes.

John R. Commons’ Legal Foundations of Capitalism (1924) is relevant for American labor law because it represented in some ways the pinnacle of the Progressive Movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. Commons believed that markets were not automatically self-correcting so that workers would not necessarily be treated fairly. This view explains why he was a founder of institutional economics, as opposed to a supporter of neoclassical economics. Commons also discussed the limitations of the American legal system in favoring big business rather than labor unions. In this essay, I discuss Commons’ criticisms, supplemented by contemporary scholars’ work. In modern society, procedures are often understood better than the goals that they are meant to facilitate. This means that many writers in the Law and Economics field are no longer comfortable in conceptualizing how quantitative measures of value can be usefully combined with qualitative measures of value, resulting in justice. The ideas of John R. Commons as a founder of institutional economics are discussed as a remedy for this.